Watson v. City of Memphis Appendix to Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants

    In the

Hmtrfc Bitxtts Court of Appeals
Sixth Circuit 

No. 14,662

I. A. W atson, et al.,
Plaintiff s-Appellants,

■— -VS.'—

City op Memphis, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPENDIX TO BRIEF OF 
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

A. W . W illis, Jr.
558 Vance Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

T htjrgood Marshall 
Constance B aker Motley 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

E lwood H. Chisolm

B. L. H ooks
C. 0 . H orton 
B. F. J ones 
H. T. L ockard
R. B. Sugarmon, Jr.

Of Counsel



TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

PAGE

Docket Entries ................................................................... la

Complaint —........................ —.....................-.......................  2a

Answer ..............................................-........ -....... -..............  10a

Excerpts From Testimony on T r ia l................................... 15a

By Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:

Dr. William 0. Speight, Jr......... .........................  15a

Dr. A. E. H orne........................................................... 18a

Curtis King, Jr...........................................................  20a

Melvin Robertson ...................................   21a

Joseph Willie Lane, Jr......................     23a

Dr. I. A. Watson, Jr.................................................  28a

Alma Bonds ...............................................   30a

Harold Gholston ..... ............... .................. - ............  32a

Alfred Haynes, Jr............. ................. -....... -......... — 34a

By Defendants’ Witnesses:

Harry Pierotti ...................................-........ -............  37a

Harold S. Lewis ....    72a

James C. Macdonald ..................... ........... -..............  100a

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L a w ................. -  105a

Judgment ...........................................   118a



Docket Entries

May 13, 1960 Filed Complaint

June 3, 1960 Filed Order Enlarging Time to 
File Answer to 7-1-60

June 8, 1960 Filed Order Enlarging Time for 
Answer

July 1, 1960 Filed Answer of Defendants

September 28, 1960 Filed Notice of Taking- Depositions

November 4, 1960 Filed Depositions of Harold S. 
Lewis, Marion Hale, John E. Gor­
man, E. C. Barwick and Robert 
Schuyler

November 16, 1960 Filed Motion to Advance Date of 
Trial and for Consolidation for 
Trial

April 7, 1961 Filed Order Substituting Party De­
fendant—Mrs. W. Jeter Eason sub­
stituted for Leo Bearman

June 20, 1961 Filed Judgment

June 27, 1961 Filed Findings of Fact and Conclu­
sions of Law

July 7, 1961 Filed Notice of Appeal

July 7, 1961 Filed $250 Appeal Bond

July 17, 1961 Filed Transcript of Evidence in 
Two Volumes



2a

Complaint

Filed May 13, 1960

J urisdiction

I

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 
the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, §1343(3), 
this being a suit in equity which is authorized by law, Title 
42, United States Code, §1983, to be brought to redress the 
deprivation under color of state law, statute, ordinance, 
regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges, and im­
munities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United 
States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights 
of citizens. The rights here sought to be redressed are 
rights guaranteed by the due process and equal protection 
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States and Title 42, United States Code, 
§1981, as hereinafter more fully appears.

T ype of P roceeding

II

This is a proceeding for a permanent injunction, enjoining 
defendants, and each of them, their agents, employees and 
successors from continuing their policy, practice, custom 
and usage of operating public recreational facilities in the 
City of Memphis, Tennessee, on a racially segregated basis 
and enjoining them from continuing to exclude Negro citi­
zens and residents of Memphis from certain public facili­
ties, solely on account of race and color.

III

This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment, pursu­
ant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code,



3a

§§2201 and 2202, for the purpose of determining the follow­
ing questions in actual controversy between the parties.

A. Whether defendants may continue to enforce any or­
dinance, regulation, policy, custom or usage of operating 
public recreational facilities under their jurisdiction, man­
agement or control in the City of Memphis on a racially 
segregated basis.

B. Whether defendants may continue to exclude the 
plaintiffs and members of their class from certain public 
recreational facilities owned and operated by defendants or 
owned and leased by the defendants, solely because of the 
race and color of the plaintiffs and members of their class.

IV

This is a proceeding brought by the plaintiffs on behalf 
of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly 
situated, pursuant to the provisions of Buie 23(a)(3) of 
the Federal Buies of Civil Procedure. The class of persons 
on behalf of whom the plaintiffs sue consists of Negro 
citizens of the State of Tennessee who reside in the City 
of Memphis, Tennessee, and who, by virtue of these facts, 
are entitled to use and enjoy the recreational facilities 
which are owned and operated by defendants for the use 
and enjoyment of the general public and which are owned 
and leased by defendants for operation by the lessee, for 
use and enjoyment of the general public, and who are all 
similarly affected by the enforcement by defendants of their 
policy, practice, custom and usage of operating public rec­
reational facilities in the City of Memphis on a racially 
segregated basis, pursuant to which plaintiffs and mem­
bers of their class are denied the right to use and enjoy

Complaint



Complaint

certain public recreational facilities on the same terms and 
conditions applicable to white persons in the City of Mem­
phis. Said persons constitute a class too numerous to be 
brought individually before this Court, but there are com­
mon questions of law and fact involved and a common 
grievance arising out of a common wrong and a common 
relief is sought for plaintiffs herein named and for each 
member of the class. The interests of said class are fairly 
and adequately represented by the named plaintiffs.

P laintiffs

V

Plaintiffs are I. A. Watson, Jr., T. W. Northcross, Sr., 
W. 0. Speight, Jr., A. E. Horne, Sr., Melvin Malunda, 
Johnny G-holston, Harold Gholston, Alfred Haynes, Jr., 
John Eogers, Thomas Pugh, and Curtis King. Each plain­
tiff is an adult Negro citizen of the United States and of 
the State of Tennessee, residing in the City of Memphis, 
Tennessee. Each plaintiff’s real or personal property is 
taxed by the defendant City of Memphis for the purpose 
of supporting public recreational facilities which are con­
structed, maintained, operated or leased by the defendants. 
Each plaintiff is ready, willing and able to pay any uniform 
fees or charges which may be required by defendants from 
all members of the public alike for the use and enjoyment 
of public recreational facilities and is ready, walling and 
able to abide by all rules and regulations promulgated by 
defendants with respect to the use and enjoyment of such 
facilities which are applicable alike to all persons desiring 
to use such facilities.



5a

D efendants

VI

Defendants are the City of Memphis, Tennessee, a public 
body corporate which has been organized and which exists 
under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Tennessee. 
The City of Memphis has been authorized and empowered 
by the laws of the State of Tennessee to establish a Park 
Commission, name the members thereof, fix their compensa­
tion and terms of office, and establish by ordinance the rules 
and regulations which may be necessary to govern such 
Park Commission. Defendants Harry Pierotti, E. C. Bar- 
wick, Leo Bearman, John Gorman and Walker Wellford, 
Jr., have each been duly appointed and named by the de­
fendant City of Memphis a member of the Board of Di­
rectors of the Memphis Park Commission and each is pres­
ently serving in such capacity. These defendants have 
under their jurisdiction, management and control, the pub­
lic recreational facilities referred to in this complaint. De­
fendant H. S. Lewis is the duly appointed and acting 
Superintendent of the Memphis Park Commission and is 
the chief administrative officer of said commission.

Claim fob B elief 

VII

Acting under color of the authority conferred upon them 
by the laws of the State of Tennessee and the ordinances 
of the City of Memphis, the defendants have adopted and 
are presently pursuing a policy, practice, custom and usage 
of operating public recreational facilities in the City of 
Memphis on a racially segregated basis. Pursuant to this

Complaint



6a

policy, practice, custom and usage, defendants restrict the 
use of certain public recreational facilities to use and en­
joyment by white persons only and restrict the number of 
public recreational facilities which may be used and en­
joyed by Negroes. Pursuant to this policy, practice, custom 
and usage, there are certain public libraries, parks, play­
grounds, golf courses, boat docks and lakes which may be 
used by white persons only and there are certain public 
libraries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, boat docks and 
lakes which may be used by Negro persons only. The num­
ber of libraries, parks, playgrounds, boat docks and lakes 
and golf courses which may be used by white persons only 
far outnumber such facilities which may be used and en­
joyed by Negro persons only. With respect to the public 
art galleries and museums, use of such facilities by Negroes 
is limited to one day per week while such facilities may be 
enjoyed by white persons on all of the other days of the 
week. The policy, practice, custom and usage which is com­
plained of here is based solely upon race and color and is 
enforced by defendants’ employees at all of the public rec­
reational facilities referred to herein.

The plaintiffs and members of their class have attempted 
to use and enjoy those public facilities referred to above 
which are limited by defendants to use and enjoyment by 
white persons and have been denied the use and enjoyment 
of same solely on account of their race and color.

On March 31, 1960, at approximately 9 :00 a.m., plaintiffs
I. A. Watson, Jr., W. 0 . Speight, Jr., A. E. Horne, Sr., and 
T. W. Northcross, Sr., went to the Pine Hill Golf Course, 
a golf course owned and operated by defendants for the use 
and enjoyment of white persons only, for the purpose of 
using and enjoying same and were denied the right to use 
the same by defendants’ employees solely because of their 
race and color.

Complaint



7a

On April 10, 1960, at approximately 2:00 p.m., plaintiff 
Melvin Malnnda went to the Boat Doek at McKellar Lake 
and sought to use said facility but was denied the use and 
enjoyment of same by defendants’ employees solely because 
of his race and color. Said Boat Dock is owned and oper­
ated by defendants for the exclusive use of white persons.

On April 27, 1960, at approximately 1 :40 p.m., plaintiffs 
Johnny Gholston, Harold Gholston and Alfred Haynes, 
Jr., went to Brooks Art Gallery for the purpose of enjoy­
ing same but were refused admission thereto by defendants’ 
employees solely because of their race and color.

On April 27, 1960, at approximately 3 :30 p.m., plaintiffs 
Johnny Gholston, Harold Gholston and Alfred Haynes, 
Jr., went to the John Rogers Tennis Court for the purpose 
of using and enjoying same but were denied the use and 
enjoyment of same by defendants’ employees solely because 
of race and color. The John Rogers Tennis Court is owned 
and operated by defendants for exclusive use and enjoy­
ment of white persons.

On April 29, 1960, at approximately 1 :15 p.m., plaintiffs 
Thomas Pugh and Curtis King were denied admission to 
the Pink Palace Museum by defendants’ employees solely 
because of their race and color. The Pink Palace Museum 
is owned and operated by defendants.

In denying the plaintiffs the use and enjoyment of these 
facilities at the times referred to herein, the defendants’ 
employees were acting pursuant to and were enforcing the 
racial policy complained of herein.

In the past, when certain members of plaintiffs’ class 
have insisted upon using and enjoying said white facilities, 
defendants have caused such persons to be arrested and 
charged with trespass and other violations of the criminal 
laws of the State of Tennessee, solely on account of the 
race and color of these persons.

Complaint



8a

Irreparable I njury 

V III

Enforcement of the policy, practice, custom and usage 
of operating public recreational facilities in the City of 
Memphis on a racially segregated basis, pursuant to which 
plaintiffs and members of their class are excluded from 
certain facilities, solely because of race and color, has re­
sulted in irreparable injury to the plaintiffs and members 
of their class and is in violation of the constitutional and 
civil rights of the plaintiffs and members of their class.

W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that upon the 
filing of this complaint this Court advance this case on the 
docket and order a speedy hearing of same and upon said 
hearing this Court:

1. Adjudge, decree and declare the rights and other 
legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in 
controversy, in order that such declaration shall have the 
force and effect of a final judgment;

2. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining defendants 
and each of them, their agents, employees and successors 
and all persons in active concert and participation with 
them from operating the public museums, art galleries, 
libraries, golf courses, tennis courts, playgrounds, parks, 
boat docks and lakes and other recreational facilities of the 
City of Memphis, Tennessee, on a racially segregated basis 
and enjoining defendants from enforcing any ordinance, 
regulation, policy, practice, custom or usage which restricts 
and/or limits plaintiffs, and other Negro residents of the 
City of Memphis, Tennessee, in their rights and privileges 
of enjoying and using the said public recreational facilities

Complaint



9a

and services of the City of Memphis, Tennessee, and en­
joining defendants from refusing plaintiffs, and other 
Negro residents similarly situated, the right to use and 
enjoy such facilities on the same terms and conditions ap­
plicable to white persons in the City of Memphis;

3. That plaintiffs have such other, additional or alterna­
tive relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable.

4. Grant plaintiffs their costs herein.

A. W. W illis, Jr,
588 Yance Avenue

Memphis, Tennessee

E. B. Sugarmon, Jr.
588 Vance Avenue 

Memphis, Tennessee

H. T. L ockard 
322% Beale Street 

Memphis, Tennessee

B. L. H ooks

588 Vance Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

B. F. J ones

211 South Third Street 
Memphis, Tennessee

C. 0. H orton 
145 Beale Street

Memphis, Tennessee

Constance Baker Motley 
Thurgood Marshall 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint



10a.

Answer of Defendants

Filed July 1, 1960

F irst Defense

Defendants deny the jurisdiction of this Court to hear 
this cause. Plaintiffs and defendants are residents and 
citizens of Shelby County, Tennessee, and the matters and 
things involved herein are subject to the prior jurisdiction 
of the Courts of this State.

Second D efense

Defendants deny the right of the plaintiffs, or those for 
whom they assume to sue, to a permanent injunction 
against defendants on the allegations of the complaint.

T hird Defense

Defendants deny the right of the plaintiffs to a declara­
tory judgment against defendants under the law and facts 
involved herein.

F ourth Defense

Defendants deny that this is a class action and deny the 
authority or agency of the plaintiffs to institute this suit 
for anyone except themselves.

F ifth Defense

Defendants deny that the number of libraries, parks, 
playgrounds, boat docks, lakes and golf courses which may 
be used by white persons only far out number such facilities 
that may be used by negro persons only, especially when 
negro participation is considered.

The public park system of the City of Memphis has been 
developed, managed and expanded over a period of many 
years for the purpose of providing the maximum recrea­
tional facilities for all the citizens of Memphis, both



11a

Answer of Defendants

colored and white. There are approximately one hundred 
(100) public parks in the City of Memphis. Said parks are 
strategically located so as to provide access to the per­
sons living in the neighborhood at or near said parks. In 
neighborhoods where the population is predominantly Ne­
gro, such parks are used exclusively by Negroes. In neigh­
borhoods where the population is predominantly white, the 
parks are used by white persons. In other than residential 
areas, the parks are used generally by all the citizens of 
Memphis.

Therefore, the utilization of the public parks of the City 
of Memphis has not been capriciously divided as to race, 
but, on the contrary, admission to said parks by citizens 
of Memphis has been regulated so as to provide maximum 
recreational facilities for the maximum number of Mem­
phis citizens in areas where such citizens reside.

With reference to allegations in the complaint concern­
ing park facilities available to Negro citizens in Memphis, 
it is significant that there are seven (7) public golf courses 
operated by the Memphis Park Commission, two (2) of 
which have been and are available exclusively for use by 
Negroes. In the first eleven (11) months of 1959, 205,406 
players used the seven (7) public golf courses, of which 
number 13,405 used the two courses reserved exclusively 
for Negroes—thus, although the Negro citizens had avail­
able for their use approximately thirty per cent (30%) of 
the public golf courses in Memphis, Negro golf players 
comprised only about six and one-half per cent (6% % ) of 
the total golf players.

Another example of park facilities available to Negro 
citizens is seen in tennis courts.

Several years ago the City of Memphis Park Commis­
sion installed modern tennis court facilities for Negroes at



12a

Answer of Defendants

Lincoln Park. These courts are available for both day and 
night play at no charge, while similar such courts in John 
Rogers Tennis Center are available for whites at an ad­
mission charge of eighty cents (8(%) for night play and 
forty cents (40^) for day play.

Other examples of recreational facilities available to 
Negro citizens can be given to show that defendants are 
providing maximum recreational facilities for the maxi­
mum number of Memphis citizens, both white and Negro.

Sixth Defense

Further pleading, defendants would show that approxi­
mately thirty-five percent (35%) of the total population 
is Negro and approximately sixty-five per cent (65%) of 
said population is white; that these defendants have the 
duty of exercising the Police powers vested in such a way 
as to prevent riots, violence, and disharmony of all kinds 
among the races; that historically and traditionally, riots 
and violence have frequently occurred in areas where races 
are mixed in large numbers in places of amusement. There­
fore, these defendants, in discharging their duties as public 
officers and in exercising the Police powers vested in them 
by law, have prevented the assembly of mixed groups in 
large numbers in some of the parks of the City of Memphis 
in order to maintain harmony between the races and in 
order to prevent violence, bloodshed and civil commotion.

Problems that are reasonably likely to flow from forced 
mixing in the public parks of the City of Memphis are 
peculiar to the Memphis area by reason of the location of 
Memphis in the southwestern corner of Tennessee, with its 
very borders touching both the States of Arkansas and 
Mississippi.



13a

Answer of Defendants 

Seventh Defense

A substantial part of the revenue used for the operation 
and maintenance of the public parks of the City of Mem­
phis is derived from concession leases and fees charged in 
connection with amusement devices. In these parks con­
flicts are so certain to arise if large numbers of both white 
and Negro groups should attend that a failure of these 
defendants to limit attendance to either one group or the 
other would result in few citizens attending such parks 
because of the fear of disorders and this in turn would 
deprive the defendants of the revenues needed for the oper­
ation of the Park System and would result in all citizens 
losing a substantial part of the recreational facilities now 
available to them.

E ighth Defense

Certain parks in the City of Memphis were acquired by 
wills or deeds containing restrictions, conditions and limita­
tions affecting the title to said lands which depend on 
whether or not Negro citizens are admitted to said parks, 
and if these defendants are directed to admit all citizens to 
all parks and recreational facilities as sought in the com­
plaint, such action would likely result in loss of title to 
lands held for park purposes. This Court is without juris­
diction of the necessary parties and subject matter and 
these questions should not be adjudicated prior to a final 
decision by Tennessee Courts. In order to determine with 
greater particularity the exact nature of the provisions 
contained in the various deeds, wills or other instruments 
pertaining to the title to land, there will be involved tre­
mendous time and expense in examining the title to all 
properties held by the City of Memphis for park purposes.



14a

Answer of Defendants 

Ninth  Defense

Further pleading, defendants would show that the inci­
dence of violence, vandalism and disorders among visitors 
to the parks of the City of Memphis is greatly increased 
in those parks frequented by Negro citizens of the City of 
Memphis, and if Negro citizens were admitted to all parks 
on all occasions the additional Police protection which would 
be required would make the expense of operating said parks 
prohibitive, and, therefore, all citizens would lose a sub­
stantial portion of the recreational facilities now afforded 
to them if all citizens were permitted to use all parks at 
the same time.

T enth Defense

That by custom, usage and tradition the great majority 
of all citizens of the City of Memphis prefer that the place­
ment of children and others in recreational areas be car­
ried out on a basis which would avoid stress, relieve tension 
and violence in order to afford maximum recreational facili­
ties for all the citizens of Memphis.

Therefore, all allegations of the complaint not specifi­
cally admitted are denied and defendants pray that this 
cause be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiffs.

