Marsh v The County School Board of Roanoke County Appendix to Appellants Brief

    I n  th e

S t a t e s  (E n u rt u f  A p p e a l s
F oe t h e  F o u rth  C ir cu it

No. 8535

G w en d o lyn  Y vette  M arsh , an in fa n t, and  R aym ond  M . 
I seley  and  H elen  I seley , h er g ra n d fa th e r  and  g ra n d ­
m oth er and  n ext fr ie n d s ; J udy  C arol W est , A lvin  
W est, J r ., L u la  M arie W est and  B arbara L y n n  W est , 
in fa n ts , and  A l v in  W est , th e ir  fa th e r  and  n ext fr ien d ,

Appellants,

T h e  C o u n ty  S chool B oard of R oanoke C o u n t y , a body 
corporate; H erm an  L. H orn , Division Superintendent, 
Roanoke County Public Schools, and E . J . O glesby, 
E dward T. J u stis , and A lfred  L. W ingo , individually 
and constituting the P u p il  P lacem en t  B oard of th e  
C o m m o n w e a lth  of V irgin ia , Richmond, Virginia,

Appellees.

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

R euben  E. L aw son  
19 Gilmer Avenue 
Roanoke 17, Virginia

J ack  G reenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , III 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Appellants.



I N D E X

PAGE

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

Complaint .....................................................................  3a

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants, The 
County School Board of Roanoke County and Her­
man L. Horn, Division Superintendent of Schools 15a

Answer of the Pupil Placement B oard......................  21a

Excerpts From Transcript of Trial, May 24, 1961 .... 25a

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Herman L. Horn

Direct ......................................................  28a
Cross ........................................................  58a

Recalled—
Redirect ......................    94a

Arthur G. Trout
Direct ......................................................  60a

B. S. Hilton
Direct .................................................... -  64a

Ernest J. Oglesby
Direct .......................    81a
Cross ........................................................  89a
Redirect....................................................  91a



11

PAGE

Exhibits Introduced at T ria l.......................................  99a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 to Deposition of Dr. Horn .. 99a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 .....................................   100a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn .. 108a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 ............................................... 111a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5H to Deposition of Dr. Horn 112a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7A ........................................... 113a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7B ........................................... 114a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7C ................................  115a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 ............................................... 116a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 ...............  117a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 ............................................... 118a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 (Horn) ...............................  120a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 (Horn) ...............................  121a

Memorandum Opinion, filed July 10,1961 ..................  122a

Judgment, Oct. 4, 1961 ................................................  129a

Notice of Appeal, filed November 1, 1961..................  131a



Relevant Docket Entries

1960 

Aug. 31

Sept. 14

Sept. 16 

Sept. 20

Sept. 23

1961 

May 22

May 24

Filed Complaint, Motion for Interlocutory In­
junction, and Plaintiff’s Statement of Points and 
Authorities in Support of Motion for an Inter­
locutory Injunction.

JJ. -u.*<V ~7C *Jk*

Filed Designation of District Judge for Service 
in another District within his Circuit, signed by 
Simon E. Sobeloff, Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit, 
assigning and designating Oren R. Lewis, United 
States District Court, Eastern District of Vir­
ginia, to hold and hear case No. 1095 on such 
date as he may determine.
Filed copy of minutes with exhibits taken in 
Eastern District at hearing 9-15-60.
Filed Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defen­
dants, The County School Board of Roanoke 
County and Herman L. Horn, Division Super­
intendent of Schools, with certificate of service 
noted thereon.
Received Answer of the Pupil Placement Board, 
and marked same “proffered for filing” .

* * #
Filed depositions of Herman L. Horn, Arthur G. 
Trout, and B. S. Hilton, taken on behalf of 
plaintiffs. Same opened in open court and marked 
“proffered for filing May 24, 1961, Leigh B. 
Hanes, Jr., Clerk.
Filed Motion of plaintiffs to Amend and Correct 
Caption of Complaint and Style of Case to read:



2a

Relevant Docket Entries

“ Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, an infant by Ray­
mond M. Iseley and Helen Iseley, her grand­
father and grandmother and next friend.”

