Motion to Intervene as Defendant; Motion for a New Trial and Memorandum in Support

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET ALS, 
Plaintiffs 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET ALS, CIVIL ACTION 
Defendants 

CONNIE REED, A MINOR, BY 
GERALD RENER, HER GUARDIAN AND 
NEXT FRIEND, ET ALS, 

Plaintifis-Intervenors 

Sk
 o

k 
ok
 
ok

 
ok

 o
k 

ok
 
fk
 o

k 
oR

 
ok

 
&
 

kx
 

Xk
 

% HF % FH BX % FX FE FN B® WH RN ® 

MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANT 

The City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro, Mayor of the 

City of New Orleans, and Joseph I. Giarrusso, Superintendent 

of Police, New Orleans Police Department, move the Court for 

an order permitting them to intervene as a defendant in This 

action, in order to assert the defenses set forth in their 

proposed answer, a copy of which is attached, and for a motion 

for a new trial, a copy of which is attached, for the following 

reasons: 

I. 

The City of New Orleans, Victor H, Sechiro, Mayor of the 

City of New Orleans, and, Joseph I. Gliarrusso, Superintendent 

of Police, New Orleans Police Department, have formerly filed in 

this matter an opposition to their being made a party defendant 

as they were and are not empowered by law to give the complainants 

and the intervenors the further relief and/or other injunctive 

relief sought by the complainants and the intervenors from this 

Court. 

2. 

That the opposition of your movers to being made a party 

defendant by the complainants and intervenors was maintained by 

this Court. 



3 

That while any order of this Court for further relief 

concerning the de-segregation of the public schools of the 

Parish of Orleans, would not directly bind your movers, 

such an order would do so indirectly and have a profund 

affect on your movers. 

4, 

That such further relief as to the de-segreation of the 

public school system would require extensive prepartion by the 

City of New Orleans, particularly as to the polieing of the 

public schools involved. 

Se 

That such policing would require that the New Orleans Police 

Department place its personnel on an additional hourly work week 

basis, necessatating additional overwork time than the usual 

work week hous of its personnel and thus require additional 

outlays of monles, 

6. 

That your movers interest in the matter, particularly as 

to the plans to be prepared by your movers and the costs of these 

plans, required by any further de-segregation of the public 

school system of New Orleans, are facts which are familiar to 

your movers, but which may not be otherwise presented to the Court 

without this intervention. 

ALVIN J. LISKA, 
City Attorney 

JOSEPH H. HURNDON, 
Assistant City Attorney 

ERNEST IL. SALATICH, 
Assistant City Attorney 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILOULSIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET ALS, 
Plaintiffs 

vs. NO. 3630-B 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET ALS, CIVIL ACTION 
Defendants 

CONNIE REED, A MINOR, BY 
GERALD RENER, HER GUARDIAN AND 
NEXT FRIEND, ET ALS, 

Plaintiffs-Intervenors 

%
 
%
 

%k
 

de
ck
 

kk
 
%
 
%
 

%k
 
k
 
%k

 
¥
 
%
 

FB BRB ER RRB RRR RR AR 

A NN SS W E R 

Now into Court, through undersigned counsel, comes the 

City of New Orleans, Vietor H. Schiro, Mayor of the City of 

New Orleans, and, Joseph I. Giarrusso, Superintendent of Police, 

New Orleans Police Department, who as intervenors in this matter 

answer to the motion for further relief and to The intervenors 

complaint for injunctive and other relief, sald answer in no way 

to be construed as a waiver of defenses which may be available, 

as follows: 

1. 

Defendants incorporate into this answer and make part of thls 

answer the former answers they have filed in this matter as to the 

Motion for Purther Relief by the original complainants in this 

matter and the Intervenors Complaint for injunctive and other 

relief. 

2. 

And now in answer to Allegations 1 through 5 of the Motion 

for Further Relief and Allegations 1 through 10 of the Intervenors 

Complaint for injunctive and other relief your defendants 
show that 

the order for the further desegregatiom of the publie school 
system 

of the City of New Orleans sought by complainants and inter
venors 

would require an extemsive preparation and execution of
 plans by 



Che various branches of the Government of the City of New Orleans 

if such an order would issue and necessitate the expenditure of 

additional sums of money by the City of New Orleans in the 

preparation of these plans and in the execution of these plans 

particularly as to the additional personnel and extended work 

week by the New Orleans Police Department personnel in the 

carrying out of these plans. 