W alter Chandler 
J ohn S. P orter 
F rank B. Gianotti, Jr.
J. Seddon Allen 
T homas K. P rewitt

Attorneys for Defendants



15a

Excerpts From Testimony on Trial

Db. W illiam 0. Speight, Je.

The said witness, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Will you state your full name for the record, please! 
A. Dr. William 0. Speight, Jr.

Q. Dr. Speight, are you a resident of Memphis, Tennes­
see! A. Yes, lam .

Q. How long have you been a resident! A. Practically 
all my life, except schooling.

Q. Are you a golf-player! A. Yes.
Q. What courses have you used in the City! A. Douglas 

and Fuller Park.
Q. Have you attempted to play golf in any other courses

— 58—
of the City! A. I attempted to play at Pine Hill.

Q. What was your experience when you went there! 
A. We were refused admission to the clubhouse where we 
would have to purchase a ticket in order to play.

Q. By whom were you refused admission! A. The golf 
pro at the Golf Club. I couldn’t give his name.

Q. Did he identify himself to you as being the responsible 
person in charge of the links there! A. Yes, he did.

Q. And what reason did he give for not permitting you 
to play on the links! A. He didn’t give any particular rea­
son. He suggested at the time that we go and attempt to 
play at Galloway on that particular day.

Q. He would not let you use the links at Pine Hill! A. 
No, he wouldn’t.

Q. Dr. Speight, where do you live! A. 1865 South Park­
way, East.

— 57—



16a

Q. And where is the Pine Hill Golf Course in relation to 
where you live? A. It ’s a little west of me on Mississippi.

— 59—
I don’t know the other street, but it’s a little southwest of 
my house, from my house.

Q- Ho you frequently have occasion or the opportunity 
to play golf I A. Ido.

Q. And, being a golfing fan, why would you desire to use 
Pine Hill as opposed to any of these other courses! A. 
It’s nearer to my home than the other two.

Cross Examination:

Q. Do you usually play at Puller Golf Course? A. Usu­
ally.

Q. How often have you played there? A. Usually twice 
a week.

Q. And what about Douglas Park? A. I did play at 
Douglas prior to the development of Fuller.

Q. How far do you live from Fuller Golf Course? A. 
Between ten and fifteen miles, approximately.

Q. How far do you live from Pine Hill? A. Less than
— 6 0 -

two.
Q. Have you played in golf courses in any other city 

besides Memphis? A. Oh, yes.
Q. How does Fuller Golf Course compare to other golf 

courses you have played on? A. Well, actually, I would 
say it is inferior to some that I have played on, because it 
is relatively new, and as a result, the fairways haven’t been 
developed as well as they have been in other places.

Q. As a matter of fact, it’s developing into one of the 
finest golf courses in the country, isn’t it? A. I  would 
think so.

Dr. William 0. Speight, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross



17a

Q. And in a couple of years when nature has had its 
chance to develop, that will be one of the finest golf courses 
in the country, won’t it? A. That’s a possibility.

Q. The way they are developing- it now? A. Yes.
Q. You can’t build a golf course overnight, can you? A. 

Not likely.
Q. And you have never been refused the right to play 

golf at Fuller Golf Course? Whenever you have wanted to
— 61—

play golf in the City of Memphis, you have been able to 
play, haven’t you? A. Except on one occasion.

Q. What occasion? A. When I attempted to play at 
Pine Hill.

Q. Did you play at Fuller then? A. I didn’t play that 
day.

Q. You could have played, could you? A. Yes.
Q. You never have been denied the right to play golf 

in the City of Memphis, haev you? A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Your objection is that you were denied the right to 

play at Pine Hill on one particular day? A. That’s right.
Q. Doctor, would it satisfy you if that golf course were 

opened to both races on January 1st of next year? A. No. 
I would rather see it open as soon as possible, during the 
time that most would have an opportunity to play. It ’s 
very unlikely that too many will go out during the cold 
weather.

Q. Do you know of any negro who has wanted to play
—6 2 -

golf in Memphis who has ever been denied the right to 
play golf? A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Since Fuller Golf Course opened? I will limit it to 
that. In the last three or four years? A. There were three 
others that accompanied me at the time we went to play 
at Pine H ill; so, therefore, that would make four.

Dr. William 0. Speight, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross



18a

Dr. William 0. Speight, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 
Dr. A. E. Horne—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Q. I am not talking about playing at Pine Hill. I am 
talking about playing golf. A. No. I don’t know of anyone.

Q. So far as you know, there has been no negro citizen 
of Memphis in the last three or four years that has ever 
been denied the right to play golf? A. That’s correct.

Redirect Examination:

Q. One further question.
Hr. Speight, can you state that you have not been denied 

the right to play golf in the City of Memphis in a course 
of your choice? A. I can’t state that.

— 63—
Q. You have been denied the right to play golf in the 

City of Memphis at a public course of your choice? A. I 
have.

— 6 4 -
Dr. A. E. H orne

The next witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Doctor Horne how long have you been a resident of 
the City of Memphis? A. Most of my life except while I 
was out going to school, principally thirty-seven years.

Q. Where do you live? A. 1974 South Parkway East.
Q. Are you married? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any children? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any hobbies? A. My main hobby is play­

ing golf.
Q. Have you ever attempted to use any of the public



19a

courses in the City of Memphis to play golf? A. Yes, I 
have.

Q. Have you ever been denied the right to use any of
— 65—

these? A. I was denied the right to use the Pine Hill Golf 
Course last year.

Q. You and Hr. Speight went there together? A. Yes.
Q. You heard his testimony. Is there anything you can 

add about that particular course? A. Well, I asked the 
man who was apparently the manager or golf pro or the 
man that refused to sell us the ticket to play why they 
would not sell us one and he said that we couldn’t play, 
that it was a city park and he said it was just the rule of 
the Park Commission that we couldn’t play.

Q. For that reason he refused to let you or Dr. Speight 
use that golf course? A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the fact that there are other 
recreational facilities provided by the City of Memphis? 
A. Yes, I am.

Q. And having children, all the other recreational facili­
ties, I suppose you would like to use them or for your chil­
dren to be able to use them? A. As far as possible, yes.

— 66—

Q. What are the closest parks to where you live as far 
as facilities operated by the Park Commission? A. The 
very closest playground type park would be Glenview, I 
believe.

Q. Have you tried to take your children there to play? 
A. No, I haven’t.

Q. Do you know whether that park is operated on the 
basis that it is available to all citizens in the city? A. Ac­
cording to the testimony I heard this afternoon it is for 
white.

Dr. A. E. Horne—for Plaintiffs—Direct



20a

Q. Do you feel this is a policy of the Park Commission 
you approve of? A. I do not approve of it.

Q. Dr. Horne, from where you live about how far is it 
to the golf course at Fuller Park? A. About twelve to 
fifteen miles.

Q. From where you live about how far is it to the golf 
course at Douglas Park? A. Roughly eight miles.

Q. Are there any golf courses closer to you? A. The 
closest golf course to me is Pine Hill.

Atty. Sugarmon: That is all.
Mr. Prewitt: I have no questions.

Curtis King, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The next witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Will you state your full name to the Court? A. 
Curtis King, Jr.

Q. You are a resident and citizen of Memphis? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Have you ever had occasion to go to what is known as 
the Pink Palace? A. One occasion.

Q. When was that? A. That was last year.
Q. What day of the week was it? A. It was on Thurs­

day.
Q. What was your experience? A. I went to the Palace 

to look up some references and when we got there we was 
refused at the door by one of the employees.



21a

Melvin Robertson—-for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 68—

Q. Did he say why you couldn’t use the facilities out 
there? A. They said the reason we couldn’t enter was be­
cause negroes couldn’t go there but on no other day but 
Tuesday.

Attorney Sugarmon: No further questions.
Mr. Prewitt: No questions.
Attorney Sugarmon: Thank you.

— 69—

Melvin B obektson

The nest witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Will you state your full name? A. Melvin Bobertson. 
Q. Mr. Bobertson, you are a resident and citizen of this 

city and this county? A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to go to the Fairground? 

A. Yes, I—
Q. What date was that and tell the Court what hap­

pened? A. Well, I  think it was the second Sunday in May. 
I went out there and entered the gate and walked around 
the premises and when I went up to buy a ticket I was 
told I couldn’t buy a ticket by the woman there. I asked 
her why I couldn’t and she said she had orders not to sell 
negroes tickets and I asked her why and she said I would 
have to see the manager, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Prewitt: What is the date of this ?
The Witness: That was in the month of May.
Mr. Prewitt: What year?



22a

Melvin Robertson—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Witness: 1961.
—70—

Q. Will you continue? A. She said that I would have 
to see Mr. Smith and I asked her if it was customary that 
everybody that buy a ticket see Mr. Smith and she said 
that it wasn’t but she had orders, and that there was one 
day a week for negroes starting the first of June. Mr. 
Smith came up and introduced himself and indicated that 
starting in the month of June negroes would have one day 
which would be on Tuesday.

He said he would like for us to leave peaceful and orderly 
and if not he would have to summon the police. He asked 
me would I leave and I replied that I would not.

— 71—
He called the police and the police came and they said 

we would have to leave the park. I asked them why and 
they said the park was operated on a segregated basis and 
they were instructed to enforce the law. They asked would 
I leave and I told them I would not.

At that time he told me the Captain would be there 
shortly and he came and asked would we leave and I asked 
him why I should and he said that the park was operated 
on a segregated basis and we only had one day a week start­
ing with the month of June. He asked would I leave and 
I told him no and he left and made a call and came back 
and we waited about forty-five minutes and he came back 
and asked again would I leave and I told him that we 
work on Tuesday and it was impossible for us to attend 
the Fairground on Tuesday.

He then told us we was all under arrest and they ar­
rested us.

Attorney Sugarmon: No further questions. 
Mr. Prewitt: No questions.



23a

Joseph Willie Lane, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—72—
J oseph W illie L ane, J e.

The said witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Will you state your full name? A. Joseph Willie 
Lane, Jr.

Q. Are you a citizen of Memphis ? A. I am.
Q. Do you have any children? A. I have three.
Q. Do you have occasion to attend any of the recreational 

facilities afforded by the Park Commission of the City of 
Memphis, or did you recently? A. I have.

Q. Will you state when, where and what happened? A. 
On last Saturday, June 10th, I attempted to fish in the 
rodeo at Riverside Park.

Q. What is the rodeo? A. It is the redeo that the Com­
mercial Appeal has been sponsoring for all children be­
tween the ages of six and twelve can participate.

My kids love to fish and I clipped out the clippings and
—73—

sent two of them in and on the first of June I received two 
cards stating numbers 895 and 896 on the cards, and that 
numbers 601 to 1000 was supposed to fish on June 10th, 
which was last Saturday, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. 
and 11:30 A.M. and stated on the card you was supposed 
to watch the Sunday morning paper June 4th for dates on 
it.

It stated in the paper to get to the park about a half 
hour before fishing time.

Q. What park was that? A. Riverside Park.
My little boy was anxious to fish and he got up about 

five o ’clock and we got to the park about seven-thirty.



24a

I pulled up in my car and got the poles and bait and lunch 
and a canteen of water out and the children was walking 
around the park, white children and my two, and I was 
waiting up under the tree waiting until they got ready to 
sign up.

About eight o ’clock they attempted to start signing the 
children up as many was gathering around.

About the time my little boy appeared in front of the 
lady she stated that it was too early, that they was only 
supposed to start registering at eight-thirty.

— 74 —

Q. What sort of a card was this? A. A little three-cent 
post card.

Mr. Gianotti: If Your Honor please, may I ask 
an explanatory question.

There is some allegation that—is there an allega­
tion that the Park Commission exercised control 
over this fishing rodeo, or was that sponsored by a 
private organization?

Attorney Sugarmon: If Your Honor please, it was 
sponsored by the Commercial Appeal, using facili­
ties own and operated by the Park Commission, and 
this suit is seeking an injunction against segregation 
and we think the law will sustain us that if any pub­
licly owned facility is leased they must be under the 
conditions that will protect the rights of all citizens.

This was used by a private organization under 
terms that restricted the rights of this man and his 
children.

Mr. Gianotti: Your Honor, I think we are all 
familiar with these cases. I f  he has reference to the 
Louisville case I don’t think that goes so far as 
this. There is nothing alleged in this complaint to

Joseph Willie Lane, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



25a

—75—
the point where counsel could have in any way been 
advised that this type of incident should be alleged, 
and we move that the testimony be stricken and we 
object to all the testimony.

As I understand, perhaps we can take an example. 
You have fifteen or twenty people going out for a 
picnic and pretty soon you couldn’t have your own 
crowd in any park, negro or white.

I think these rights work both ways.
The Court: Let’s see what the facts are.
Are you saying that the Park Commission was re­

sponsible for what happened there on this day or 
the newspaper. What are your contentions!

Attorney Sugarmon: It is my understanding,
from the testimony so far, that this witness’ pres­
ence in that park was in response to a published 
invitation run in the paper by the sponsors inviting 
public attendance, and didn’t specify negro or white.

The Court: Who was conducting this fishing deal 
down there, the paper or the city!

Attorney Sugarmon: The Commercial Appeal, I 
believe.

—76—
The Court: Let’s get the facts. There is no jury 

here to be prejudiced.

Q. Was it the Commercial Appeal! A. I guess it was, 
l got it out of that paper.

Attorney Sugarmon: Did I understand Your
Honor to say go on!

The Court: Yes, you may develop the facts.

Joseph Willie Lane, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



26a

Q. Go on? A. At the time my little boy and girl was 
standing there to be registered this lady said it was too 
early, it was about eight o ’clock, she said to come back at 
eight-thirty.

They had started registering at eight o’clock and my 
little boy and girl—they had registered about eight or ten 
before them.

This lady walked over and spoke to Mr. Reynolds, I 
think he is Outdoor Editor for the Commercial Appeal, 
and he came over there and spoke to me and told me that 
this fishing rodeo was only for white children.

I told him I didn’t notice any there but white and mine, 
my two, and he told me he didn’t want to create any trouble 
and they would give them any prizes on the table if we left 
quietly.

—77—
I told him that this clipping was in the paper and it didn’t 

say white or colored, and I said that my children were set 
to fish.

—78—
Mr. Gianotti: If Your Honor please, I understand 

the Court’s ruling, but it would appear from this 
statement we are going so far afield— some conversa­
tion with Mr. “ X ” , that the City has—that the City 
is not connected with in any way.

If you want to just let the witness go ahead and 
talk, it may be all right. But certainly we are inter­
ested in orderly procedure. W e can see no ground 
on which this is competent.

The Court: Well, do you agree that this is beyond 
the issues in this particular case? The Commercial 
Appeal had this—a local newspaper—

Attorney Sugarmon: If the Court please,—

Joseph Willie Lane, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct



27a

The Court: (Continuing) —Had a party down 
there. And it does seem a man by the name of Rem- 
bert—•

The Witness: Reynolds.
Attorney Sugarmon: If the Court please,—
The Court: Was he working—
The W itness: His name was on the card.
Attorney Sugarmon: If the Court please, there 

is a—I think a very clear line of authority dealing
—79—

with the leasing or use of public owned facilities by 
private organizations. And I think that these cases 
spell out a responsibility on the part of the Park 
Commission to lease these facilities under such terms 
as the enjoyment of the facilities leased will be in a 
constitutional fashion. And we are using this an 
example—

The Court: Well, Mr. Gianotti for the defendants 
is protesting here that this is beyond the issues, that 
he had no notice of it and is not prepared to meet 
this issue. And on the statements so far of this 
witness, this was something over which defendants 
had no control at all and had no part in.

Attorney Sugarmon: If the Court please, we feel 
that the reach of our petition in that we ask an in­
junction to issue to the Park Commission to order 
them to stop their policy of operating the park sys­
tem of the City of Memphis on a segregated basis 
and stop enforcing a jjolicy of segregation in their 
operation of the parks embraces incidents of this

- 8 0 -

Joseph Willie Lane, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

type.



28a

The Court: Well, the Court will sustain the ob­
jection to this phase of it. I don’t believe that is 
within the issues.

Attorney Sugarmon: We would like to note our 
exception.

The Court: All right.
Attorney Sugarmon: We have no further ques­

tions.

Dr. I. A. Watson, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 8 1 -
D r. I. A. W atson, Jr.

The next witness, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. State your name to the Court, please. A. I. A. Wat­
son, Jr.

Q. And I believe you are one of the plaintiffs in this 
lawsuit, is that correct ? A. Yes, lam .

Q. I ask you to state to the Court whether or not you 
had occasion to be with Dr. Horne and Dr. Speight at the 
Pine Hills Golf Club? A. Yes.

Q. Will you state to the Court what happened on that 
day? A. As mentioned before, we attempted to purchase a 
ticket at Pine Hills Golf Course, and we weren’t admitted 
to the club house. The one in charge, I believe the pro, 
stood in front of the door and would not let us in. And we 
asked if we could purchase the tickets to play and if we 
weren’t entering the golf course—entering the club house. 
And of course he mentioned to us that, “You fellows know 
what you are doing, and I know what you are doing. Why



29a

Dr. 1. A. Watson, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 82—
don’t you try Galloway course or try somebody else. Just 
don’t try me. I know exactly what you are trying to do.”

Q. Will you state to the Court where you live! A. I 
live at 1379 Melrose Cove.

Q. About how far is this address from Pine Hills Golf 
Course? A. I would say I could reach Pine Hills in about 
five minutes time, I believe. I would say it would be about 
two or three—about two miles.

Q. Well, is it closer to you than the course that has been 
mentioned, at Fuller Park? A. Fuller Park from me would 
be about twelve miles.

Q. Now, how long have you lived in Memphis? A. I 
have lived in Memphis all my life.

Q. And have you attempted to use any other public facili­
ties in the City of Memphis? A. Yes, I believe in ’56 we 
had the Sam Quarles golf tournament at Audubon Park. 
The crippled pro there I believe was a friend of the one 
that was visiting me from Springfield, Illinois. And of 
course, after the tournament we went back out to the park 
to see this pro. And of course, they have a little practice

- 8 3 -
tee there. And in waiting around while they talked, I ac­
companied him because he wasn’t familiar with the city, 
and of course I was asked even off of this little golf putting 
tee that they have there.

Q. Is that on the park? A. Audubon Park.
Q. Have you attempted to use any other facilities— 

public facilities in the City of Memphis, Dr. Watson? A. 
I haven’t attempted to use any other facilities. I  believe 
that my reason for filing this suit is because I want to be 
able to use all the facilities in the City of Memphis. I am a



30a

home owner. I am a taxpayer. And I believe that all the 
facilities that are open to anyone else should be open to me.

Q. And on this occasion that yon mentioned at Audubon 
Park, that was open specially to negroes—  A. That was— 

Q. (Continuing) — For a few days for the tournament, is 
that correct? A. That is right,

Q. And later on when yon all went back you were denied 
the right to use it? A. I was denied the right to even go 
on the putting ground.

Alma Bonds—for Plaintiffs—■Direct

A lma B onds

—85—

The next witness, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. State your name. Your name is Alma Bonds? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. And do you live in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennes­
see? A. I do.