#  *  *

May 24 Trial by Court—summary order entered thereon. 
(Plaintiffs’ exhibits filed.)

July 10 Filed Memorandum Opinion—copies certified to 
counsel of record.

Oct. 4 Entered and filed order of judgment (civil order 
book #18, page 45), sustaining defendants’ mo­
tions to dismiss and dismissing complaint herein 
at the plaintiffs’ costs—with objection of counsel 
for plaintiffs noted. Copies certified to counsel 
of record.

Nov. 1 Filed plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from final judg­
ment entered October 4, 1961. * * *

#  *  #



3a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F oe th e  W estern  D istrict  of V irgin ia  

R oanoke D ivision  

Civil Action No. 1095

Complaint

G w endolyn  Y vette  I seley , an infant b y  Raymond M . Iseley 
and Helen Iseley, her grandfather and grandmother and 
next friend,

J ean  M illice n t  F erguson and G regory M orris F erguson , 
infants by Jacqnelin Ferguson, their mother and next 
friend,

J udy  C arol W est , A lvin  W est , J r ., L u la  M arie W est and 
B arbara L y n n  W est, in fan ts  b y  A lv in  W est , th eir fa th er 
and next fr ien d ,

— and—

R aymond  M. I seley , H elen  I seley ,
J acquelin  F erguson , A lvin  W est,

Plaintiffs

T h e  C o u n ty  S chool B oard of R oanoke C o u n ty ,
a body corporate, Salem, Virginia

— and—

H erm an  L. H orn , Division Superintendent, 
Roanoke County Public Schools,

— and—

E. J. O glesby, E dward T . J u stis , and A lfred L . W ingo , 
in d iv id u a lly  and con stitu tin g  the P u pil  P lacem en t  
B oard of T h e  C o m m o n w ealth  of V irgin ia , R ic h m o n d , 
V irgin ia .



4a

1. (a) Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 
28, United States Code, Section 1331. This action arises 
under Article 1, Section 8, and the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and 
under the Act of Congress, Revised Statutes, Section 1977, 
derived from the Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, Sec­
tion 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 
1981), as hereafter more fully appears. The matter in 
controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, exceeds the sum 
of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).

(b) Jurisdiction is further invoked under Title 28, 
United States Code, Section 1343. This action is au­
thorized by the Act of Congress, Revised Statutes, Sec­
tion 1979, derived from the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 
22, Section 1, 17 Stat. 13 (Title 42, United States Code, 
Section 1983), to be commenced by any citizen of the 
United States or other person within the jurisdiction 
thereof to redress the deprivation under color of state law, 
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, 
privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 
by the Act of Congress, Revised Statutes, Section 1977, 
derived from the Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, Sec­
tion 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 
1981), providing for the equal rights of citizens and of all 
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States as 
hereafter more fully appears.

2. Infant plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the 
United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 
are residents of and domiciled in the County of Roanoke. 
They are within the age limits of eligibility to attend the 
public schools of the said County and possess all qualifica­

Complaint



5a

tions and satisfy all requirements for admission to the 
public schools of said County.

3. Adult plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the 
United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 
are residents of and domiciled in the County of Roanoke. 
They are parents or guardians of the infant plaintiffs, 
and are taxpayers of the United States and of the said 
Commonwealth and County. All adult plaintiffs having con­
trol or charge of any unexempted child who has reached 
his seventh birthday and has not passed his sixteenth 
birthday are required to send said child to attend school 
or to receive instruction (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, 
Chapter 12, Article 4, Sections 22-251 to 22-256).’

4. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and, 
there being common questions of law and fact affecting 
the rights of all other Negro children attending the public 
schools of the County of Roanoke and their respective 
parents and guardians, similarly situated and affected 
with reference to the matters here involved, who are so 
numerous as to make it impracticable to bring all before 
the Court, and a common relief being sought, as will here­
inafter more fully appear, being this action, pursuant to 
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a 
class action also on behalf of all other Negro children at­
tending the public schools of the County of Roanoke and 
their respective parents and guardians similarly situated 
and affected with reference to the matters here involved.