WHEREFORE, your intervenors-defendants City of New Orleans, 

Victor H. Sechior, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and, Joseph 

I. Giarrusso, Superintendent of Police, New Orleans Police Depart- 

ment, respectfully urge that the Motion for Further Relief be denied 

and that the intervenors complaint for Injunetive and other relief 

be dismissed, all at the costs of the complainants and intervenor- 

complainants. 

And for all general and equitable relief. 

ALVIN J, LLISKA 
City Attorney 

JOSEPH H. HURNDON, 
Assistant City Attorney 

“ERNEST I.. SALATICH, 
Assistant City Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendants-Intervenors 
Room 2W23 - City Hall 
New Orleans, Louisiana 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

+* 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET ALS, 
Ww 

Plaintiffs 
VS. fod 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET ALS, *® NO. 3630-B 

Defendants * CIVIL. ACTION 

CONNIE REED, A Minor, By GERALD * 

RENER, Her Guardian and NEXT 
FRIEND, ET ALS, * 

Plaintiffs-~-Intervenors * 

¥ % B ® #* B» # BH 2 PP %H BB ¥ * 

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL 

Defendants-Intervenors, The City of New Orleans, Vietor H. 

Sehiro, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and Joseph I. Glarrusso, 

Superintendent of Police, New Orleans Police Department, move Che 

court to set aside the findings of faet and conclusions of law in 

the order entered herein on April 3, 1962, and the injunetion 

drafted by the court to compel the enforcement of this order and 

to grant defendants a new trial on the grounds that: 

I 

That the judgment is contrary to law in that a prompt and 

reasonable start has been made to desegregate the public schools 

of the City of New Orleans as of the order of this court dated 

May 16, 1960, and the full faith compliance with that order by the 

Orleans Parish School Beard. 

II 

That the judgment 1s eontrary to law as the scope of this 

order to desegregate all of the publie schools from Grade One €o 

through Grade Six beginning in September of 1962 would de violence 

to the implementation of desegregation of the publie schools 



according to the principle set out in BROWN of admitting pupils 

to the public schools "on & racially non-diseriminatory basis with 

all deliberate speed”. 

III 

That the order of this court dated May 16, 1960, is move in 

line with the circumstances existing in the City of New Orleans 

than is the amending order which this court issued on April 3, 1962, 

and that the original order of this court dated May 16, 1960, cone 

forms closely to similar orders entered by United States District 

Courts in the Fifth Circult concerning the desegregation of the 

publie schools in conformity with the formula set out in BROWN. 

Iv 

That the Judgment is contrary to law in that it seeks to 

compel the Orleans Parish School Board to comply with the order of 

the court in BROWN to proceed to desegregate with due deliberate 

speed in changing from a segregated to a desegregated public school 

system and at the same time to comply with the principle of PLESSY 

ve. FERGUSON to maintain a system of separate but equal facilities 

until desegregation is accomplished. 

ALVIN J. LISKA 
CITY ATTORNEY 

TOIT NT STN 

ASSISTANT C ATTORNEY 

ERNEST L., SALATICH 
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 

Attorneys for Defendants-Intervenors, 
City of New Orleans, 
Victor H. Schiro, Mayor, 
Joseph I. Glarrusso, Supt. of Police, 
ROOM 2W23, CITY HALL 
New Orleans 12, Louisiana. 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET ALS, * 

Plaintiffs * 

vs. 
*% 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET ALS NO. 3630-B 
»* 

Defendants CIVIL ACTION 

CONNIE REED, A Minor, By GERALD RENER, 
Her Guardian and NEXT FRIEND, ET ALS, * 

Plaintiffs-Intervenors * 
%* % BB FT OH BH #F BB ¥ % FV B® ¥ ¥ % FF ¥ ¥ 2» 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 

The order of this eourt of April 3, 1962, requiring desegre- 

gation of all public schools, Grades One through Six as of September 

1962 improvidently issued in the light of the BROWN case and the 

prineiple set forth therein of admitting pupils to the publie sehools 

"on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all deliberate speed”. 