Q. Where do you work? A. Collins Chapel Hospital.
Q. How long have you lived in Memphis? A. Ever 

since I was eleven years old.
Q. And do you have children? A. Ido.
Q. Will you state to the Court whether or not you have 

had occasion to try to-—to use, rather, a public facility in 
the City of Memphis? A. Yes, I have. On June 4th I en­
tered Gaston Park with about twenty-eight children. We 
were there about an hour and was chased off by the police. 
They didn’t say too much to us but they did chase the chil­
dren.

Q. Now, before the police came, had these twenty-eight



31a

Alma Bonds—for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 86—

children you are referring to—I imagine they were negro 
children, weren’t they? A. Yes, they were.

Q. And they had been on the Gaston Community Park 
grounds for about an hour before the police came? A. 
Yes.

Q. Was there any disturbance of any kind or character 
before the police came? A. No disturbance.

Q. Well, have you had occasion to use any other—try 
to use any other public facility in the City of Memphis? 
A. Well, no, because I didn’t want to be chased by the 
police, so I decided I would ask—wait until I come into—

Q. And do you expect to use other public facilities until 
this is over ? A. I do not.

Q. How many children do you have? A. I have six— 
eight.

Q. Eight? A. Eight.
Q. On the day you were at Gaston Community Park, 

where— or were those your own children there? A. Yes.
—87—

Q. How many? A. Eight.
Q. Where do you live? A. 272 Alston.
Q. How far is that from or how close is that to Gaston? 

A. About three blocks.
Q. Well, now, you have heard the testimony they have 

certain parks for negroes here in Memphis and certain 
parks for whites. Do you happen to know the nearest park 
that has been designated by the Park Commission a negro 
park from where you live ? A. The closest one I can recall 
is Lincoln’s Park.

Q. And about how far is that from where you live, do 
you know? A. It is about five miles.

Q. And Gaston Community Park is only about three



32a

blocks, is only about three blocks from where you live! A. 
Yes.

Attorney Hooks: I believe that is all.
Mr. Prewitt: No questions.

Harold Oholston—for Plaintiffs—Direct

H akold G-holston

-88-

The next witness, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Will you give your name, sir? A. Harold Gholston.
Q. Are you a resident here in Memphis and Shelby 

County? A. Iam.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you had occasion to go 

to John Rogers Tennis Court in recent weeks? A. It was 
sometime during May of last year.

Q. Will you tell us what happened on that occasion? A. 
When we got there we asked could we go in. There was a 
negro employee there told us we couldn’t enter. I asked 
him why. He said because it.was only for white.

Q. Do you know where this place is located? A. Yes, I 
do.

Q. Where? A. It is on the corner of Jefferson and Wal- 
dran.

Q. Where do you live? A. I live in the Hyde Park 
vicinity.

Q. Is that close to there? A. No. Well, John Rogers 
center—it is about five miles from where I live.

Mr. Prewitt: About how far?

A. Five miles.



33a

Q. You do like to play tennis, though, is that correct! 
A. Yes, I do.

Q. Pardon me. Are you in favor of all facilities in Mem­
phis of being desegregated? A. Yes, sir.

Q. So as to permit you to go any place you desire and 
take part in it? A. Yes, sir.

—90—
Cross Examination:

Q. Where did you say you live? A. Hyde Park.
Q. Where is that? A. I didn’t understand.
Q. Where is that? A. Out by Springdale.
Q. Is that in south or north Memphis? A. North Mem­

phis.
Q. And I believe you said that is about five miles from 

the John Rodgers Tennis Courts? A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know where Gooch Park is? A. It wasn’t 

there at the time.
Q. It is open now? A. It is open.
Q. They have tennis courts there? A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact they are putting some new lights 

there? A. I imagine they are.
—91—

Q. What is that surface there. It is a Rubyco surface? 
A. It is more like sand.

Q. Are you familiar with Rubyco courts? A. Not too 
familiar.

Q. How long have you been playing tennis? A. All the 
chances I can get.

Q. Have you ever played on the new courts at Gooch 
Park? A. Yes, I have.

Q. These Rubyco courts are the finest you can build, 
aren’t they? A. I wouldn’t know about that.

Harold Gholston—for Plaintiffs—Cross



34a

Harold Gholston—for Plaintiffs—Redirect
Alfred Haynes, Jr.-—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Q. And they are free, too, aren’t they! A. Yes, they 
are.

Q. The John Rogers courts, they charge an admission for 
those? A. I wouldn’t know, I didn’t have a chance to get 
in to find out.

Q. You do know that the Gooch Park courts are free? 
A. Yes.

Q. And you are playing there about twice a week, I be­
lieve you said? A. Somewhere like that.

—92—
Q. Is there a tennis court in Memphis that is closer to 

you than Gooch Park? A. No, there is not.
Q. Have you ever been denied the right to play at the 

Gooch Park courts? A. No, I haven’t.
Q. For free? A. For free.

Redirect Examination:

Q. Do you belong to any tennis club? A. I belong to the 
tennis association.

— 93—

A lfred H aynes, Jr.

The next witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Would you give us your full name? A. Alfred 
Haynes, Jr.

Q. You are a resident of Memphis and Shelby County? 
A. Yes, sir.



35a

Q. I will ask you if you had occasion to go to John Rogers 
Tennis Court in recent weeks? A. Yes, I have.

Q. What occasion did you have to go there? A. When 
we went there an employee said it was for white and we 
couldn’t play there, that it was for white, so we left.

Q. Do you belong to any tennis club? A. Yes.
Q. Do you like to play tennis? A. I like to.
Q. Do you feel, as a citizen, that you have a right to go 

to any one that is open to the public? A. Yes, 1 do.
—94—

Cross Examination:

Q. Where do you live ? A. Hyde Park.
Q. Is that in the same area that the witness Harold 

Gholston lives? A. That’s right,
Q. I take it that you, like him, the closest tennis court to 

you is at Gooch Park? A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. How long have you been playing tennis? A. About 

six or seven months.
Q. Well, I notice you didn’t go to the John Rogers Ten­

nis Court— or rather you went there on April 27, 1960? A. 
I was beginning to learn the game then.

Q. That has been about twelve or fourteen months then? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you play at the Gooch Park courts? A. Yes, I 
play now.

—95—
Q. They have these Rubyco courts there haven’t they? 

A. That’s right.
Q. They are the finest courts you can build aren’t they? 

A. It is nice.
Q. Have you ever been denied the right to play there? 

A. No, sir, I haven’t.

Alfred Haynes, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross



36a

Q. Have you ever had the notion to play tennis and not 
had the opportunity to play at Gooch Park! A. No, sir.

Q. They are putting new lights up there now so you can 
play at night? A. Yes.

Q. There is no charge? A. That’s right.
Q. Are you familiar with the fact that if you play at 

John Eogers tennis courts there is an admission charge to 
play there? A. We didn’t get a chance to go.

Q. Had you rather go five miles to play and pay forty 
cents to play than to play free close to home? A. Gooch 
wasn’t there then.

Q. I am talking about the facilities there now.
— 9 6 -

Are you telling this court now that you had rather go 
five miles and pay forty cents to play than to go five blocks 
and play for free? A. It is nice if I go five blocks and play 
free, but Gooch wasn’t there when we went there.

Q. I am talking about right now, Alfred, what is your 
position right now? A. I would rather go to Gooch and 
play.

Q. I didn’t catch that, you had rather go to Gooch and 
play? A. Eight.

Alfred Haynes, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross



37a

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct

Hakky P ieeotti
— 97—

The said witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Mr. Prewitt: You have already been sworn.
The Court: Yes, he was sworn previously.

Q. You are Harry Pierotti, Chairman of the Park Com­
mission, and you have already been sworn in this case? A. 
Yes.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Memphis 
Park Commission? A. I have been a member of the Mem­
phis Park Commission since April 1947.

Q. And how many members comprise the Memphis Park 
Commission? A. There are five members of the Commis­
sion.

Q. How long have you been Chairman of the Memphis 
Park Commission? A. Since January 1, 1956.

Q. And the Memphis Park Commission is charged with 
the responsibility or obligation of running the Memphis 
park system? A. That is correct.

Q. The active management of the system, of course, is 
delegated to Mr. Lewis and other employees? A. That is 
correct.

Q. Mr. H. S. Lewis is the operating head of the Memphis 
park system? A. That is correct.

Q. How often does the Memphis Park Commission meet?



38a

A. We have stated meetings once a month and if matters 
come up we call special meetings, which we often do, to 
make decisions on certain matters that come up between 
the stated meetings.

Q. Now there has already been introduced in evidence a 
list of the various facilities the Park Commission is con­
nected with and I am not going into those on an indi­
vidual basis, but I just want to direct your attention to 
the Pink Palace Museum! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now are you familiar with the deed under which the 
City of Memphis acquired the Pink Palace Museum! A.

— 99—
I am.

Q. Now is that owned by the City of Memphis! A. It is.
Q. As a matter of fact all the parks are owned by the 

City of Memphis but operated by the Park Commission! 
A. That is correct. The Park Commission holds title to no 
real estate.

Q. I believe you have in your hand a report which per­
tains to the title to the Pink Palace property, is that cor­
rect! A. That is correct.

Q. Who prepared that! A. Mr. J. Seddon Allen. I 
would rather refer to it as a report and brief. Mr. Allen, 
at that time, was attorney for the Memphis Park Commis­
sion.

Q. What precipitated the report and brief of Mr. Allen! 
A. I believe Mr. Allen’s report is dated February 5, 1959.

What gave rise to the report was that in the latter part 
of 1958 Mr. Everett Woods, local architect and Chairman 
of the Museum in the Pink Palace, conferred with me and 
he in substance stated to me that the museum was in bad

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



39a

physical condition and something should be done with refer­
ence to building a new museum.

I invited Mr. Woods to come to the next Park Commis-
— 100—

sion meeting which was January 6, 1959 and to present 
his views.

This is a matter of public record, and Mr. Woods did 
come and he advocated at that time that we appropriate 
a rather sizeable amount of funds to erect a new museum.

We, of course, advised Mr. Woods that wTe did not have 
the funds with which to do anything like that and that 
we were certain the city would not give us those funds.

He presented a letter in which he proposed that we sell 
the property where the museum is located, and the sur­
rounding acreage, since it would be perfect for a subdivi­
sion, and with that money we could erect a new museum.

Mr. Allen was present at that meeting, as he was most 
of the time, just as you are now, and I asked Mr. Allen to 
give me an opinion as to whether or not it was possible 
for the city to sell this property, because I had no certain

— 101-

limitations of the property to the City. Mr. Allen, in com­
pliance with my request, at the next meeting of the Park 
Commission, sometime in February, 1959, reported to us 
and gave to me this Report and Summary of Titles to the 
Pink Palace, which is the museum property, and the sur­
rounding property held by the City for the museum and 
park purposes. In this report, which I will be very happy 
to make as an exhibit to my testimony, Mr. Allen traces the 
origin of the title in the City and sets out, not only the 
description, but the conditions and limitations incident to 
the title.

Q. Mr. Pierotti, before you go any further, did Mr.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



40a

Everett Woods, who I believe was chairman of the Ad­
visory Board, Memphis Museum Committee—he wrote a 
letter to the Park Commission, didn’t he? A. Yes, he did, 
and I have a photostatic copy of that letter, which I believe 
is dated January 6,1959.

Q. I have supplied counsel for the plaintiff’s with a copy 
of this letter, and I would like for you to make a photostat 
that you have in your hand Exhibit 1 to your testimony. 
A. I will be glad to do it.

— 102—

Q. Mr. Pierotti, without reading the whole letter, was 
the purport of the letter or the substance of the letter re­
quest on behalf of this committee that the museum property 
be sold? A. That’s correct.

Q. And re-invested in another building? A. That is cor­
rect.

Q. And, in response to that request by this Advisory 
Board, you asked Mr. Seddon Allen, Mr. J. S. Allen, to 
give you an opinion ? A. I did.

Q. As to whether or not the City or the Park Commis­
sion could, in view of the title, convey this property? A. 
That is correct.

Q. And do you have that opinion and report in your hand 
now? A. I do have it.

Q. I will ask you to make that report and brochure 
Exhibit 2 to your testimony, and I have a full report,

— 103—
which I will just hand to the reporter and ask that it be 
marked, and I have supplied a copy of this to plaintiffs’ 
counsel. A. All right.

Q. Mr. Pierotti, at the time Mr. Seddon Allen was asked 
to give this report, was there any question raised with

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



41a

regard to the conditions in the deed of gift regarding race ? 
A. No, there was not.

Q. Now, this opinion has to do solely with another mat­
ter, that is whether or not you could convey the property? 
A. That is correct.

Q. And use it for purposes other than public park pur­
poses? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, does Exhibit 2 reflect Mr. Allen’s opinion with 
regard to whether or not the City could convey this prop­
erty on which the Pink Palace Museum is located? A.

—104—
It does.

Q. And what was Mr. Allen’s opinion? A. To sum­
marize just briefly— rather to summarize his report, he 
wasn’t positive or wasn’t sure at all ust what we could 
do with this property and so advised both—I know the 
Park Commission, and possibly the City Commission to 
that effect—that there were certain conditions and limita­
tions in the deed of conveyance that if they were breached 
that there could possibly be a forfeiture to the original 
grantor or his heirs.

Q. Now, this Exhibit No. 2 to your testimony contains 
a photocopy of the deed under which the City of Memphis 
acquired the museum property, does it not? A. It does.

Q. And that’s of record in Book 1092, page 112, of the 
Register’s office of this County? A. That’s correct; and 
it was recorded on the 2nd day of August, 1926.

—105—
Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, this deed has provisions C and D 

in it, does it not? A. It does.
Q. As I stated, this deed is already a part of Exhibit 2, 

is it not? A. That’s correct.
Q. And I will ust read a portion and ask you if this is

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



42a

a portion of the deed which relates to the question we have 
now under consideration.

C— Said building and grounds shall be devoted wholly
— 106—

and exclusively to public uses for the benefit of persons 
of the Caucasian race only and as a conservatory, art 
gallery, museum of art or natural history, and so forth.

And I will ask you if Section D does not say this:

In the event of a breach of either or any of the fore­
going covenants or conditions in any substantial par­
ticular and such breaches shall continue for a period 
of—I believe it is thirty days!

A. Ninety days.
Q. Ninety days after written notice to Memphis Park 

Commission or to the Commission—I can’t read the next 
word. A. And Mayor or chief officer.

I think, perhaps, Mr. Prewitt, I could read it a little 
better. This seems to be clearer on my copy.

Q. Mine is a photostat. Maybe vou had better pick it up.
— 107—

A. “ In event of breach of either or any of the foregoing 
covenants or conditions continuing for ninety days after 
written notice to Park Commission and City, Park Com­
mission and Mayor or Chief Officer for which forfeiture 
sought, then the foregoing dedication or conveyance shall 
be and become void at option of First Party or its assigns, 
and if breach not remedied within ninety days, Party of 
the First Part, or its assigns may re-enter and hold same 
as of former estate, with all additions and betterments, and 
so forth, provided forfeiture not permitted if such breach

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



43a

is wholly discontinued or remedied within such period of 
ninety days.”

I think that’s the pertinent part of the restrictions.
Q. All right. So, Mr. Pierotti, with that provision in that 

deed-—and you are a lawyer, are you not, sir? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I might say a very good one. A. I have a license to 

practice, let’s put it that way.
Q. With that provision in that deed and no adjudications 

by the Courts of Tennessee as to the effect of opening up
—1 0 8 -

Pink Palace to negroes every day in the week, in your opin­
ion, would that be safe, a safe course to pursue without 
any adjudication by the Courts of Tennessee as to the effect 
of those provisions? A. I do not think it would be a safe 
course to pursue, based on what my own opinion about it 
is, and, of course, Mr. Allen’s opinion to me as Chairman 
of the Park Commission.

Q. And you recognize that on matters of title, jurisdic­
tion is vested in the Chancery Courts of the State of Ten­
nessee? A. That’s correct.

The Court: There is that clause in the deed. 
Would not there be other necessary parties to this 
phase of it? I have in mind the reversioners, if that 
is a right word. Would they not have an interest 
here, a right to concur in this proceeding? That 
just occurs to me.

Mr. Prewitt: If Your Honor please, if not in this 
proceeding, then in a proceeding in the Chancery 
Court, which would have jurisdiction to determine

— 109—
the effect of this provision. Certainly they would 
have a right to be heard. Of course, our position is

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



44a

that this deed provides for right of re-entry on the 
part of the original grantor or his assigns, and a 
possibility of a reverter on re-entry. We think there 
should be some adjudication by the Chancery Court 
of Shelby County before anything is done about 
that.

The Court: Well, I didn’t mean to interrupt. That 
just occurred to me, that maybe that was something 
to consider, but you were about to ask a question, 
I  believe.

By Mr. Prewitt:

Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, Mr. Lewis has already introduced 
in evidence a list of parks, developed and undeveloped, and 
I believe there were some one hundred thirty-one.

— 110—
Q. One hundred thirty-one is right.
Now, Mr. Pierotti, as Chairman of the Park Commission, 

are you familiar with the deeds under which these hundred 
and thirty-one parks were acquired! A. I am not.

Q. In order to acquaint yourself with the provisions in 
the deeds, under which these one hundred and thirty-one 
parks were acquired, would you have to get an abstract 
on each one ? A. That’s correct,

Q. And is that information available to any person? 
A. It is.

Q. And, of course, to get an abstract, it requires con­
siderable expenditure of money? A. Yes, it does.

Q. And if you went to check the title to a hundred and 
thirty-one separate parcels, of course you would have to 
have at least a hundred and thirty-one abstracts? A. 
That’s correct, sir.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



45a

Q. And you are not prepared to say whether parks which 
are not specifically mentioned in this lawsuit have any such

- I l l -
provisions as the Pink Palace deed'? A. I cannot say, Mr. 
Prewitt. When we acquire property, of course it is ex­
amined by title guaranty companies, and they only tell us 
at the end of the period of time that we owe so much money 
for any park that we acquire.

Q. Are many of the parks out of this hundred and thirty- 
one acquired by gift? A. Yes, they are.

Q. By people who desire to make gifts of land for public 
use ? A. That’s correct.

Q. And, of course, in making a gift of land for public 
purposes, a grantor is free to put whatever restrictions or 
conditions he desires? A. We will accept them. Of course, 
he can make any condition that he wishes to make in the 
deed of gift.

The Court: Are you telling us that you think there 
are restrictions in the deed in respect to some of 
these other parks ?

A. Yes, that’s true. I can recall one just offhand, since I 
see Captain Chandler there—the Gooch property had cer-

— 112-

tain restrictions and limitations. That property was ac­
quired in the last two or three years. What they are, I do 
not know, but I do know there are certain conditions and 
limitations in that grant.

By Mr. Prewitt:

Q. That would be for negro use? A. That’s correct.
Q. Mr. Gooch, of course, was a white benefactor? A. 

That’s true.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



46a

Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, with reference to the Pink Palace 
Museum, is this your position that this Court should ab­
stain with reference to any ruling on that until the proper 
courts have had a chance to determine whether or not the 
City would lose that property if the relief here pleaded for 
were granted? A. That’s correct.

Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Lewis that at 
the present time the Memphis Park System has fifty-eight 
white parks and twenty-five colored parks and twenty-five 
parks that are integrated or general? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, are you familiar or will you state to the Court
— 113—

whether or not in recent years the Park Commission has 
had a policy of opening up parks from time to time for use 
by all citizens? A. That’s true.

Q. Now, how many zoos are there in Memphis? A. 
There is one.

Q. Is that open to all citizens ? A. It is.
Q. Operated by the Park Commission? A. That’s cor­

rect.
Q. And was that formerly operated on a segregated 

basis? A. It was.
Q. Prior to the latter part of 1960 I believe? A. I would 

say within the last six or eight months, yes, sir.
Q. How many art galleries do you operate? A. There 

is only one.
Q. Now, is that open to all citizens? A. It is.
Q. And was it formerly operated on a segregated basis? 

A. It was.
—114—

Q. And I believe in March of this year it was opened 
to all citizens? A. Some time back it was, yes.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



47a

Q. Now, there is a lake known as McKellar Lake in 
Memphis, isn’t there ? A. Yes.

Q. And the Park Commission operates a Boat Dock 
there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the only Boat Dock that the Park Commission 
operates ? A. That’s true.

Q. Is that open to all citizens regardless of race? A. It 
is.

Q. And has that been done recently? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that a part of the Park Commission’s plan, gradual 

plan to offer such facilities to members of both races? A. 
It is.

Q. Now, what about your plan for the future, Mr. Pie­
rotti? Does the Park Commission plan to open up other 
facilities in the future? Have you evolved any plan with

- l i b -
regard to that? A. Mr. Prewitt, I think I can better ex­
press that if I would read the plan which we have evolved, 
so there won’t be any mistake about what our plan is for 
the immediate future.

Q. All right, sir. Suppose you read that plan. A. (Bead­
ing)

“Having heretofore, before the filing of this suit, pro­
vided twenty-one parks in the City on a non-segregated 
basis, and having recently removed restrictions at 
Overton Park Zoo, Art Gallery in Overton Park and the 
Boat Dock at McKellar Lake, the Park Commission, 
following a practice already adopted, has evolved the 
following plan and the following facilities will be open 
to all races without restrictions at the dates indicated.

“ 1: The Fairgrounds Amusement Park at the conclu­
sion of the present year.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



48a

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct

—116—
“ 2: Pine Hill Golf Course will be done January 1st, 

1962.
“ Puller Golf Course, February the 1st, 1962.
“ Riverside Golf Course, March 1st, 1962.
“ Audubon Golf Course, January 1st, 1963.
“ Douglas Golf Course, February 1st, 1963.
“ Overton Park Golf Course, March 1st, 1963, and the 
Galloway Golf Course, January the 1st, 1964.”

The Park Commission proposes to follow the foregoing 
schedule.

This program, which is in line with the practices already 
developed and evolved by the Park Commission, may be 
accelerated, subject to many matters which the responsible 
officials of the Park Commission may consider from time 
to time. These include diverse conditions, such as main­
tenance of law and order, avoidance of confusion and tur­
moil in the community, efforts to provide maximum use of 
park facilities for all citizens regardless of race, revenue 
available from park concessions, together with a proper 
recognition of the legal rights of all citizens, white and 
negro, under state and Federal law.

—117—
This program of the Park Commission is not one based 

on any denial of any constitutional rights which either 
the negroes or whites may have, but so designed to provide 
maximum recreational facilities for the maximum number 
of Memphis citizens in the area where such citizens reside.

This is our policy and our plan for the immediate future, 
Mr. Prewitt.

Q. And is that what you expect to follow? A. It is.



49a

Q. Mr. Pierotti, have you lived in Memphis all your 
life? A. Yes, I have.

Q. If the Park Commission is not permitted discretion 
and leeway in determining the method and manner of re­
moving racial restrictions on public parks, do you feel that 
there will be turmoil and confusion in the community? A. 
I do, and I think probably bloodshed too, Mr. Prewitt.

Q. Is this the desire of the Park Commission to deny 
rights, any constitutional rights, to any negro citizen of 
Memphis? A. There is not.

Q. Now, after the Fairgrounds is opened, if this plan
—118—

is approved by the Court at the conclusion of this year 
and with reference to the Fairgrounds, may I digress just 
a minute—

Does the Park Commission enter into contract with pri­
vate individuals for operation of concessions at the Fair­
grounds? A. They do.

Q. Do you feel that it would be unfair to those people 
with whom you have contracted to change something in the 
middle of a year? A. Well, we think it would be.

Q. Are you mindful of the legal rights of those people? 
A. Yes, we are.

Q. Are you mindful of the fact that they are dependent 
upon revenue which they obtain from those concessions for 
their livelihood? A. Iam.

Q. So, does your plan take cognizance of the legal rights 
of white people as well as negroes? A. Both races.

Q. And you plan to open up the Fairgrounds at the end 
of this year? A. Yes, sir.

—119—
Q. Now, you have opened up the Zoo. That’s a City-wide 

facility, isn’t it? A. It is.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



50a

Q. The art gallery; that’s a City-wide facility? A. It is.
Q. The McKellar Lake Boat Dock; that’s a City-wide 

facility? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Fairgrounds Amusement Park; of course, 

that’s a City-wide facility? A. It is.
Q. And by that, of course, we mean that there is only one 

in Memphis ? A. That’s correct.
Q. So, all of those facilities will be opened to the colored 

people? A. They will.
Q. Can you think of any other City-wide facilities that 

won’t be open to them, that is a facility where there is 
only one in town? A. No, I don’t know of any offhand, Mr. 
Prewitt.

— 120—

Q. So it is the Park Commission’s desire to make avail­
able all of those City-wide facilities to the negroes with 
all deliberate speed? A. Consistent with good relations 
with all the people and trying to avoid strife and turmoil, 
as you said, and possibly bloodshed.

Q. Has Memphis been singularly blessed by the absence 
of turmoil up to this time on this race question? A. It 
has, and we hope to keep it that way, as far as the Park 
Commission is concerned.

Q. Is that one of the policies of the Park Commission? 
A. It is.

Q. Do you feel that’s one of your duties, Mr. Pierotti? 
A. It is ; to all of our people, white and black.

Q. All right, sir. Let’s go to the golf courses.
Your plan contemplates, as you have already read out, 

opening up all the golf courses on a three-year basis? A. 
Less than that; probably two-and-a-half-year basis.

Q. There are seven golf courses in Memphis, are there 
not? A. There are.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



51a

Q. Has Mr. Lewis furnished you with a—before we go
— 121—

any further, I will make this plan of the Park Commission 
Exhibit 3 to your testimony. A. All right.

Q. Now, let’s go to the golf courses.
Mr. Pierotti, I don’t know whether you have seen this 

up-to-date statistical data with reference to the golf players 
in Memphis. A. I get this every month, but I don’t think 
I have gotten the one up to May 1st, 1961.

Q. Well, we will introduce this by Mr. Lewis, but for the 
time being, I would like for you to refer to it. A. All 
right, sir.

Mr. Prewitt: Mr. Reporter, I would like to ask you 
to mark this Exhibit 4, if you will.

— 122—

Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, as indicated on this Exhibit No. 4, 
there are seven golf courses operated by the Memphis Park 
Commission at the present time? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, of those seven, Fuller and Douglas have been 
used exclusively by the negroes up to the present time? 
A. That is right.

Q. And the remaining five by members of the white race? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, in 1960,1 notice there were 232,413 golf players? 
A. That’s correct.

Q. And on the two colored courses I notice Douglas, 
8,843, and Fuller, 4,020 players? A. That’s correct.

Q. Or approximately 13,000 golf players out of a total 
of 232,413 ? A. That’s correct.

- 1 2 3 -
Attorney Hooks: If Your Honor please, I would 

like to interrupt just a minute and find out for what

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



52a

purpose this testimony is being introduced. I don’t 
quite follow these figures on the attendance at the 
golf courses and that type of thing.

Mr. Prewitt: We want to show, may it please the 
Court, that not only do the negro golfers in Memphis 
have adequate facilities at the present time, they 
are not using the facilities that are available to them, 
and the Court has some discretion on an equity mat­
ter of this sort, a motion for a Declaratory Judg­
ment, and they are asking for equitable relief, and 
in line with the Nashville case, on the Board of Edu­
cation case in Nashville, the Court must consider 
local conditions and the Court should consider the 
facilities that are available and determine what is in 
the best interest of all the people; so, we want to 
show what facilities are being offered now, to show

—124—
that this plan which has been evolved is a fair and 
equitable plan and show that the Park Commission 
is exercising good faith. That’s the substance of it.

Mr. Hooks: I f  Your Honor please, we would like 
to raise an objection to that, because that is not the 
premise our lawsuit is filed on. It’s filed on action 
by individual plaintiffs. We are not concerned with 
how many people are using the facilities. The point 
is that these people who have filed this lawsuit have 
been denied the use of these facilities. This is the 
theory of the lawsuit, and I can’t see that the figures 
on how many people use them or the economic laws 
on it are material to the issues before the Court.

The Court: The Court has the impression from 
what has gone before in this trial and what is going 
on at this time that the Park Commission is propos­

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants■—Direct



53a

ing to integrate, so to speak, these facilities, and is
—1 2 5 -

Offering a plan which they evidently contend is feas­
ible and fair and equitable, which will accomplish 
that, and so evidence of this type would be admis­
sible, the Court would think, with respect to any in­
junction that might be south in this case.

Is that your position?
Mr. Prewitt: Yes, sir, if Your Honor please, that’s 

our position, and we say this isn’t a case where any 
injunction ought to be issued, because the officials of 
the Memphis Park Commission have been acting in 
good faith and no injunction should lie.

The Court: Are you proposing that the Court ap­
prove your suggested plan at this time ? Is that what 
you are proposing?

Mr. Prewitt: Either that, Your Honor, or simply 
hold that the Park Commission officials have acted 
in good faith and having acted in good faith, there is

- 1 2 6 -
no grounds for the issuance of an injunction. As I 
understand the holdings in the Brown against Board 
of Education and in the Nashville case, the test is 
whether or not the local officials are acting in good 
faith.

The Court: All right. If that is an objection, the 
objection is overruled.

By Mr. Prewitt:

Q. Mr. Pierotti, I believe when the objection was made, 
you had testified from the exhibits that there were ap­
proximately thirteen thousand negro golf players out of 
two hundred thirty-two thousand overall players last year?

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



54a

A. That’s what the statement shows, Mr. Prewitt.
Q. Approximately five percent of the golf players were 

using about thirty percent of the golf courses? A. Roughly, 
I think that’s about right.

Q. And do you feel that the Park Commission has pro­
vided adequate golf facilities for every golf player in 
Memphis, regardless of his race? A. We do so feel that 
way, yes, sir.

— 127—
Q. Mr. Pierotti, do you feel that it is better on opening 

up all seven of the golf courses to do that on a stairstep 
basis? A. Very definitely. I am very definitely of the 
opinion that they should not all be opened up at one time.

Q. Do you feel that the golf courses is an area which is 
less sensitive in this matter of race relations than some of 
the other areas? A. Yes, we do.

Q. And have you given that a whole lot of thought? A. 
Not only have I, but the other members of the Commission 
have given this a long, hard look, and a lot of serious 
thought. This plan which we are evolving, and which we 
are asking the Court to approve is not one which was gotten 
up overnight. It was the result of a good many conferences 
with the members of my Commission and with other people.

Q. And have you conferred with the law enforcing offi­
cials of Memphis? A. Among other people we have con­
ferred with the law enforcing officials and have gotten their 
opinion on the matter.

— 128—
Q. And by that I mean the police authorities? A. Yes, 

sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, as Chairman of the Memphis Park 

Commission, do you feel that you and the other members 
of the Commission and Mr. Lewis are in a better position

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



55a

to determine what facilities should be opened up for use by 
all citizens than individual negroes or whites'? A. We 
think we are in a better position to make this determination, 
Mr. Prewitt, than any other citizen, negro or white.

—129—
Q. Now, in making your determination as to any given 

facility in the City on this question that we are concerned 
with, are there many matters which you feel must be con­
sidered? A. Yes, there are.

Q. What about the necessity for extra supervisors and 
employees in the areas which you integrate? A. We feel 
that upon integrating any facility it of course involves ad­
ditional personnel to make the transition period a smooth 
one.

Q. What about confusion or turmoil in the community? 
A. That is a very strong factor in our determination as to 
when and what facilities should be integrated.

Q. Now, is Memphis— of course, 1 think the Court can 
take judicial notice of it, but is Memphis peculiarly located 
in the south? A. It is in this respect, that we are— as I 
recall, we are probably two-thirds white and one-third 
colored, or about thirty-five—maybe thirty-five to sixty-five. 
We are located in the southwestern corner of the State of 
Tennessee, with the State of Arkansas immediately across 
the river and the State of Mississippi within five or six

—1 3 0 -
miles to the south of the city limits of the City of Memphis. 
And we feel that the surrounding area is probably more 
colored than there are white. And that these people make 
use of our facilities. And that our people—white people 
and all, a great many in here from this surrounding terri­
tory, and in that respect we are peculiarly situated.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



56a

Q. And if this matter of recreational integration is car­
ried too fast, because of the peculiar location of Memphis 
and the surrounding area, and the percentage of colored 
people, do you feel you would have a local situation which 
could result in considerable turmoil if you are not per­
mitted to carry out the program the way you plan to do 
it? A. The Park Commission thinks so.

Q. Now, what about the question of revenue from con­
cessions? Is that something that you have tried to consider, 
too? A. Well, of course that is also a factor. As Mr. Lewis 
has stated on his direct examination that about one-third 
of our budget we must earn that by the income from the 
facilities and other matters which we are operating for this 
function.

—131—
Q. Are you concerned— A. (Continuing) —Which is a 

very substantial amount of money, I believe somewhere 
in the neighborhood of three-quarters of a million dollars 
a year.

Q. Are you concerned also with providing the citizens 
of Memphis, both black and white, with maximum recrea­
tional facilities? A. Yes, we are.

Q. And can you do that, in your opinion, unless you are 
permitted some discretion as to how to go about this prob­
lem? A. That is correct.

Q. Are you advised as to the number of children that 
participate in the Park Commission’s recreational program 
yearly? A. We estimate for the year 1961 it will be prob­
ably a million children who are taking advantage of the 
facilities of the Recreation Department of the Park Com­
mission.

Q. And your experience is a third of that is colored? A. 
Our experience is a third of that is colored.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Direct



57a

The Court: While you are on that subject, what 
does the plan include with respect to playgrounds

—132—
and community centers ?

A. We have a plan on that, if the Court please, and I would 
rather for Mr. Hale, the Recreation Director there in the 
Park Commission—

The Court: Well, that is—

A. (Continuing) —Who is in better position to testify 
as to that than I am.

Mr. Prewitt: Mr. Hale will testify, if Your Honor 
please.

The Court: All right. This is not the full plan, 
then?

A. No, sir.

Mr. Prewitt: Mr. Hale has some matters that he 
will take up later.

—1 3 3 -
Cross Examination:

Q. Mr. Pierotti, I believe you are the Chairman of the 
Park Commission, is that correct? A. That’s right.

Q. And you are also a practicing attorney at the Mem­
phis and Shelby County Bar? A. That is correct, just as 
you are.

Q. And how long have you been practicing in Memphis? 
A. Since 1933.

Q. Since 1933. And I believe you have answered some 
questions on . the basis of your legal knowledge as well as

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



58a

the basis of being on the Park Commission? A. That is 
right, together with the advice which we obtain from our 
attorney.

Q. Mr. Pierotti, the matter of this deed to the Pink
—1 3 4 -

Palace, there is some talk of a revertal clause. Has any 
investigation been made as to who the grantors or his as­
signs are at this time? A. I am sure there is.

Mr. Gianotti: I think it is in the report, if  Your 
Honor please. It is in the report.

A. (Continuing) It is probably in Mr. Allen’s report to 
us, which I think you have a copy of there, which is made 
an exhibit to my testimony.

Q. Do you know what that report says about that? A. 
Don’t recall offhand, but I am sure, though,—

Q. Do you know who the grantor is in this?

Mr. Prewitt: Well, the deed will speak for itself, 
Your Honor please, who the grantor is.

A. The grantor was Garden Communities Corporation, a 
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ken­
tucky.

Q. Do you know whether that corporation exists now? 
A. No, I don’t.

Q. So you have no knowledge whatsoever of whether 
anyone is asserting this right of forfeiture contained in the

—1 3 5 -
deed? A. It would be safe to assume somebody would 
claim that valuable piece of property out there.

Q. So you yourself will not be able to say as to when 
that corporation'—as to whether or not this corporation is

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



59a

still in existence? A. I can tell you personally I do not 
know.

Q. You didn’t know of your own knowledge? A. I can 
tell you personally I do not know.

Q. You haven’t examined— A. I haven’t examined.
Q. Is that covenant in fact being breached at the present 

time ? A. In my opinion it is not.
Q. Is there a day for negroes at the Pink Palace? A. I 

think it is Tuesday for negroes.
Q. Does the deed require occasional use only? A. I think 

that is purely incidental and a minor factor which the 
grantors have not taken advantage of.

Q. Maybe you don’t understand my language. You feel 
that this deed is being breached now? A. No, I don’t.

— 136—
Q. No? A. Because it is not in general use by people 

other than the Caucasian race.
Q. Well, don’t the conditions say that it would be used 

by Caucasians only? Is that not the condition contained in 
the deed? A. That is the condition of the deed.

Q. So that is not being followed by the Park Commis­
sion ? A. That is not being strictly followed at this time.

Q. Now, there has been no investigation made as far as 
you know, as Chairman of the Park Commission, as to 
whether or not there is in existence now this corporation 
that deeded this property in 1926? A. I have no personal 
knowledge of that. Perhaps Mr. Allen may tell you. I  don’t 
know.

Q. Has there been any complaint made by the grantor 
about negroes using this place on Tuesday?
A. Well, there has not been made to me as Chairman of the 
Park Commission.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



60a

Q. You have no official knowledge of any complaint? A. 
I have not.

Q. (Continuing) —Being made. Of course, are you 
aware of how many deeds that the City has containing any 
restrictive covenant based upon use by others than— A. 
I don’t have that information; no, I do not.

— 137—
Q. I believe your testimony is that twenty-five parks are 

integrated? A. Twenty-one, I think.
Q. Twenty-one. Do any of those parks have— Were 

they by gift? A. No, to my knowledge they do not have 
any restrictions or limitations.

Q. Then the twenty-one parks are being used in an inte­
grated manner— they do not have any restrictive conditions 
therein? A. That is my understanding.

Q. That leaves one hundred and ten other facilities be­
sides those twenty-one; is that correct? A. Roughly about 
one hundred and thirty now.

Q. Roughly about one hundred and thirty now. One hun­
dred and ten out of one hundred and thirty? A. That is 
right.

Q. Of the hundred and ten, about how many have restric­
tive deeds— restrictive clauses dealing with use by others— 
A. As I told you a minute ago, I do not know.

Q. Does the Park Commission have any type record on 
this in the file? A. To my knowledge they do not,

—138—
Q. There is no record kept, as you—as far as you know? 