5. Defendant The County School Board of The County 
of Roanoke, Virginia, exists pursuant to the Constitution 
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an adminis­

Complaint



6a

trative department of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dis­
charging governmental functions (Constitution of Virginia, 
Article IX, Section 133, Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, 
Chapter 1, Sections 22-1, 22-2, 22-5 to 22-9.3, Chapter 6, 
Article 1, Sections 22-45 to 22-50, Chapter 6, Article 2, 
Sections 22-59 to 22-79, Chapters 7 to 15, Sections 22-101 
to 22-330); and is declared by law to be a body corporate 
(Code of Virginia, 1950, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 
22-63).

6. Defendant Herman L. Horn is Division Superin­
tendent of Schools for Roanoke County, Virginia. He 
holds office pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia as administrative officer of the 
public free school system of Virginia (Constitution of 
Virginia, Article IX, Section 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, 
Title 22, Chapter 1, Sections 22-1, 22-2, 22-5 to 22-9.3, 
Chapter 4, Sections 22-31 to 22-40, Chapters 6 to 15, Sec. 
tions 22-45 to 22-330). He is under the authority, super­
vision and control of, and acts pursuant to, the orders, 
policies, practices, customs and usages of defendant The 
County School Board of the County of Roanoke. He is made 
a defendant herein in his official capacity.

7. The Commonwealth of Virginia has declared public 
education a state function. The Constitution of Virginia, 
Article IX, Section 129, provides:

“ Free schools to be maintained. The General As­
sembly shall establish and maintain an efficient system 
of public free schools throughout the State.”

Pursuant to this mandate, the General Assembly of 
Virginia has established a system of public free schools

Complaint



7a

in the Commonwealth of Virginia according to a plan 
set out in Title 22, Chapters 1 to 15 inclusive, of the Code 
of Virginia, 1950. The establishment, the maintenance and 
administration of the public school system of Virginia is 
vested in a State Board of Education, a Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, Division Superintendent of Schools, 
and County, City and Town School Boards (Constitution 
of Virginia, Article IX, Sections 130-133; Code of Vir­
ginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 22-2).

8. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United 
States declared the principle that State-imposed racial 
segregation is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States. Pursuant to said 
decision, as recognized and applied by this Court, formal 
applications have heretofore been made to defendants in 
behalf of infant plaintiffs for admission, enrollment and 
education in designated public free schools under the juris­
diction and control of defendants, to which said infant 
plaintiffs, but for the fact that they are Negroes, in all 
other respects are qualified for admission and enrollment. 
However, defendants and each of them, have failed and 
refused to act, favorably upon these applications and pur­
posefully, wilfully, and deliberately continue to pursue 
and enforce the aforesaid policy, practice, custom and 
usage of racial segregation against infant plaintiffs and 
all other children similarly situated and affected.

9. Defendants will continue to pursue and enforce 
against plaintiffs, and all other children similarly situated, 
the policy, practice, custom and usage specified in Para­
graph 8, supra, and will continue to deny to infant Negro 
Plaintiffs admission, enrollment or education in any public

Complaint



8a

school under defendants’ supervision and control operated 
for children who are not Negroes, unless restrained and 
enjoined by this Court from so doing.

10. The public schools of the County of Roanoke, Vir­
ginia are under the control and supervision of defendants 
acting as administrative agencies of the Commonwealth 
of Virginia. Defendant, The County School Board of the 
County of Roanoke, Virginia, is empowered and required 
to establish and maintain an efficient system of public free 
schools in said County (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, 
Sections 22-1, 22-5); to provide suitable and proper school 
buildings, furniture and equipment, and to maintain, man­
age and control the same (Code of Virginia, 1950, as 
amended, Section 22-97); to determine the studies to be 
pursued, the methods of teaching, and the government to 
be employed in the schools (Code of Virginia, 1950, as 
amended, Sections 22-97, 22-233 to 22-240.1); to employ 
teachers (Code, 1950) to provide for the transportation 
of pupils (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Sections 
22-276 to 22-277, 22-282 to 22-294) ; to enforce the school 
laws (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-97); 
and to perform numerous other duties, activities and func­
tions essential to the establishment, maintenance and op­
eration of the schools of said County (Code of Virginia, 
as amended, Sections 22-1 to 22-10, 22-30 to 22-44, 22-45 
to 22-55, 22-57 to 22-58, 22-89 to 22-100, 22-101 to 22-166, 
22-188.3 to 22-210, 22-212 to 22-246, 22-248 to 22-77, 22-279 
to 22-330).