As of September 1960 the Orleans Parish School Beard through 

the use of the desegregation plan furnished by this court and Aet 492 

of the 1960 Louisiana legislature, did establish a plan for desegre- 

gation of Orleans Parish Publie Schools and did in good faith endeavor 

to comply with the orders of this court all in keeping with the 

principle enunciated in BROWN. As further evidence of the School 

Board's good falth additional steps were taken at the beginning of 

the school year in September of 1961 when plans were made to admit 

additional Negro pupils to previously all white schools to further 

desegregate the publie sehools in this Parish, 

In the BROWN case the Supreme Court, clearly and quite properly 

placed the primary responsibility of solving the varled loeal prob. 

lems and the overcoming of the innumerable obstacles to be encountered, 

to the sound diseretion of local school autherities. So long as 

local authorities in good faith make a prompt and reasonable start 

toward compliance with the order to desegregate 1ts publie sehools 



the additional time necessary to complete the transition from a 

segregated To a desegregated school system should be afforded by the 

eourt, This is especially true when additional time is nee¢essary in 

the publie interest, and is not inconsistent with good faith compli- 

ance at the earliest practical date, 

It 18 of the utmost public interest that the many vital probe 

lems facing local school authorities, relating to the transition of 

our sc¢hool system be solved in a systematic and effective manner 

without the risk of destroying the efficleney of the public sehool 

system of this Parish or resulfing in the complete abolition of pub= 

lic education in this State, 

It is wlth this objective in mind that the City of New Orleans 

and its Mayor, Vietor H., Schiro, have sought to intervene into this 

matter requesting the court to amend and revise the order of April 3, 

1962, so as to afford the local School Board the necessary time to 

fully comply with the order of this court without risking the destruc~ 

tion or impairing the efficiency of our present public school system 

so vitally important to the residents and e¢itizens of the City of 

New Orleans, 

As long as the school authorities are making a conseientious 

effort to bring about the orderly desegregation with the deliberate 

speed set out in BROWN the @Gourts of Appeal of the United States of 

America and particularly the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have 

approved or amended orders so as to embody the principle of BROWN 

of a prompt and reasonable start toward desegregation with that 

deliberate speed necessary to carry out in a practical manner the 

desegregation of public educational facllitiles as enuneiated in 

BROWN. See BOSON vs. RIPPEY, 285 Fed. 2d. 43. 

The Orleans Parish School Board has made a reasonable effort 

to. bring about the implementation of the desegregation order of this 

gourt as to the publie schools of the Parish of Orleans. This order 

particularly of May 16, 1960, had for its purposes the desegregation 

of the First Grade each year of the publie schools of Orleans Parish, 



% * 

This order hag been carried out £0 as to make possible the 

practical accomplishment of desegregation. In the Fall of 

1960 two of the public schools, First Grades, were desegregated 

for Orleans Parish. The First Grades of four additional public 

schools were desegregated in the Fall of 1961. The New Orleans 

Police Department were required at the time of these desegre~ 

gations to place substantial numbers of their personnel around 

the schools involved in order to peacefully carry out the orders 

of this Court. The present order of April 3, 1962 would, in 

September 1962, require the desegregation of all the grades of 

all the public elementary schools of Orleans Parish. This would 

severely task personnel of the New Orleans Police Department in 

order to provide proper police protection around all of the public 

elementary schools of the Parish of Orleans. It is submitted 

that it would be impractical and not in keeping with the mandate 

of’ the Court to require the desegregation of all of the dementary 

schools of Orleans Parish. 

The Istory of Mankind has shown that there cannot be a 

forceful mixing of the races, and from time immemorial this matter 

has been handled with due caution and due care. Such an order 

might well disturb the peace and tranquility of the community, and 

its effect could be everlasting. 

The Brown case was based upon psycoleogical factors. The 

supreme Court based its decision on this reasoning alone! It was 

their conception that the Negro children could not learn as well 

if peparated from the white children. Well, what about the white 

children? Does not the Court take into consideration the psyco- 

logical factor here? Can it be said that by mass integration the 

reasoning of the Supreme Court in the Brown case will be carried 

out. As a matter of fact, we believe that neither the white nor 

the Negro children will be benefitted by the order of the Court 



% ® 

since the environment created will be detrimental to both races. 