A. As far as I know, they don’t have that.
Q. Do you know of any other park other than the Pink 

Palace, which you have answered on this, which is covered 
by the memorandum prepared by Mr. Allen that has any 
clause with revertal in the event it is used by other than

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



61a

of the Caucasian race ? A. Yes, there is Gooch Park, which 
I mentioned a while ago, has a reverter clause in it if used 
by anybody other than colored people.

Q. As an attorney, Mr. Pierotti, are you familiar with 
the Supreme Court ruling in the Gerard College case in 
Philadelphia? Do you feel the Park Commission has a 
legal right to operate a park under a covenant restricting 
its use to certain—to a certain race? A. Well, there were 
two decisions in the Gerard case, I think. One was, as I 
recall it, that you could not, and the later I think there was 
some confusion and they said they could.

Am I correct on that? I am not as up on this racial 
law as probably you are.

Q. Was the decision, as far as you recall, that the City 
or State—no agency of the State or City could operate—

— 139
A. That is my recollection, yes.

Q. And the City and State could not use that—that prop­
erty as long as the City or State agency had any control? 
A. That is my recollection. The City of Philadelphia, I 
understand.

Q. In other words, the City had to divest itself to keep 
anyone out? A. That is correct.

Q. Is that the case ? A. I think so.
Q. In the event that some discussion here—and only ask 

it because the question was raised in direct examination,— 
that should be found, in other things, that the law is clear 
that the City Park Commission would not be involved— 
they could not operate under present law any park with 
covenants restricting use of the land? A. I just give you 
my opinion. I think you are correct in your interpretation 
of the law.

Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, at these integrated parks have

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



62a

there been great incidents of violence ? A. In the integrated 
parks there has not.

Q. What leads yon to believe there would be disorder, if
— 140—

twenty-one integrated, what leads you to think there might? 
A. I tell you what leads me to believe that. Every time a 
facility of the Park Commission is open to all races, I  per­
sonally receive a large number of anonymous letters and 
telephone calls to my home from white people in which 
they excoriate me. And why they pick me I don’t know. 
But for a time because—well, there has been threats to 
me personally about integrating these parks. And I am of 
the opinion that with Memphis’ peculiar location we may 
have bloodshed here.

Let me say this, let me say this to you that as far as I 
am personally concerned, I am going to abide by the rules 
of this court or get off the Park Commission, because I 
want no incidents here like they have had in other parts of 
the south. And I believe that we can live better as a people 
if you permit us to desegregate these things on a gradual 
basis. Because there is not any facility that is operated 
by the City, although perhaps not as close—the nearest to 
home, that is, but there is not a facility that a colored per­
son can’t take advantage of as well as the whites.

Q. Now, I am concerned with your phrase “ with the
- 1 4 1 -

peculiar position of Memphis” . I don’t quite follow you 
on “with the peculiar position of Memphis” . A. By that I 
mean with the surrounding territory is predominantly 
colored.

Q. Do you think that because they are colored they would 
promote violence? A. I think so.

Q. You say that because there are a lot of negroes who

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



63 a

live around Memphis to open the parks that in and of 
itself would.promote violence? A. I think because of our 
peculiar location I think it would.

Q. What about our peculiar location. I don’t get wThat— 
you just say peculiar location. A. I think Memphis is 
singularly located. By that I mean we are surrounded by 
communities that are predominantly colored, in my opinion. 
I think over in Arkansas, perhaps Crittenden County there 
close you will find predominantly colored. I think they are 
predominantly colored. I believe Desoto County down in 
Mississippi, Fayette County and Tipton County in Ten­
nessee.

Q. You think are going to come here and start fights or 
violence? A. No, I don’t say that. I hope not.

— 142—
But by just having your predominance of the population 

are colored, and I think it would have a bad effect to open 
up all the parks in the community, all the facilities in the 
community in the park system. I think it -would.

Q. Then other than the people who—the neighboring 
towns and all the spots close to Memphis,—where taxes are 
paid to maintain these parks,—but surrounding communi­
ties outside of Memphis? A. I am basing it on what I 
think would happen in the event every facility in the park 
system is desegregated at one time.

Q. Are you saying that you think white people in this 
community would promote violence? A. I would say that 
it would be on the part of both people in this community.

Q. And the peculiar location,-—-when you say the peculiar 
location of Memphis? A. But I think this is a situation 
which I think would be bad.

Q. You think that the people in this community and the

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



64a

surrounding community are more ignorant than people in 
these other—in other communities? A. I don’t say that. 
I think people would feel maybe different.

—143—
Q. Are they more prejudiced? Is that what you mean? 

A. They possibly could be.
■ Q. Are they more prone to violence than the people 

would be in other communities ? A. I don’t say that.
Q. Contrasting Memphis with Nashville, do you think 

Memphis could not open up its parks as Nashville did? 
A. I went to school in Nashville. First, I think the popula­
tion—maybe not as great a percentage of white and colored. 
And got a different element of people in Nashville than us. 
Got very few people from Arkansas and Mississippi'—got 
very few people from Arkansas in Nashville and got very 
few people from Mississippi in Nashville.

Q. You say because of this, the Arkansas and Mississippi, 
— is there something peculiar about people from Arkansas 
and Mississippi to make them more prejudiced in the mat­
ter? A. I wouldn’t say that. Just say you have a different 
feeling than the people of middle Tennessee have.

Q. Does it involve racial prejudice? A. Correct, or one 
thing I think towards promoting violence here quicker than

—144—
it would in Nashville.

Q. But your statement is—has there been any bloodshed 
because of the integration of the twenty-five parks you 
mentioned already to this date ? A. No, because we are tak­
ing it on a gradual basis. That is why we—relations have 
been good.

Q. Now, you have stated in your direct examination that 
the Park Commission has conferred with the members of 
the Commission, with the police authorities and with other

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



65a

people in relation to this question of desegregation. Is 
that right ? And— A. That is correct.

Q. Have you conferred with any negroes on the ques­
tion? A. Yes, I think some. I have forgotten the name of 
the group. We met with them several weeks ago. There 
was a negro minister present. I have forgotten—I think 
he is a professor at Lemoyne College.

Q. What was the discussion? Was it about the question 
of desegregation? A. About the question of desegregation 
of parks.

Mr. Prewitt: That was Professor Nichols.
Mr. Gianotti: Eeverend Nichols.

Q. That is his name ?

Mr. Prewitt: That is what he suggested, to open
- 1 4 5 -

up this on a gradual program ?

A. It is my recollection it was.
Q. Mr. Pierotti, I notice this plan you had presented 

deals with golf courses. And I believe statement has been 
made the question herein also goes—deals with some other 
aspects, is that correct ? A. That is correct.

Q. Is the plan—as Chairman of the Park Commission do 
you have knowledge of whether or not there is a plan to 
desegregate all public facilities in the City of Memphis? 
A. Eventually, yes.

Q. Do you have an idea of how long that eventuality is? 
A. No, we do not have.

Q. In particular, Glenview Park and Gaston Community 
Center? A. We have not discussed particularly any park. 

Q. You have not discussed parks in particular, only dis­

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



66a

cussed golf courses in particular! A. As a starter, that 
is correct.

Q. Without going into the detail, do you have general 
knowledge of what Mr. Hale is going to discuss! A. No. 
As a matter of fact, I talked to him very briefly about it. 

Q. With reference to formulation by the Park Commis-
— 146-

mission, or formulation by Mr. Hale, that is— A. I be­
lieve Mr. Hale’s formulation—he can’t formulate unless we 
can approve it.

Q. He has, Mr. Pierotti, his plan, then, and you approve, 
I guess? A. He has spoken to me and I think it is all 
right.

Q. Generally what does he cover? A. Recreation.
Q. Does that cover parks, neighborhood parks, the facili­

ties? A. That is correct.
Q. Does it cover all one hundred and one parks operated 

by the Park Commission in the City? A. No, it does not.
Q. Are you at liberty to say the area it does not cover? 

A. Well, for instance, Mr. Hale has nothing to do with the 
zoo. He has nothing to do with the Art Gallery. He has 
nothing to do with the Museum. He has nothing to do with 
several other things that do not—

Q. What is his—what field does he cover? A. Recrea­
tion.

Q. And by recreation, does that include parks like Gas-
— 147-

ton Park? A. It would include Gaston Park, yes.
Q. With reference to Gaston and Glenview Park, have 

they been discussed as possible target dates for desegrega­
tion ? A. Not that I know of.

Q. Are you familiar with, Mr. Pierotti, with legal au­
thorities dealing with loss of revenue and the threat of

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



67a

violence as it affects the question of desegregation of facili­
ties f A. In a general way, yes.

Q. In a general way. And you are familiar with the 
fact that it has been held that loss of finances—

—148—
Q. Mr. Pierotti, is the plan of the Park Commission 

based, Mr. Pierotti, on the levelling off of economic loss? 
A. That is just one of the factors.

Q. That is one of the factors, the levelling off of eco­
nomic losses. Is the plan of the Park Commission partially 
based on the possibility of threat of violence? A. That is 
another factor.

Q. Are other factors in considering the plan? A. Sub­
stantially, these are the two main factors, I believe, of 
the group.

Q. Then you are aware that neither of these factors are 
legal and valid for presentation of a plan?

—149—
Mr. Prewitt: I object to that.

A. I suppose we—

Mr. Prewitt: The Court has suggested about legal 
argument. I don’t agree with you, but we can argue 
the law later, whether or not these are proper fac­
tors.

The Court: Mr. Pierotti has testified a considera­
tion of these things entered into the plan here. And 
since that is the case, the Court will permit some 
cross-examination along those lines.

The Witness: Suppose you read it back.

(The last question was read again by the reporter, 
as requested.)

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



68a

A. I am aware of the fact that those are things that should 
be consideerd by the Court in determining whether or not 
this plan should be approved.

— 150—
Q. Is it your opinion, then, Mr. Pierotti, that the Park 

Commission has a right to ask this Court to approve the 
plan? A. Yes, I think this Court has the right to approve 
a plan.

Q. Now, in reference to these figures on the users of the 
golf courses— of the golf players that have been prepared, 
do you have a copy of that ? A. Yes.

Q. I believe that Douglass Park was opened in ’52; is 
that correct? How long— A. It so states here, that is 
correct.

Q. And prior to that time, as far as you know, were any 
provisions made for negro golfers in Memphis, Shelby 
County, Tennessee? A. Yes, they had about a seven hole 
golf course out at Lincoln Park.

Q. How long had they been in operation? Do you 
know? A. It was open when I got there, when I came on 
the Park Commission, best of my recollection be 1947.

Q. And noticing those figures, has there been somewhat 
of an increase in the number of Douglass Park users for 
the time it has been in operation? A. Well,—

—151—
Q. Three thousand something the first year ? A. I  would 

say as a whole— as a matter of fact, for 1960 Douglass Park 
had its worst year since ’55.

Q. And then you had Fuller Park also, did you? A. 
Yes, sir. You asked me particularly about Douglass.

Q. That I understand. I am not contradicting your 
statement. But didn’t you have Fuller Park in 1958? A.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—-Cross



69a

The Fuller Park was operated—I think it opened in ’58. 
I think I drove the first hall off tee at Fuller Park.

Q. In ’60 the two parks, could use these figures, twelve 
thousand negroes—golfers using the course, is that right? 
A. That is correct.

Q. In 1952, according to your statement, the first year 
when Douglass was first opened, you only had three thou­
sand approximately eight hundred negro golfers, is that 
correct? A. In 1952?

Attorney Hooks: Yes.

A. That is correct.
Q. So that there has been a gradual increase of golfers 

as facilities have been made available. Would that be a fair
- 1 5 2 -

inference made from that statement? A. That is true.
Q. Is it your testimony here that negroes do not use the 

golf courses as much as whites use them, is that untrue? 
A. I think that—I would say that is true, they do not use 
them as much.

Q. Do you think the availability of golf courses has had 
anything to do with that? A. Very little. I f  a fellow 
wants to play golf he will find a place to play.

Q. Now, Mr. Pierotti, I believe you stated that as far 
as you know you have no present knowledge of any of the 
one hundred thirty-one facilities that the Park Commission 
operates having this reverter clause, none except the one 
that you discussed here, the Pink Palace, is that correct? 
A. That is the only one that has been called directly to 
our attention, and that was called to our attention not by 
virtue of—let me say, not by virtue of the fact that we 
opened up the facilities, but, as I said, because Mr. Allen 
was asked to give an opinion on another matter.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross



70a

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Cross

—153—
Q. As a member of the Park Commission, as Chairman, 

you are, you have stated that you are willing to follow 
what the Court says in this matter? A. I certainly am.

Q. And you do not know in detail the facilities that are 
in the plan of the Park Commission for desegregation.

In relation to John Rogers Tennis Court, do you know 
about that specifically? A. What is it you want to know 
about it ?

I know about the John Gaston Tennis Court, yes.
Q. John Rogers. A. John Rogers, yes.
As I said in my statement, we hope to accelerate these 

facilities, and we will re-evaluate them from time to time, 
re-evaluate the conditions and the factors that I testified 
to a moment ago.

Q. Has there been a plan for additional reviewing of 
negroes at the Pink Palace? A. No, there has not been, 
because of this possible reverter.

Q. If Your Honor please, I would like to direct a ques­
tion to the witness through the Court.

— 154—
I would like to know the time that Mr. Pierotti plans to be 

back in Memphis. A. I will be back Sunday evening, no 
later than 9 :00 o ’clock Sunday.

Attorney Hooks: I believe that is all.
The Court: You are through?
Attorney Hooks: Yes.
If Your Honor please, the reason I hesitate is that 

so many parts of this plan have not been presented, 
and until the officers are in position to present it, 
we are not in position, actually, to know what the 
totality of it is, and if the other members and other



71a

officers know all this, I guess we wTon’t have to call 
Mr. Pierotti to the stand, and I would like to ask 
that question. I hope that Your Honor understands 
what I am trying to say. They have only presented 
a portion of the plan.

The Court: Is this a business trip you are taking?
The Witness: Yes, it is. It’s a director’s meeting,

—155—
which was set many months ago, before this lawsuit 
was set, as a matter of fact.

By Attorney Hooks:

Q. Do you feel, Mr. Pierotti, that the other members 
of the Commission and employees of the Park Commission 
will be in position to answer all the questions? A. I am 
sure that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Hale can answer any question, 
possibly better and with more clarity than I can.

Q. They know more about it, as a mater of fact? A. As 
a matter of fact, they do. I am not a paid employee. I  am 
supposed to get a dollar a year, but they are about six 
years delinquent in paying me that dollar. We make policy. 
We don’t carry out the details of the policy.

—156—
Redirect Examination:

Q. Mr. Pierotti, on the reasons which counsel for the 
plaintiffs asked you about, that is why you evolved this 
plan, I will ask you if you are mindful of providing maxi­
mum recreational facilities for all of the people? A. For 
all of our people, that’s right, sir.

Q. And do you feel that this gradual program is neces­
sary in order to accomplish that objective? A. That’s 
right, sir.

Harry Pierotti—for Defendants—Redirect



72a

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct

Q. And if you are forced into a situation where you have 
to do it right now, will it affect the recreational facilities 
available to all of our people? A. It will, and I am sure 
Mr. Hale can elaborate on that.

Q. And you want to keep them going at maximum speed? 
A. For all of our people, yes.

Q. And it is so set out in this written plan that is Exhibit 
4 to your testimony? A. It is.

Mr. Prewitt: That is all.
-159—

H. S. L ewis

The next witness, having been previously duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. Mr. Lewis, I believe you were sworn yesterday? A. 
Yes, sir, that’s right.

Q. How long have you been Superintendent or Director 
of the Memphis Park System? A. Just slightly less than 
sixteen years.

Q. And that is the last sixteen years ? A. Right, sir.
Q. During that period of time you have been the operat-

—160—
ing head of the Memphis park system? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That includes the various parks, playgrounds, golf 
courses and other facilities you mentioned yesterday? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Now has this park system grown since you became the 
head it it ? A. Considerably, yes.



73a

Q. New parks have been added every year? A. That’s 
right.

Q. It has more or less maintained its growth with the 
City of Memphis ? A. Eight.

Q. As we all are aware, in the last sixteen years the City 
of Memphis has grown considerably! A. That’s right.

Q, It has added about 150,000 people.
Now what, if you know, is the approximate ratio or per­

centage of negroes to whites in the city of Memphis! A. 
Thirty-seven percent.

A. A  little over one-third of the people in Memphis are 
colored! A. Eight.

—161—
Q. That is taken, I believe, from the last census? A. 

Eight, sir.
Q. Now yesterday you introduced into evidence several 

documents which showed the names of various parks and 
facilities which are either owned by the City of Memphis 
and operated by the Park Commission, or owned by others 
and operated by the Park Commission? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now taking these facilities more or less one at a time, 
I want to address your attention first to the golf courses.

I believe that you stated there are seven golf courses in 
the city of Memphis that are operated by the Park Commis­
sion? A. That is correct.

Q. And Mr. Pierotti introduced in evidence a sheet, Ex­
hibit 4, which I believe was compiled by you showing the 
number of golf players in the city of Memphis during the 
last ten years ? A. Eight.

Q. And is that Exhibit 4 an accurate statement of golf 
players on the different courses? A. Yes, it was taken

—162—

E. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct

directly from our daily records.



74a

Q. Now as indicated by this statement the number of 
colored players in 1960 was approximately five percent of 
the total golf players in the city of Memphis? A. That’s 
right.

Q. Are you a golfer yourself? A. Yes, of sorts.
Q. Have you played on all the public courses in the city 

of Memphis? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are familiar with all the white and colored 

golf courses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the best golf course in Memphis? A. The 

best one is Fuller.
Q. That is for negro use? A. Eight.
Q. Is it potentially one of the best courses in the United 

States? A. It is potentially so.
Q. Is it being developed toward that potential? A. It is.

— 163—
Q. You heard Mr. Pierotti testify with regard to the 

plans for opening all the golf courses to both the colored 
and white races to all players? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Beginning in 1962? A. Eight.
Q. From your experience in dealing with golfers, and 

as operating head of the Park Commission, and from stud­
ies made in other cities, do you believe this plan evolved 
by the Park Commission to open up the golf courses is one 
that is least likely to cause confusion and turmoil, and to 
maintain golf facilities so a maximum number of people in 
Memphis, both of the white and negro race, can use them? 
A. I do, sir.

Q. To your knowledge has any colored person in Mem­
phis ever been denied the right to play golf on either Fuller 
or Douglas golf courses? A. They have not.

Q. Fuller is in South Memphis? A. Yes.
Q. The southwestern portion of Memphis? A. Eight.

II. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



75a

H. 8. Lewis— for Defendants—Direct

— 164—
Q. Douglas is in the northern portion of Memphis, is 

that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, so much for the golf courses, but one other ques­

tion.
Do you feel, Mr. Lewis, as managing head of the Park 

Commission, that it would be unwise to attempt to open all 
the golf courses to both races at the same time? A. I cer­
tainly do.

Q. Have you discussed this matter with the police au­
thorities of Memphis? A. I have.

Q. Have you made a study of recreational facilities of 
other cities in the country, including the south? A. I have.

Q. Based on all of your studies and your experience as 
operating head of the Memphis park system, that is for 
the last sixteen years, in your opinion is that the best plan? 
A. I think it is, in my opinion. Yes.