11. Defendants E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis and 
Alfred Wingo, constituting the Pupil Placement Board 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, purportedly are in­

Complaint



9a

vested with all power of enrollment or placement of pupils 
in, and determination of school attendance districts for, 
the public schools in Virginia (Code of Virginia, 1950, as 
amended, Section 22-232.1), and to perform the numerous 
other duties, activities and functions pertaining to the 
enrollment or placement of pupils in, and the determina­
tion of school attendance districts for, the public schools 
of Virginia (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Sections 
22-232.3 to 22-232.4).

12. Each school child who has heretofore attended a 
public school and who has not moved from a county, city 
or town in which he resided while attending such school 
is required to attend the same school which he last at­
tended until graduation therefrom unless enrolled in a 
different school by the Pupil Placement Board (Code of 
Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-232.6). This pro­
vision perpetuates the pre-existing requirement, policy, 
practice, custom and usage of the Commonwealth of Vir­
ginia of racial segregation in the public schools thereof 
save as to such children as may be able, for good cause 
shown, to establish an exception thereto by pursuing the 
procedure specified in Sections 22-232.8 to 22-232.14.

13. Any child desiring to enter a public school for the 
first time, and any child who is graduated from one school 
to another within a school division or who transfers to 
or within a school division, or any child who desires to 
enter a public school after the ending of the session, is 
required to apply to the Pupil Placement Board for en­
rollment and is required to enroll in such school as the 
Board deems proper (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, 
Section 22-232.8), and if aggrieved thereby is required to

Complaint



10a

pursue the procedure specified by law (Code of Virginia 
1950, as amended, Sections 22-232.8 to 22-232.14).

14. The procedure specified in Sections 22-232.8 to 
22-232.14 is expensive prolix and inadequate to secure and 
protect the rights of plaintiffs, and others similarly situ­
ated, seeking relief from the imposition of segregation re­
quirements, policies, practices, customs and usages based 
on race or color.

15. Defendants endorse, maintain, operate and perpetu­
ate separate public schools for Negro and white children, 
respectively and deny infant plaintiffs and all other Negro 
children because of their race or color, assignment, enroll­
ment and admission to an education in any public school 
operated for white children, and compel infant plaintiffs 
and all other Negro children, because of their race or color, 
to attend public schools set apart and operated exclusively 
for Negro children, pursuant to a policy, practice, custom 
and usage of segregating, on the basis of race or color, all 
children attending the public schools of said County.

16. Timely application on behalf of each infant plain­
tiff was made to defendants for admission for the 1960-61 
school session to a public school in the County of Roanoke, 
Virginia heretofore and now maintained for and attended 
by white persons only, but defendants, acting pursuant to 
a policy, practice, custom and usage of segregating school 
children on the basis of race or color, denied the applica­
tion of each on account of race or color.

16. (a) The defendant, Pupil Placement Board, acting 
in concert with the defendants has refused to this date, to

Complaint



11a

take any action on the applications which effectively denies 
pupils of their Constitutional rights,

17. The aforesaid action of defendants denies infant 
plaintiffs and each of them, and others similarly situated, 
their liberty without due process of law and the equal pro­
tection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and 
the rights secured by Title 42, United States Code, Section 
1981.

18. Defendants will continue to pursue against plain­
tiffs, and all other Negro children similarly situated, the 
policy, practice, custom, and usage hereinbefore specified 
and will continue to deny them assignment, admission, en­
rollment or education to and in any public school operated 
for children residing in said County who are not Negroes 
unless plaintiffs are afforded the relief sought herein.

19. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and affected 
are suffering irreparable injury and are threatened with ir­
reparable injury in the future by reason of the policy, prac­
tice, custom and usage and the actions of the defendants 
herein complained of.