If not €o both races, it certainly will create an undue burden 

on the white children and ¢reate a condition which will retard the 

education of the white child, and consequently, create a condition 

of hisharmony in the community, as well as placing an undue burden 

on the officials of this City in maintaining the dignity, peace 

and order, 

Therefore, for the reasons assigned, it is submitted that 

the Court's order be rese¢inded and the injunction be recalled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALVIN J. LISKA, 
City Attorney 

JOSEPH H, HURNDON, 
Assistant City Attorney 

ERNEST LL. SALATICH, 
Assistant City Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendants-Intervenors, 
City of New Orleans, 
Victor H., Schiro, Mayor 
Joseph I. Glarrusso, Supt. of Police 
Room 2W23, City Hall 
New Orleans 12, Louisiana 



EARL BENJAMIN BUSH, ET ALS, 

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET ALS, 

CONNIE REED, A MINOR, BY 
GERALD RENER, HER GUARDIAN AND 
NEXT FRIEND, ET ALS, 

Plaintififs-Intervenors 

FAIR 30 300 30 A 0 R00 0 S00 IR HIE I 

TO: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 

Plaintiffs 

va. 

Defendants 

F
E
A
R
S
 
R
A
B
 
R
R
S
 
k
w
 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

SAMUEL 1, ROSENBERG 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE BUILDING 

HON, JACK P, PF. GREMILLION 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA 
CAPITOL BUILDING 
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 

W. SCOPT WILKINSON 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
BECK BUILDING 
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA 

CHARLES E, RICHARDS 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
CIVIC CENTER BUILDING 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

MISS KATHLEEN RUDDELL 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
FEDERAL BUILDING 
LAFAYETTE SQUARE 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

A, P. TUREAUD 
ERNEST N. MORIAL 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
1821 ORLEANS AVENUE 
NEW ORLEANS 16, LOUISIANA 

NO. 3630-B 

CIVIL ACTION 



JACK GREENBERG 
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
JAMES M, NABRIT, I1I 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE 
NEW YORK 19, NEW YORK 

Please take notice that on the “™ day of May 

1962, the defendants-intervenors, by their undersigned attorneys, 

will bring on the attached Motion to Intervene as Defendants, and, 

Motion for a New Trial, before the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, 

at 10:00 o'elock A.M., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be 

heard. 

ALVIN J. LISRA 
City Attorney 

JUBEFH H, HURNDON, 
Assistant City Attorney 

= ERNEST L. SALATICH, 
Assistant Clty Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendants 
Intervenors 

Room 2W23 - City Hall 
New Orleans, Ia. 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the Hotiom CoO 

Intervene, Defendanta-Intervenory snswey,Defendants- 

Intervenorg’ Motion for & New Trial and Hotice of 

Motion, were served this date upon the following named 

persons by depositing sane in the United States mall, 

postage prepaid. 

TO: DANUEL I, ROSENBERG 
ATTORNEY AT IAW 
HATIONAL BANE OF COMMERCE BUILDING 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

HON, JACK P, F. GREMILIION 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA 
CAPITCL BUILDING 
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 

W. SCOPT WILKINSON 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
EBCK BUILDING 
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA 

CHARLES E, RICHARDS 
ATTORNEY AT IAW 
CIVIC CENTER BUILDING 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

(ISS KATHLEEN RUDDELL 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
FEDERAL BUILDING 
LAFAYETTE SQUARE 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

A, P., TUREAUD 
ERNEST NWN. MORIAL 
ATTORREYS AT IAW 
1821 ORLEANS AVENUE 
NEW ORLEANS 16, LOUISIANA 

JACK GREENBERG 
CONSTANCE BAKER } 

JAMES M, NABRIT, 111 
ATTORNEYS AT IAW 
10 COLIMBUS CIRCLE 
NEW WOE 159, NEW YORK 



City Attorney 

~ JOSEPH HN. RUHNDOW, 
Assistant City Attorney 

FATT 8 

psistant 

i 

Attorneys for Defendants 
Intervenors 
Room 2W23 ~ City Hall 
New Orleans, ia.