Q. Now I want to go to the Fairgrounds Amusement 
Park.

Is the Fairgrounds Amusement Park operated by the 
Park Commission except for a period when the Mid-South

- 1 6 5 -
Fair holds its fair? A. It is.

Q. Is the amusement park open all the year around? 
A. No, it is open only in the spring and summer months.

Q. Now does the Park Commission grant concession 
rights for certain amusement devices in the amusement 
park? A. Amusement devices and game and food conces­
sions.

Q. And those— the rental on those is based on a percent­
age of the gross receipts? A. In most cases.

Q. And the equipment or amusement devices in many 
cases are owned by individual persons? A. Right.



76a

Q. Are there many such persons in the Fairgrounds 
Amusement Park who own and operate their own devices 
and have contracted with the Park Commission? A. Quite 
a number.

Q. Do you know whether or not many of these people 
depend solely on the resources from these as their only 
means of livelihood? A. They do.

Q. Do you feel it would be unwise to attempt to change 
any policy with reference to the Fairgrounds Amusement

- 166-

Park in the middle of the year? A. It would be very defi­
nitely bad.

Q. In your opinion would it affect the contract rights and 
revenue of these people who have contracted with the Park 
Commission? A. It would definitely affect their revenue.

Q. Do you feel it would be fair to these people to change 
a system which has gone on for many years in the middle 
of a season? A. It would not, in my opinion.

Q. You heard Mr. Pierotti state that it is part of the 
plan to remove all restrictions in the amusement park at 
the end of this year ? A. Eight.

Q. In your opinion is that a wise policy for the Park 
Commission to pursue? A. It is. Yes.

Q. Is there only one amusement park operated by the 
Park Commission? A. At present, yes.

Q. Of course at the Zoo there are certain rides and 
amusement devices? A. That is correct.

— 167—

Q. As testified by Mr. Pierotti, the Overton Park Zoo 
has already— all restrictions about admittance of colored 
as well as white has been removed? A. Eight.

Q. So that both races may be admitted to the Overton 
Park Zoo at any time the Zoo is open? A. Eight.

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



77a

Q. And that restriction was voluntarily removed by the 
Park Commission in December of 1960? A. The day after 
Thanksgiving, 1960.

Q. And the art gallery in Overton Park, the restriction 
there was likewise removed a few months ago on a volun­
tary basis? A. Eight.

Q. And the restrictions with reference to the use of Park 
Commission facilities at McKellar Lake were removed 
voluntarily? A. Eight.

Q. Now are there any other facilities operated by the 
Park Commission such as the Zoo, art gallery, amusement 
park, McKellar Lake boat dock and such, which I referred 
to yesterday as city-wide facilities, which are not available

—168—
to all the races ? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. So that the Park Commission has made available all 
facilities to both races in the city of Memphis without any 
discrimination. A. Yes.

Q. Now let us go to the individual parks which you 
testified to yesterday.

I believe there are some one hundred thirty-one parks, 
but approximately twenty-three or so have not been de­
veloped ? A. Eight.

Q. When you say it has not been developed you mean 
it is raw land to which no use has been put? A. To the 
present time. Yes.

Q. Has it been the policy of the Park Commission over 
the years to acquire land for future development? A. It 
has.

Q. So that—in other words it has been the policy of the 
Park Commission to acquire land before the area around 
it is developed? A. Eight.

II. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



78a

Q. That way it is less expensive. I mean, the land can 
be acquired at less expense by the city? A. That is correct.

— 169—
Q. Let’s turn our attention to the parks that have been 

developed.
I believe that number is a little over a hundred? A. 

Eight.
Q. Mr. Lewis, there has been alleged in this complaint 

that the Park Commission has operated the park system 
so as to discriminate against negroes, and that the facili­
ties offered negroes in the Memphis park system have been 
disproportionate to the number of negroes that live in Mem­
phis, and I want to go over that with you just a minute.

First of all, I want to ask you if the city of Memphis— 
if, in the city of Memphis, the races are separated housing 
wise? A. They are separated housing wise by neighbor­
hoods. Yes, sir.

— 170—

Q. And do the races, for the most part, in the City of 
Memphis live in neighborhoods which are either totally or 
predominantly negro or white, as the case may be? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Now, the various parks which you mentioned yester­
day, are they or not in practically every instance neighbor­
hood parks? A. They are.

Q. And where you say that the park is white in character, 
in practically every instance, is such park in a neighbor­
hood which is totally or predominantly white? A. In prac­
tically every case, yes.

Q. And has it been the policy of the Park Commission 
over the years to make available neighborhood parks to 
each race, based upon the character of the neighborhoods? 
A. It has.

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



79a

Q. And if a neighborhood is predominantly or totally 
negro, has it been the policy of the Park Commission to 
offer that facility to the negroes? A. It has.

— 171—
Q. And, conversely, to the whites, where the situation 

is reversed? A. It has.
Q. Now, has the City of Memphis, over the years that 

you have been the operating head of the Park Commission, 
insofar as neighborhoods are concerned, been a static situ­
ation, or has there been a changing situation? A. There 
has been a changing situation in several neighborhoods.

Q. And as neighborhoods change, as they change from 
white to colored or vice versa, has the Park Commission 
tried to stay on top of that change and to recognize it so 
as to provide facilities for the people who live in the im­
mediate neighborhoods? A. They have.

Q. Now, at the present time, Mr. Lewis, has such a 
change been under consideration by the Park Commission 
in view of the changing character of the neighborhoods 
around these parks—DeSoto, Bellevue, John Gaston with 
community center, Brinkley, Malone with swimming pool, 
and Riverside Playgrounds? A. There has been.

—172—
Q. And in your opinion, as operating head of the Park 

Commission, will those parks in the near future, in con­
formance with your practice, be opened up for use by the 
negroes? A. It is my opinion it would be necessary.

Q. Your answer is yes? A. Yes.
Q. One of the witnesses yesterday, I believe, testified 

with reference to John Gaston Park. I believe she said she 
took her eight children down there. I have forgotten what 
the witness’ name was, but she testified on the stand.

That is one of the parks to which you refer, is it not? 
A. Right.

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



80a

Q. And is that park in a neighborhood which is showing 
a change as to race! A. That has been changing the past 
several years, yes.

Q. And have you tried in operating the park system to 
recognize those changes, so as to provide facilities for as 
many negroes as possible? A. We have.

Q. Now, to recapitulate, at the present time there are 
fifty-eight white parks and twenty-five colored parks and

—173—
twenty-five parks that are open to both races without any 
restrictions? A. Eight.

Q. And that present ratio, of course, will be changed as 
these neighborhoods change and these parks which we just 
mentioned are opened to negroes and restrictions removed 
so that they may use those parks? A. That ratio will 
change, yes.

Q. Now, swimming pools—there are ten in the City of 
Memphis, five for white and five for colored? A. Right.

Q. And this Malone Park is one of the parks on the list 
here that we mentioned that is in a neighborhood which is 
changing? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And if that is changing, it will be six to four? A. 
Right.

Q. So that the colored people will have sixty percent of 
the pools? A. That is correct.

Q. Although only thirty-seven percent of the population.
Do you consider that discriminating against the colored

—1 7 4 -
people in providing less facilities? A. Certainly not.

Q. Now, on playgrounds operated on property not owned 
by the Park Commission, I believe you mentioned some 
fifty-six instances—in some cases they are owned by 
churches? A. Right.

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



8 1 a

Q. Various churches, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish? 
A. Right.

Q. And the Park Commission works with those organiza­
tions, do they? A. They work for them to provide neigh­
borhood playgrounds.

Q. Both colored and white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As well as with the various schools? A. Right.
Q. Colored and white? A. Right.
Q. And I believe you mentioned that there were thirty 

instances of playgrounds where the facilities were white 
and twenty-six for colored? A. Right.

— 175—
Q. Do you consider that is discriminating against the 

colored people in providing facilities for their recreational 
use? A. I do not.

Q. Now, community centers—I believe you said there 
were twelve on Park property, eight for white and four for 
colored, and, of course, if your recommendation or opinion 
is followed out in the near future, the Gaston Community 
Center will be opened for colored use? A. Right.

Q. And that would change the ratio from seven to five! 
A. Right.

Q. And, of course, we have already mentioned the golf 
courses where your plan is to, on a gradual basis, make 
all of those available to all the citizens without any restric­
tions at all? A. Right.

Q. Now, Mr. Lewis, the recreational director of the Mem­
phis Park Commission is Mr. Marion Hale, is that right? 
A. Yes.

Q. And he is charged with the obligation of heading the 
recreational department under your general supervision?

—176—

H. 8. Leivis—for Defendants—Direct

A. Right.



82a

Q. Now, how many children make use of the recreational 
facilities operated by the Memphis Park Commission! A. 
Approximately a hundred thousand.

Q. And of that number, I take it, approximately a third 
or thirty-five percent are colored? A. Eight.

Q. And has it been your practice to provide to those 
colored children some thirty-five thousand maximum recre­
ational facilities ? A. It has.

Q. And do you offer to those colored children the same 
recreational facilities and training that you offer to the 
white children! A. We do.

Q. What about the supervisors, the people that train the 
children, colored children, are they on the same pay scale 
as everybody else ? A. Exactly.

Q. Their educational background and requirements, is 
that equal to or above that of the whites ? A. It is.

— 177—

Q. And do you feel, Mr. Lewis, that in order to provide 
maximum recreational facilities to those thirty-five thou­
sand negro children that this program which Mr. Pierotti 
spoke about yesterday should be approved so as to allow 
you some discretion in this field of integration? A. I do, 
sir.

Q. Now, if you are forced to integrate this great system 
that you and others have built up over the years, in your 
opinion, will it affect these negro children, result in a 
denial to them of the recreational facilities that you have 
built up for them over the years? A. I don’t see how it 
can help but affect them.

Mr. Prewitt: Yes.
The Court: You mean if forced to do it now, is 

that what you mean ?

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



83a

Q. If you are forced to integrate all of these recreational 
facilities, in your opinion, Mr. Lewis, based on your deal­
ings with white and negro alike, would that result in a 
denial to these thirty-five thousand negro children of sub­
stantial recreational facilities which they have been en­
joying? A. In my opinion, it will, yes.

Q. Why do you think that is true, Mr. Lewis, and I
— 178—

will ask you first if you are forced into that situation now 
without being able to exercise any discretion of your own, 
would you have to have more or less supervisors and in­
structors? A. You would have to have considerably more.

Q. What about policemen to patrol the various play­
grounds and parks? A. In my opinion, we would have to 
have considerably more policemen.

Q. Since opening up the Zoo, have you had to increase 
the police protection there? A. We have.

Q. And if every other facility in Memphis were opened 
up, in your opinion, would it also have to be increased? A. 
It would.

Q. And would that or not be a burden upon all the people 
of the City of Memphis? A. It would be a tremendous 
burden, yes.

Q. In your opinion, Mr. Lewis, is it going to take con­
siderable time and a whole lot of patience and understand­
ing for you and the other people who head the Park Com­
mission to try to work out this problem of racial integration

- 1 7 9 -
in the public parks? A. It will, quite a bit.

Q. Is it your desire to offer to every negro child in 
Memphis the same treatment, the same facilities that are 
offered to the white people ? A. That is what we try to do 
to the best of our ability.

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



84a

Q. And is that the established policy of the Park Com­
mission? A. That is the policy, yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Lewis, have yon worked with children quite 
a bit in your capacity as head of the Park Commission! A. 
I have.

Q. And the Park Commission is necessarily closely re­
lated and deals closely with many children, as you men­
tioned, about a hundred thousand? A. Right.

Q. If the recreational program of the Memphis Park 
Commission is impaired by forced integration, what effect, 
in your opinion, would that have on these thirty-five thou­
sand negro children and sixty-five thousand white children? 
A. We would have to, under the present budget, reduce the

—ISO-
number of playgrounds drastically in order to give them 
full protection.

Q. And would that, or not, result in a denial of recre­
ational facilities to a great number of children, white and 
negro ? A. It would.

Q. And in your opinion, would that have some relation 
to juvenile delinquency then? A. It certainly would.

Q. It speaks for itself, doesn’t it? A. Right.
Q. Do you try to keep as many children off the streets 

as you can during the summer vacation period? A. That 
is the purpose of our program, yes.

Q. And is one of the purposes of that to cut down on 
juvenile delinquency? A. It is, yes.

Q. For all children? A. All children.
Q. Now, Mr. Lewis, have you studied this problem in 

other cities in the country, both north and south? A. I 
have.

Q. And is your opinion based upon a survey of other

E. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Direct



85a

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross

- 1 8 1 -
cities as well as your experience here in the City of Mem­
phis for the last sixteen years? A. It is.

Q. Mr. Lewis, how does our recreational program and 
park system compare to other cities of comparable size in 
this country? A. We compare very favorably with cities 
all over the country. We are recognized as having the best 
recreational program in the south.

Q. When you say recognized as having the best recre­
ational program in the south, who recognizes that? A. 
That is by the American Institute of Park Executives, the 
Park Commission and Recreation National Organization.

Q. And is that a recognized national organization that 
rates the various systems? A. It is.

Q. And Memphis is No. 1 in the south? A. Right.
Q. Do you want to keep it that way? A. I certainly do, 

sir.
Q. For all the people? A. For all the people.

—182—
Cross Examination:

Q. Mr. Lewis, I believe you say you have connected with 
the park system for about sixteen years, is that correct? 
A. That is correct.

Q. What is your present title? A. Director of Parks.
Q. How long have you held that title? A. My title was 

changed just recently. I have been Superintendent of 
Parks that entire period.

Q. You started with the Park Commission as Super­
intendent of Parks? A. That’s right.

Q. Did you have prior experience in this type of work 
before you went with the Memphis Park Commission? A. 
I had considerable experience with boys in recreation 
work, and the Boy Scouts.



86a

Q. To your knowledge, have negro golfers been denied the 
last three or four years the right to play golf on certain 
public golf courses in the City of Memphis ? A. They have.

— 183—

Q. And you stated, I believe, that there were some 
integrated facilities, integrated parks operated by the 
Park Commission, is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. I believe one of them is Court Square? A. That’s 
right.

Q. Do they have toilets for negroes in Court Square? 
A. No.

Q. Do they have toilets for whites in Court Square? A. 
They do.

Q. Are negroes permitted to use those? A. No.
Q. They have one toilet there ? A. That is right.
Q. As a matter of fact, they have two, one for women 

and one for men? A. One for women and one for men, yes.
— 184—

Q. Are they marked “ For White Only” ? A. I am not 
sure about that.

Q. Under your policy of equal facilities, have you made 
any provisions or arrangements to put toilets for negroes 
in Court Square? A. We have not.

Q. How long has Court Square been integrated? A. I 
couldn’t answer that accurately; it has been some time.

Q. Was there any publicity given to the fact that it had 
been integrated? A. No.

Q. Was there any way that negroes could know that they 
had a right to use Court Square? A. Except they used it 
and weren’t chased.

Q. In other words, if I get your statement correctly, 
they can use any place where the police do not put them 
out ? A. How is that ?

H. S. Lewis-—for Defendants—Cross



87a

Q. I say they can use any place where the police do not 
put them out? Is that your statement? A. The police 
do not put them out there.

—185—
Q. I say if the police do not put them out of a particular 

park, then they are free to use it? A. Certainly.
Q. They would not know, according to your testimony, 

whether they are free to use it until the police asked them 
to get out? A. That could be.

Q. I believe you said that Confederate Park is an in­
tegrated facility ? A. That’s right.

Q. Are there any supervisors of recreation at Confeder­
ate Park? A. No. It is just a public park.

Q. Are there toilet facilities there? A. No, there are 
not.

Q. None at all? A. No.
Q. Have negroes been advised of their right to use Con­

federate Park? A. They have used it. Whether they have 
been advised or not is a good question.

Q. Does the Park Commission have any policy of pub­
lic announcement when they integrate a facility? A. The

- 1 8 6 -
Park Commission’s policy has been to avoid any trouble 
as to integrating without any fanfare, such as was done 
at the Zoo.

Q. But there was an announcement that the Zoo was 
desegregated, was there not? A. There was a very small 
announcement, yes.

Q. As to these other integrated facilities that, you men­
tioned in your testimony, has there been any announce­
ment that negroes could use them? A. There was no 
announcement that negroes could use them, nor was there 
an announcement that whites could use places that had been 
for negroes.

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



88a

Q. As I understand your testimony, the criteria is
— 187—

whether or not the police arrest you or run you out! A. I 
wouldn’t say that.

Q. What is the criteria! A. The criteria is the parks 
are open to all races and they use them.

Q. How would the members of the public know that the 
parks are open to all races if there is no announcement 
made? A. By usage.

Q. If the police don’t run you out, as you said before? 
A. By usage.

Q. You are saying that we are free to go to any park 
in the City of Memphis that we wish to go to, as long as 
no one runs us out, is that your testimony? A. As long 
as no one asks you to leave.

Q. We are free to go to all of them as long as no one 
asks us to leave ? A. Yes.

Q. At the point that we are asked to leave, then what 
is the policy? A. We are still operating under a segre­
gated park system in that case, and we would ask you to

— 188-

leave, and if you caused trouble by not leaving, we would 
then call the police.

Q. Who would have the authority to ask us to leave, 
any member of the public, or would it have to be an 
employee of the Park Department or the Police? A. Cer­
tainly any member of the public could ask you, but it would 
have to be park personnel to have any authority as far as 
the Park Commission is concerned.

Q. Are you familiar with the location of Glenview 
Park? A. I am.

Q. Negroes could go there and use that if they are not 
asked to leave? A. They would be asked to leave.

Q. They would be asked to leave? A. That’s right.

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



89a

Q. Who would ask them to leave? A. The Director of 
the park or the police.

Q. I f  they peacefully refused to leave, what would be 
the followup procedure of the Park Commission? A. After 
being asked in every nice way known, the Park Directors 
are instructed to call the Park Police.

—189—
Q. And have the negroes arrested? A. Have them forci­

bly ejected or arrested, yes.
Q. Now, you were asked the question by counsel do you 

consider it discriminating when negroes—-I think that’s the 
word he used— and whites have a certain number of parks 
available to them based on their percentage. Of course, I 
pronounce the word negroes. Do you think it is discriminat­
ing against negroes to prevent them from using the park 
to which they live next door? A. When it is predominantly 
a white neighborhood, no.

Q. In your opinion, what is the predominant characteris­
tic of the neighborhood surrounding Gaston Park? A. 
Around Gaston Park it is predominantly negro now.

Q. Now, if negroes go there, would they be asked to 
leave? A. Until the Park Commission’s policy opens that 
park, they would be.

Q. Do you consider this discrimination against negroes? 
A. Not since they have, percentagewise, their parks, and 
since the Park Commission’s policy has been to change these 
parks as the neighborhood changes. We can cite two recent

- 1 9 0 -
instances when Chandler Park and Bickford Park—when 
the neighborhood became entirely colored, they were 
changed to colored parks.

Q. Are you sure that the negroes—that the neighborhood 
around Bickford Park is entirely colored now? A. I 
would say ninety percent or better are colored.

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



90a

Q. But it is not entirely colored is it? A. No.
Q. Do you consider it discrimination against the ten 

percent of whites that remain that they can no longer use 
the park there that they have used? A. It is just as much 
discrimination against them as it was against the colored 
when they couldn’t use it.

Q. It is discrimination against those? A. Yes.
Q. And the same thing, I think you said, was discrimina­

tion against the negroes in the same degree, since they 
could not use it prior to the changeover? A. That’s right.

Q. What is the characteristic of the neighborhood around 
Bellevue Park? A. Around Bellevue Park it’s rapidly be-

—1 9 1 -
coming a colored neighborhood. In fact, it’s predominantly 
colored at present.

Q. Has not it been predominantly colored for a long num­
ber of years? A. Not a long number of years, but several 
years, yes.

Q. Did not the Park Commission consider, even before 
the Supreme Court decision, changing that to a negro 
park, during the time that you have been Superintendent 
of Parks? A. Would you repeat that?

Q. Did not the Park Commission consider the advisa­
bility of changing that park to a negro park before the 
decision in Brown versus Board of Education, since the time 
you have been Superintendent? A. It may have been 
discussed, but it was not considered for the reason that the 
facilities on Bellevue Park, such as a lighted ball diamond, 
was the only one in that neighborhood for white, and Lin­
coln, which is within three quarters of a mile or a half mile, 
was for negroes.

Q. Did you state on direct examination that provisions 
have been made for negroes in all of the City-wide facilities,

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross

—192—
is that correct, as opposed to neighborhood facilities! A. 
Yes.

Q. Under what classification does Crump Stadium fall, 
neighborhood or City-wide facility! A. Crump Stadium 
is a City-wide facility.

Q. And your testimony was today that it was a City­
wide facility! A. That is right.

Q. So your statement that all City-wide facilities have 
been integrated is not quite accurate, is it? A. Well, pro­
visions are made at Crump Stadium for colored to attend 
football games.

Q. But you stated it is a white facility. A. That is 
right.

Q. And it is now? A. Bight.
Q. And it is a City-wide facility? A. Right.
Q. And your statement that all City-wide facilities have 

been integrated for negroes is not quite accurate, is it? A.
- 1 9 3 -

Well, I think that statement was that that’s the only facility 
of that type. The colored have several football stadiums 
of their own.

Q. What type of facility is Hodges Field—I believe it 
is. called—in terms of City-wide or neighborhood? A. 
What is that, now?

Q. What classification would that fall under? A. I 
didn’t get the name.

Q. Hodges Field. A. That is a City-wide stadium as 
Crump Stadium, Melrose Stadium, Booker T. Washington.

Q. You stated yesterday that it was a white facility? 
A. That is right.

Q. And it is also a City-wide facility? A. I wouldn’t 
say so. It takes care of the white football games just as



92a

Melrose, Manassas and Booker T. Washington take care 
of the colored football games.

Q. Hodges Field is a City-wide facility, is it? A. I 
wouldn’t call it that. It comes under the same classifica­
tion as the others I mentioned.

Q. Now, on direct examination, there was some state­
ment about a plan proposed by the Park Commission for

— 194—
the desegregation of parks, and it seems, and I believe I 
heard you say that the least amount of confusion would 
be cause at Pine Hill Golf Course, is that what you said? 
A. No, I said the least amount of confusion would be at 
the golf courses, the stairstep integration as we propose.

Q. What do you base your opinion on that the least 
amount of confusion would be caused at the golf courses? 
A. That is based on the experience of other cities that have 
integrated their golf courses.

Q. What about confusion at tennis courts? A. What 
about it ?

Q. I f they were integrated. A. I think there would be 
some confusion.

Q. More confusion than there would be on golf courses! 
A. Yes.

Q. What about Crump Stadium? A. Well, Crump Sta­
dium hasn’t been mentioned, but as far as being desegre­
gated, the plan would include Crump Stadium in a very 
short period of time.

— 195—
Q. Now, what other cities have you studied, Mr. Lewis, 

in your study that you mentioned of other cities? What 
cities have you studied? A. To mention a few—Atlanta, 
Nashville, Dallas, New Orleans.

Q. Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas and New Orleans? A. Yes.

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



93a

Q. Have you studied the situation in Montgomery, Ala­
bama? A. No, I have not.

Q. Where they closed all the parks.
You don’t know about that? A. I know about it.

— 196—
Q. You do know about that? A. Yes.
Q. But you made no study of it? A. No.
Q. Have they integrated the parks in Atlanta? A. They 

have integrated golf courses in Atlanta.
Q. Have they integrated anything other than golf courses 

in Atlanta? A. Some few facilities. They have not inte­
grated tennis courts, if that—

Q. What other facilities, if you know, have they inte­
grated in Atlanta? A. They have integrated their golf 
courses and one or two of their centers.

Q. Has there been a great incidence of violence from 
the integration of the golf courses and one or two of their 
centers? A. But there has been some trouble, but not a 
great deal to my knowledge.

Q. Has there been any bloodshed? A. Not to my knowl­
edge, myself.

Q. Has there been any violence? A. Not to my knowl­
edge.

Q. Do you have any trouble on the playgrounds? A.
— 197—

Some.
Q. Have you called the police? A. Some rowdy and 

trouble makers, right.
Q. Both white and negro? A. Mainly nergo.
Q. Mainly negro ? A. Bight.
Q. Do you ever have to call them at the white parks? 

A. Very rarely.

E. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



94a

Q. You don’t have any trouble on the white parks! A. 
We have some.

Q. But you don’t have to call the police to handle them! 
A. Occasionally, but not as much as for the negro parks.

Q. So that the study in Atlanta did not give you any 
outlook on anything except the golf courses predominantly, 
is that correct? A. That was the purpose of the study.

Q. In New Orleans what did you study? A. The golf 
courses.

Q. Have they integrated the golf courses in New Orleans? 
A. The City Park golf course, yes.

Q. Have they integrated any other facilities there? A. 
Not to my knowledge.

Q. In Dallas what have they integrated? A. In Dallas 
they have integrated the zoo and the golf courses.

— 198—
Q. Have they integrated anything other than the zoo and 

the golf courses to your knowledge? A. I don’t know.
Q. In Nashville what have they integrated? A. In Nash­

ville they have integrated the golf courses.
Q. Have they integrated any other facilities? A. Not 

to my knowledge.
Q. So you have no experience factor about violence in 

anything other than golf courses, do you? A. That was 
the purpose of the study was golf courses.

Q. And so you could not give an opinion on whether 
there would be violence based on integration of other facili­
ties on your orders because your study did not include 
anything other than golf courses, is that right? A. Golf 
courses and tennis courts.

Q. So that the opinion you have ventured to give on 
direct examination to Mr. Prewitt has to do with golf 
courses only? A. That’s right.

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



95a

Q. Now, what do you base—you say there would be vio­
lence, and I don’t know whether you used the term “blood­
shed” or not, probably said “confusion” . Did you go any 
further than “ confusion” if there was integration of the

— 1 9 9 -
parks ? A. I don’t recall; don’t believe—

Q. You have taken the term “ confusion” . But what do 
you mean by there would be “ confusion” if the parks were 
desegregated? A. Well, from our own experience here 
in Memphis.

Q. In what particular? A. So far as particulars are 
concerned, one of the closing exercises for negroes at 
Lincoln Park, we had bloodshed and shootings and knifings, 
and it became necessary to break that down into separate 
closing exercises because of the problems we had.

Q. Were colored and whites having closing exercises, 
you say? A. No.

Q. This was not a problem connected with integration? 
A. This was a problem connected with violence.

Q. It had nothing to do with desegregation? A. No.
Q. Or integration? A. No.
Q. Is that correct? A. Yes.

— 200—

Q. Now, can negroes use the rides in the zoo? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Are those rides operated by the Park Commission 
or by private concessionaires? A. They are operated by 
both.

Q. They are operated by both. Do they have contracts 
similar to the ones that are held at the Fairgrounds by 
them? A. They do.

Q. And can negroes use the toilet facilities at Overton 
Park zoo ? A. They have—

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



96a

Q. (Continuing)— On an integrated basis! A. They 
have separate toilet facilities.

Q. They have the toilet facilities segregated at the zoo, 
is that right? A. That’s right.

Q. Has there been any violence in the zoo since the inte­
gration of the zoo? A. No, because we have put additional 
police there to see that there was not. There have been 
instances of reported violence which we have been unable 
to pin down.

Q. Mr. Lewis, does the Park Commission have its own
- 2 0 1 -

police department ? A. We do.
Q. Do they operate under the jurisdiction of the Memphis 

police department or directly under the Park Commission? 
A. Directly under the Park Commission.

Q. Do you know how many officers you have employed 
in that department? A. We have fourteen.

Q. You have fourteen. If I understand your testimony 
correctly, you are saying that you feel that if the facilities 
that are operated by the Park Commission are opened there 
will be violence, and that is one reason you don’t want them 
opened? A. If they are opened all at once.

Q. There will violence? A. I feel there will be violence. 
Q. Are you also saying some of the private concession­

aires at the Fairgrounds or other places may lose money? 
Is that one of the reasons for not wanting to do this? A. 
That is correct.

Q. What other reason do you have for not wanting to 
open the parks other than the possibility of violence or the 
possibility of economic loss to some of the concessionaires ? 
What other reasons do you have for not wanting to open

— 202—
the facilities to all citizens? A. You are asking me some­

H. 8. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



97a

thing that is not prerogative to answer. That is the Park 
Board body. They do it.

Q. Do yon have an opinion, other than the two factors we 
are there mentioning, do you have an opinion! A. I have 
no opinion other than it would cause confusion or trouble 
if we opened them.

Q. We mentioned that; we mentioned two! A. Yes.
Q. The possibility of violence you mentioned, and the 

possibility of economic loss. You had that opinion. And T 
am not of course addressing you in your personal capacity, 
for I understand you have a right to believe whatever you 
will. But as Superintendent of the Park Commission, di­
rector of parks, is there any other reason you think these 
facilities could not be opened other than the possibility of 
violence and the threat of economic loss! Is there any other 
reason that you know o f! A. No, I can’t think of any spe­
cific reason.

Q. Do you have confidence that our Memphis police 
department could maintain peace and order in the city! 
A. I have discussed, as has been shown in the testimony,

—203—
I have discussed it with police officers and they do not 
think they could handle it with the present force if every­
thing was integrated at one time.

Q, Do you feel they could call in additional help to 
control whatever situation might arise! A. Call addi­
tional help?

Attorney Hooks: Yes.

A. Prom where ?
Q. From the Sheriff’s Department, State Highway Pa­

trol, National Guard, Federal Marshals? A. No, they 
would be in a position to determine the matter.

E. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Cross



98a

Q. You are saying you believe the City of Memphis 
would not have—if the Court should say facilities in 
Memphis should be integrated, you are saying you don’t 
believe the citizens of Memphis would obey the orders of 
this Court or any court1? A. I didn’t say that. I said it 
would be hard for everything to be integrated at once and 
be controlled. We have law breakers in the City of Memphis, 
on anything else.

Q. I realize that. But you say you feel there would be so 
much law breaking you couldn’t control it? A. That is

— 204—
the opinion of those in charge, not myself.

Q. You have no opinion? A. I have voiced my opinion.

Redirect Examination:

Q. State whether or not, Mr. Lewis, in your opinion if 
you are not permitted to exercise your discretion—and 
when I say “ your” I mean you and the other responsible offi­
cials—will these thirty-five thousand negro children—will

— 205—
their rights to use facilities be impaired? A. Yes. I men­
tioned the confusion of the whole area.

Q. So that many thousands of negro children you aren’t 
in this courtroom today would have some rights cut off? 
A. Right.

Q. As well as many thousands of white children. Is that 
your opinion or not? A. That is my opinion, yes, sir, as 
stated before.

The Court: Mr. Lewis, I believe Mr. Pierotti tes­
tified yesterday that the tennis courts were not spe­
cifically included at this time under this plan the 
Park Commission was proposing.

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Redirect



99a

And I believe, if I recall Mr. Pierotti’s testimony, 
it was to the effect that that wmuld be taken care of 
under this—what he said, acceleration of the plan.

Give us your opinion as to the approximate date 
you think the tennis courts there would be opened 
up to all comers. Can you do that?

— 206—
A. I can do it in a sort of back-hand way, Judge.

That particular park where the John Rogers tennis 
courts are operated is a very valuable piece of property. 
There is a possibility that that will no longer be a park, 
due to the development of the Housing Authority in that 
neighborhood and the value of that land. The Park Com­
mission has for quite a while felt that that land was too 
valuable to operate tennis courts on, where there is not a 
great number of tennis players living in that immediate 
vicinity. And for that reason I would not be able to give 
any definite time. We think it wall not be there too long.

Recross Examination:

Q. I would like to ask one other question. You don’t 
think it will be there. Just say it is just there two more 
months, are there any plans to let negroes use it? A. Not 
under the proposed plan, no.

— 207—
The Court: All right, sir. You don’t think it 

worthwhile, then, just for a certain time, you don’t 
think it worthwhile to project any definite plans with 
respect to opening it up to all comers for just the 
short time—

H. S. Lewis—for Defendants—Recross

A. That is right.



100a

James C. Macdonald—for Defendants—Direct

— 243—

C h ief  J am es C. M acdonald

The next witness, having first been duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination:

Q. This is James C. Macdonald and you are Chief of 
Police of the city of Memphis I A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you been with the Police Department? 
A. Some twenty-one years.

Q. How long have you been Chief of Police! A. Since 
1954.

Q. Chief Macdonald, for the past six or seven years 
state whether or not you have given much time and thought 
and consideration of the problem which we are talking 
about here today? A. We have.

Q. I believe you testified in the Evers Case against Dwyer 
and others? A. That’s right.

Q. Since that time have you had additional experiences 
with this problem ? A. Yes, we have.

— 244—

Q. Will you briefly outline some of those experiences 
such as sit-ins and buses and things of that nature? A. 
Well, we have had many calls on the trouble we have had 
on the buses since they have been integrated.

Q. When you get a call of that nature state what the 
policy of the Police Department is with regard to such a 
call? A. When we get a call such as this we can’t take 
chances, we don’t know how big a problem it is, and our 
instructions are to send three or four cars out and to get 
there as quick as possible to keep down any violence.



101a

Q. State whether or not in your opinion that is good 
policing? A. We think it is.

Q. State whether or not it has worked fairly well? A. 
So far it has.

Q. You have discussed the matter now pending before 
the Court, and especially the plan of the Park Commis­
sion, with officials and attorneys of the Park Commission? 
A. That’s right.

Q. In your opinion, and with your experience, and from 
a police standpoint, Chief Macdonald, do you think such 
a plan as they have should be given consideration! A. 
I do.

— 245—
Q. Why do you say that? A. Well, there is no doubt 

in my mind, and I am speaking as a law enforcement officer, 
that if at this time they were all integrated at one time 
we couldn’t handle it.

There is no doubt in my mind we would have bloodshed 
if that happened.

Q. Why do you say you don’t think you could handle it? 
A. I think it will be on such a wide scale we don’t have 
the officers to handle it.

Q. You are talking about the square mile area of the city 
of Memphis and the various points you would be called 
to ? A. I  am.

Q. How many policemen, the average number, do you 
have on the Police Department? A. I believe about 725 
at this time.

Q. Now comparing the gradual plan with an immediate 
plan what do you think, from your experience, would likely 
happen if the various facilities of the Park Commission— 
I believe you are familiar with them? A. Yes.

James C. Macdonald—for Defendants—Direct



102a

— 246—
Q. (Continuing) Golf courses, recreational programs, 

community centers, swimming pools, and such.
If all of these facilities are immediately desegregated 

what, in your opinion, would happen ? A. I think we would 
have chaos, and I think they probably would have to be 
closed, and I think a lot of good will would be destroyed.

Q. Over a period of years do you think there has been a 
great deal of good will created in the city of Memphis? 
A. I know there has.

Q. Over what period of time? A. I have been with the 
Police Department twenty-one years and we have always 
tried to get along, and have.

Q. Has it existed all that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, you have gone over this plan with 

members of the Park Commission and in your opinion you 
think it is a reasonable plan? A. Yes, for this reason.

We will have a little idea of what is coming off and can 
lay our groundwork for it and hope to be able to handle 
the situation.

— 247—
Q. Do you believe that in starting with the golf courses 

that a certain amount of good judgment has been used on 
the part of the Park Commission? A. Well, I thought the 
plan as a whole was a good one, and I think now it is a 
good one.

Q. What about timing from the overall standpoint.
I believe this Brown case was decided in 1954, and you 

are familiar with the fact that since that time a certain 
number of facilities in Memphis have been opened on a 
non-segregated basis; libraries, zoo and other facilities.

Do you have any comment to make with regard to the 
timing that might be important in considering the overall

James C. Macdonald—for Defendants—Direct



103a

effect it might have on both races in this particnlar area? 
A. I think the key to it is the timing, where everybody— 
where it would be on a gradual basis where the hot-heads 
wouldn’t have a chance to act.

Q. Do you think we have been fortunate or unfortunate 
with so-called agitators in this community as compared to 
other communities? A. As a whole, yes, sir.

Q. You don’t think we have had the agitation in Memphis 
that has been in other places ? A. That’s right.

—248—
Q. What, in your opinion and from your experience, 

happens when this agitation starts?
Does it create violence or a quiet atmosphere? A. Well, 

you take a strike, for instance.
You have a few in any bunch that will agitate trouble. 

I have seen it a lot of times that a few will cause a lot of 
people to get in trouble.

I don’t think we need that, I think we can handle our 
problem ourselves.

Q. Are you familiar with the incident at Walgreen’s 
when the crowd became increasing in numbers, and what 
action did the Police Department take, whether you moved 
in immediately or sat by and waited and watched the 
situation? A. When we first got the call it was our plan 
to let them work it out among themselves if there was no 
violence.

After about twenty or thirty minutes the crowd was 
so violent that if we hadn’t made the arrest we think some­
body would have been hurt real serious.

Q. Were you getting reports from time to time about 
the attitude of the people in and around Main and Madison 
during that time ?

James C. Macdonald—for Defendants—Direct



104a

James C. Macdonald—for Defendants—Direct

— 249—
A. Yes, we had detectives in the store and I was on the 
telephone with them all the time. They was letting me 
know what was happening from time to time.

Q. I think that about covers it.
We have had some testimony on this but we will go 

into it very briefly.
The population in the area surrounding Memphis, would 

you say that is predominantly white or colored? A. I think 
the outlying territories are mostly colored.

Q. Is that considered to be the metropolitan trade area 
of Shelby County? A. Yes, sir.

Q. State whether or not we have many visitors from this 
area that use the facilities of the city of Memphis? A. 
I think there is a great number. They come in from all 
around Memphis.

—250—
Q. State whether or not that enters into your judgment 

as to whether or not this is a reasonable plan which is 
submitted by the Park Commission? A. I think it is rea­
sonable, yes.



105a

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Filed 7/27/61

This cause came on for hearing upon complaint of plain­
tiffs and answer of defendants, and the Court, having 
heard and considered all of the evidence, including deposi­
tions, oral testimony and exhibits thereto, and having con­
sidered the entire record in this action, finds the facts and 
states the conclusions of law as follows -

F indings o r  F act

I.

The Court has jurisdiction of this action under Title 28 
IT. S. C. Sections 1343 (c), 2201 and 2202, and Title 42 
IT. S. C. Sections 1981 and 1983.

II.

Plaintiffs are Negro citizens of the State of Tennessee, 
who reside in the City of Memphis, and have brought this 
action on behalf of themselves and as members of a class 
of persons consisting of other Negro citizens of the City 
of Memphis.

III.

The Memphis Park Commission is an agency or depart­
ment of the City of Memphis, a municipal corporation of 
the State of Tennessee, and said Park Commission is com­
posed of five (5) Commissioners duly appointed by the 
Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Memphis. Said 
Park Commissioners control the operation of the Memphis 
Park System, with the management thereof being delegated 
to defendant, H. S. Lewis, Director of Parks.



106a

IV.

The City of Memphis has a population of approximately 
five hundred thousand (500,000), thirty-seven per cent 
(37%) of which are Negro, and sixty-three per cent (63%) 
are White (1960 Census). Memphis is located in the ex­
treme southwest corner of Tennessee and is bounded on 
the west by Arkansas and the south by Mississippi. The 
population of the adjoining counties in Arkansas, Missis­
sippi and West Tennessee is predominantly Negro.

V.

There are one hundred and thirty-one (131) parks owned 
by the City of Memphis and operated by the Memphis Park 
Commission. These parks fall into four (4) categories:—

(1) Twenty-three (23) are undeveloped; that is, raw 
land.

(2) Twenty-five (25) are used without restrictions by 
members of both races.

(3) Fifty-eight (58) are used by members of the White 
race only.

(4) Twenty-five (25) are used by members of the Colored 
race only.

VI.

With very few exceptions, the parks reserved for Negroes 
are in neighborhoods which are completely or predomi­
nantly Negro; and likewise, the parks reserved for White 
people are in neighborhoods which are completely or pre­
dominantly White. In the City of Memphis, the races are 
separated by neighborhoods, and the Park Commission has 
consistently followed neighborhood patterns in providing

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



107a

recreational facilities for members of both races; and it 
has been its policy to remove restrictions applicable to 
Negroes as neighborhoods are converted, by voluntary ac­
tion, from White to Negro, as early as practicable. At 
the present time, the Park Commission proposes in the near 
future to remove all restrictions as to use by Negroes in the 
following parks:—

(1) DeSoto;

(2) Bellevue;

(3) Gaston Park with Community Center;

(4) Brinkley;

(5) Malone Park with swimming pool; and

(6) Riverside Playground.

VII.

The following recreational facilities are operated by the 
Memphis Park Commission:—

(1) Boat dock and ramp at McKellar Lake, which is 
operated on an integrated basis.

(2) Ten (10) swimming pools—five (5) reserved for 
White use and five (5) for colored; and when Negroes 
are admitted to Malone Park with its swimming pool, these 
figures will be changed accordingly.

(3) Sixty-one (61) playgrounds on City owned property 
controlled by the Park Commission—forty (40) reserved 
for White use and twenty-one (21) for use by Negroes.

(4) Fifty-six (56) playgrounds and facilities operated 
by the Park Commission on property owned by churches,

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



108a

private groups and the School Board—thirty (30) of which 
are reserved for White use and twenty-six (26) for Negro.

(5) Twelve (12) community centers with gymnasiums 
on City owned property— eight (8) of which are reserved 
for White use and four (4) for Colored; and when restric­
tions are removed with reference to Gaston Community 
Center, these figures will, accordingly, be changed.

(6) Seven (7) golf courses—five (5) reserved for White 
use and two (2) for Colored.

VIII.

The Recreational Department of the Memphis Park 
Commission is rated by competent authorities as the best 
in the South. Its recreational program for Negroes is the 
finest in the country. Approximately one hundred thousand
(100.000) children participate in one or more of the rec­
reational activities sponsored by the Memphis Park Com­
mission— of this number approximately thirty-five thousand
(35.000) are Negroes. The Recreational Department of the 
Park Commission sponsors many and varied types of rec­
reational activities, including, but not limited to, competi­
tive sports, such as baseball and basketball, dancing and 
many other activities. The Recreational Department head­
quarters itself is operated on an integrated basis, and all 
Negro Supervisors and Directors are paid on the same 
salary schedule as the White Supervisors and Directors; 
and the qualifications for such Negro Supervisors and 
Directors are equal to or greater than that of their White 
counterparts.

IX.

Defendants have heretofore operated twenty-five (25) 
parks in the City on a nonsegregated basis; and have re­

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



109a

cently integrated Overton Park Zoo, Art Gallery in Overton 
Park, and the Park Commission facilities at McKellar Lake. 
In furtherance of its gradual program of integration, the 
Park Commission has evolved the following plan and the 
following facilities will he open to all races, without restric­
tions, at the dates indicated:—

(1) The Fairgrounds Amusement Park at the conclusion 
of the present year.

(2) Pine Hill Golf Course, January 1,1962.

(3) Fuller Golf Course, February 1,1962.

(4) Riverside Golf Course, March 1,1962.

(5) Audubon Golf Course, January 1,1963.

(6) Douglass Golf Course, February 1,1963.

(7) Overton Park Golf Course, March 1,1963.

(8) Galloway Golf Course, January 1,1964.

X.

Defendants have acted and are acting in good faith in 
recognizing the constitutional rights of the Negro citizens 
of Memphis to make use of facilities under Park Commis­
sion control on a nonsegregated basis.

XI.

In considering the question of good faith of defendants 
in recognizing the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and 
other Negro citizens, as well as the plan and program 
evolved by defendants to desegregate the Memphis Park 
System, the Court has given consideration to the fol­
lowing :—

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



110a

(1) Importance of time to accomplish change-over from 
a partially segregated system to an integrated one.

(2) Good will and understanding heretofore obtaining 
between the races.

(3) The fact that, pending the transition period now in 
progress, ample recreational facilities, under the operation 
of the Park Commission, will be available to all Negro 
citizens of Memphis, and no Negro will be denied the right 
to avail himself of those facilities.

(4) Maintenance of law and order.

(5) Avoidance of confusion and turmoil in the com­
munity.

(6) Revenues available from concessions operated on 
park property.

(7) The fact that immediate integration would result in 
a denial to a substantial number of citizens, both Negro 
and White, of an opportunity to avail themselves of rec­
reational facilities now afforded to all citizens of Memphis.

(8) The constitutional and other legal rights of all citi­
zens, both White and Colored.

XII.

Immediate forced integration of all facilities of the Park 
Commission would be unwise under all the circumstances 
as presented by the proof. The plans and programs evolved 
by the Park Commission properly take into account the con­
stitutional rights of Negro citizens without overlooking 
many other factors, as hereinabove set out.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



111a

XIII.

The plan of defendants for integrating Fairgrounds 
Amusement Park and all of the public golf courses is rea­
sonable, fair and equitable and should be approved.

XIV.

If the property on which John Rogers Tennis Courts 
are located is not sold or abandoned for use as tennis courts, 
consideration should be given by defendants to removal of 
all racial restrictions on these tennis courts by January 1, 
1962.

XV.

Integration of playgrounds and community centers op­
erated by defendants is a matter in the interest of all citi­
zens of Memphis, both White and Colored, and calls for 
more study. No specific terminal date for such integration 
can be set at this time. Defendants should file plan for 
integration of such facilities within six (6) months from 
June 15, 1961, and at that time, such plan can be given 
proper consideration by the Court.

XVI.

The City of Memphis acquired Pink Palace Museum and 
property on which it is located by deed dated August 2, 
1926 from Garden Communities Corporation. This deed 
provided “ said building and grounds shall be devoted 
wholly and exclusively to public uses for the benefit of 
persons of the Caucasian race only and as a conservatory, 
art gallery, museum of art or natural history, library and/ 
or for general recreational purposes in connection with the 
Memphis Park System, including parks adjacent thereto 
* * * Said deed also reserved unto the grantor, or its as­

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



112a

signs, after notice as provided in the deed, the right to re­
enter and hold the same as of its former estate in the event 
of breach of the above condition.

XVII.

Negro citizens of Memphis have been permitted to make 
use of the facilities of Pink Palace Museum on one day per 
week and this use has been permitted without any apparent 
complaint on the part of said grantor, or its assigns; how­
ever, said deed in providing for forfeiture contains the 
following additional language: “A  waiver for any period 
of time of a breach of either or any of the foregoing cove­
nants and conditions shall not preclude a forfeiture for a 
continuance thereof after notice as above specified.”

XVIII.

The “Advisory Board Memphis Museum” recommended 
to the Memphis Park Commission on January 6, 1959 that 
the Museum property be sold for residential purposes and 
that a new Museum be built on other City property. In 
response to this request, J. S. Allen, Esquire, the then 
Park Commission Attorney, submitted comprehensive re­
port and summary of titles to the property involved and 
stated in his report dated February 5, 1959 “ that neither 
the City nor the Park Commission could safely sell or cease 
the use for musettm or park purposes as to any of the 
respective properties conveyed by these deeds.”

Said report and opinion was made before the present 
lawsuit was filed.

XIX.

Defendants have evinced a willingness to remove all race 
restrictions obtaining at Pink Palace Museum, except for 
the fact that they feel a removal of all restrictions might

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



113a

result in a loss of this valuable property to the City and 
the Park Commission.

XX.

Defendants’ present policy with reference to Pink Palace 
Museum is not based upon any effort to deny Negro citizens 
of Memphis the right to use of this facility, but rather is 
based upon a policy of attempting to preserve title to the 
property.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Conclusions op L aw

I.

Compulsory segregation on the basis of race in the public 
schools violates the provisions of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Federal Constitution.

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 
U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 683, 98 L. Ed. 873.

II.

The rule in the Brown Case has been extended to the 
field of public parks and recreational facilities.

Dawson vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 
City, 220 Fed. 2d 386, (U. S. C. A. Fourth, 1955); 
affirmed 350 U. S. 877, 100 L. Ed. 774;

City of St. Petersburg vs. Alsup, 238 Fed. 2d 
830 (U. S. C. A. Fifth Circuit, 1956).

III.

Full implementation of the constitutional principles as 
announced in the Brown Case requires solution of varied 
local problems. Local authorities, and in this case the re­
sponsible Park Commission officials, have the primary re­



114a

sponsibility of elucidating, assessing and solving these 
problems. The District Courts have the obligation of de­
termining whether the action of local authorities consti­
tutes good faith implementation of the governing consti­
tutional principles; and in fashioning and effectuating 
decrees, the Court is guided by equitable principles. Tradi­
tionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexi­
bility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting 
and reconciling public and private needs.

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 
U. S. 294, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (Second decision de­
cided May 31,1955).

IV.

Delay in desegregation of public parks and recreational 
facilities does not amount to a denial of the constitutional 
rights of Negro citizens where a good faith attempt is being 
made by local officials to abolish segregation on a gradual 
basis.

Kelley vs. Board of Education of City of Nash­
ville, 270 Fed. 2d 209 (U. S. C. A. Sixth Circuit, 
1959);

Aaron vs. Cooper, 243 Fed. 2d 361 (U. S. C. A. 
Eighth, 1957).

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Laiv

y .

In determining whether defendants are acting in good 
faith in recognizing the constitutional rights of Negro citi­
zens to make use of the Park Commission facilities on a 
nonsegregated basis, it is proper for the Court to consider
(1) local conditions and local problems as to facilities, 
and teacher or supervisory personnel, as well as local prob­



115a

lems of maintaining, during the transition period, maximum 
recreational facilities for all citizens, White and Negro;
(2) importance of time to accomplish change-over from a 
partially segregated system to an integrated one; (3) good 
will and understanding heretofore obtaining between the 
races, and (4) avoidance of confusion and turmoil and main­
tenance of law and order in the community during the 
transition period.

Brown vs. Board of Education, supra;
Aaron vs. Cooper, supra;
Kelley vs. Board of Education of City of Nash­

ville, supra.

VI.

Injunctive relief to require immediate desegregation of 
all facilities of the Park Commission should not be granted 
where defendants have acted in good faith and need addi­
tional time to accomplish complete desegregation of Park 
Commission facilities.

Aaron vs. Cooper, supra,;
Kelley vs. Board of Education of City of Nash­

ville, supra.

VII.

“ Only the constructive use of time will achieve what an 
advance civilization demands and the Constitution con­
firms.”

Cooper vs. Aaron, 358 U. S. 20, 3 L. Ed. 2d 19, 78 
S. Ct. 401 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice 
Frankfurter at 3 L. Ed. 2d 22);

Kelley vs. Board of Education of City of Nash­
ville, supra.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



116a

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

VIII.

The burden rests upon defendants to establish that addi­
tional time is necessary, in the public interest, and is con­
sistent with good faith compliance of the governing con­
stitutional principles at the earliest practicable date.

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (Second 
decision), supra;

Kelley vs. Board of Education of City of Nash­
ville, supra.

IX.

During the transition period from partial segregation 
to complete desegregation, the District Court should retain 
jurisdiction.

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (Second 
decision), supra;

Kelley vs. Board of Education of City of Nash­
ville, supra;

Aaron vs. Cooper, supra.

X.

Under Tennessee law, if the condition respecting race 
in the Pink Palace Museum deed is breach, there is a 
possibility that the City of Memphis might lose title to 
this valuable property. The determination of the legal 
effect of the conditions in said deed is complex and difficult 
to determine without an adjudication by a Court of compe­
tent jurisdiction.

Yarbrough vs. Yarbrough, 151 Tenn. 221, 269 
S. W. 36.

XI.

The Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee has 
jurisdiction to determine the legal effect of said conditions



117a

in the Pink Palace Museum deed; and if the State courts 
should determine that the City’s title would not be affected 
by desegregation of said Museum, there would be no ques­
tion remaining for decision by this Court. Consequently, 
this is a proper case for application of the doctrine of 
abstention under which adjudication in this Court of all 
matters with reference to Pink Palace Museum may be 
stayed pending determination by the State courts of the 
legal effect of said conditions in the Pink Palace Museum 
deed relating to race.

Harrison vs. NAACP, 360 IT. S. 167, 3 L. Ed. 2d 
1153, 79 S. Ct. 1025;

Louisiana Power & Light Co. vs. Thibodaux, 360 
U. S. 25, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1058, 79 S. Ct. 1070;

Annotation “Discretion of Federal court to remit 
relevant state issues to state court in ivhich no 
action is pending” , 3 L. Ed. 2d 1827.

Conclusions of F act and Law

Defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evi­
dence that additional time is necessary to accomplish full 
desegregation of all facilities operated by the Memphis 
Park Commission, and defendants have further shown that 
their plan and program for gradual desegregation is neces­
sary, in the public interest, and is consistent with good 
faith implementation of the governing constitutional prin­
ciples as announced in Brown vs. Board of Education, 
supra, taking into account all of the local conditions and 
problems hereinabove set out; and the Court has concluded, 
in the exercise of its discretion, that the prayer for declara­
tory judgment and injunctive relief should be denied.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Judge.



118a

Judgment

Filed 6-20-61

This cause came on to be heard upon complaint of plain­
tiffs and answer of defendants thereto; and the Court, after 
hearing all the evidence presented at the hearing, rendered 
opinion under date of June 15, 1961, which is attached 
hereto and made a part of this Judgment.

The relief sought by plaintiffs is the immediate deseg­
regation of all park and recreational facilities operated 
by defendants. Defendants, in recognizing the constitu­
tional rights of all Negro citizens to use on a nonsegregated 
basis the facilities controlled by defendants, have proposed 
the following plan, to-wit :•—

“ Having heretofore, before the filing of this suit, 
provided twenty-one (21) parks in the City on a non­
segregated basis and having recently removed restric­
tions at Overton Park Zoo, Art Gallery in Overton 
Park and the boat dock at McKellar Lake, the Park 
Commission, following its practice already adopted, 
has evolved the following plan, and the following facili­
ties will be opened to all races, without restrictions, 
at the dates indicated:—

(1) The Fairgrounds Amusement Park at the con­
clusion of the present year.

(2) Pine Hill Golf Course, January 1,1962.

(3) Fuller Golf Course, February 1,1962.

(4) Riverside Golf Course, March 1,1962.

(5) Audubon Golf Course, January 1,1963.

(6) Douglass Golf Course, February 1,1963.

(7) Overton Park Golf Course, March 1,1963.



119a

(8) Galloway Golf Course, January 1,1964.

The Park Commission proposes to follow the fore­
going schedule. This program, which is in line with 
practices already developed and evolved by the Park 
Commission, may be accelerated, subject to many mat­
ters which the responsible officials of the Park Commis­
sion may consider from time to time. These include di­
verse local conditions, such as maintenance of law and 
order, avoidance of confusion and turmoil in the com­
munity, efforts to provide maximum use of park facili­
ties for all citizens, regardless of race, revenue avail­
able from park concessions, together with a proper 
recognition of legal rights of all citizens, White and 
Negro, under State and Federal law. The program of 
the Park Commission is not one based on any denial of 
any constitutional rights which either the Negroes or 
Whites may have, but is so designed and conceived 
as to provide maximum recreational facilities for the 
maximum number of Memphis citizens in the area 
where such citizens reside.”

The Court, after hearing all the evidence, is of the opinion 
that the foregoing plan should be approved; and the Court 
is of the further opinion that defendants should submit to 
the Court a further plan with respect to integration of play­
grounds and community centers within a period of six (6) 
months.

Any adjudication with respect to the Pink Palace Museum 
shall be stayed by the Court until the courts of Tennessee 
have an opportunity to decide questions of title relating to 
that facility; and defendants shall prepare and file suit 
under the Declaratory Judgment Act of Tennessee in the

Judgment



120a

Shelby County Chancery Court and take such necessary 
steps so as to secure a full adjudication of all matters 
herein involved which might affect the title to said property.

The Court is of the further opinion that defendants have 
acted in good faith, under all the circumstances herein 
involved in recognizing the constitutional rights of plain­
tiffs and other Negro citizens of Memphis to make use of the 
facilities operated by defendants on a nonsegregated basis.

It Is, T herefore, Ordered, A djudged and Decreed:—

(1) Plaintiffs’ application for a permanent injunction 
as prayed for in the complaint is denied.

(2) Said plan of defendants, hereinabove set out, be, and 
the same is hereby, approved.

(3) Defendants give further study to a proper plan for 
integration of the playgrounds and community centers op­
erated by the Park Commission and prepare and submit to 
the Court within six (6) months from June 15, 1961 a plan 
and program for the integration of said facilities.

(4) Any adjudication with reference to Pink Palace 
Museum is hereby stayed; and defendants shall, within 
ninety (90) days, prepare and file appropriate action in 
the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee for a 
declaratory judgment to determine what effect integration 
of the races at said Museum will have upon the title of the 
City of Memphis to this property.

This cause is retained in Court for such further pro­
ceedings as may be necessary from time to time. Costs are 
adjudged equally between plaintiffs and defendants, for 
which execution may issue.

Both parties are expressly authorized to prepare and 
present to the Court, promptly, additional findings of fact

Judgment



Judgment

and conclusions of law, and such additional findings and 
conclusions, when approved by the Court, shall become a 
part of this Judgment.

Judge.

A pproved :

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Attorneys for Defendants.



jr-
V - '

« ^ | | |^ »  3 8