W hereof , plaintiffs respectfully pray that, upon the 
filing of this complaint, as may appear proper and con­
venient to the Court:

(A) This Court enter judgment declaring that:

(1) The enforcement, operation or execution of Sec­
tion 22-232.6, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which 
by its terms and in its operation perpetuates the pre­
existing requirement, policy, practice, custom and

Complaint



12a

usage of the Commonwealth of Virginia of segregating, 
on the basis of race or color, children attending the 
public schools of the Commonwealth, deprives infant 
plaintiffs of their rights to non-segregated education 
secured by the Due Process and Equal Protection 
Clauses of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States;
(2) The enforcement, operation or execution of Sec­
tions 22-232.8 to 22-232.14, Code of Virginia, 1950, as 
amended, which by their terms and in their operation 
require incoming, graduating and transfering public 
school children to pursue the procedure thereby 
specified, deprives infant plaintiffs of their rights to 
non-segregated education secured by the Due Process 
and Equal Protection Clauses of S ection  1 of the Four­
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States;
(3) The procedure prescribed by Sections 22-232.8 to 
22-232.14, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, is in­
adequate to secure and protect the rights of infant 
plaintiffs to non-segregated education and need not 
be pursued as a condition precedent to judicial relief 
from the imposition of segregation requirements based 
on race or color; and
(4) The action of defendants E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. 
Justis, and Alfred L. Wingo, in administering and en­
forcing the provisions of Sections 22-232.5 to 22-232.14, 
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, so as to preserve, 
perpetuate and effectuate the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of assigning children, including infant 
plaintiffs, to separate public schools on the basis of 
their race or color, dejirives infant plaintiffs of their

Complaint



13a

liberty without due process of law and equal protection 
of the laws secured by Section 1 of the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
(B) This Court enter a temporary and permanent in­
junction restraining and enjoining the defendant 
County School Board of the County of Roanoke and 
defendant Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent 
of Schools of the County of Roanoke, Virginia and each 
of them, their successors in office, and their agents 
and employees and all persons in active concert and 
participation with them, forthwith, from any and all 
action that regulates or affects, on the basis of race 
or color, the admission, enrollment or education of the 
infant plaintiffs, or any other Negro children similarly 
situated, to and in any public school operated by the 
defendants.

(C) In the event defendants request any delay in ef­
fecting full and immediate compliance with Paragraphs 
(a) and (b), supra, and for bringing about a transi­
tion to a school system not operated on the basis of 
race, direct defendants to present to this Court, within 
ten (10) days a complete and comprehensive plan, 
adopted by them which is designed to effect compliance 
with Paragraphs (a) and (b), supra, at the earliest 
practicable date; and which shall provide for a prompt 
and reasonable start toward desegregation of the pub­
lic schools under defendants’ jurisdiction and control 
and a systematic and effective method for achieving 
such desegregation with all deliberate speed; and that 
following the filing of such plan with this Court, a fur­
ther hearing will be held in this cause, at which time 
defendants shall have the burden of establishing that

Complaint



14a

such delay as is requested is necessary in the public 
interest and is consistent with good faith compliance 
at the earliest practicable date.
(D) Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, and reasonable 
attorney’s fee for their counsel, and grant such fur­
ther, other, additional, or alternative relief as may 
appear to the Court to be equitable and just in the 
premises.

G w en d o lyn  Y vette  I seley , 
an infant by Raymond M. Iseley and 
Helen Iseley, her grandfather and 

grandmother and next friend,

J ean  M illice n t  F erguson and 
Gregory M orris F erguson , 

infants by Jacquelin Ferguson, 
their mother and next friend,

J udy  Carol W est , A lv in  W est, J r ., 
L u la  M arie W est and 
B arbara L y n n  W est , 

infants by Alvin West, their 
father and next friend,

R aym ond  M. I seley , H elen  I seley, 
J acquelin  F erguson , A lvin  W est

B y  / s /  R euben  E . L aw son

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Reuben E. Lawson
19 Gilmer Avenue, Northwest 

Roanoke, Virginia

Complaint



15a

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants, The 
County School Board of Roanoke County and 

Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent 
of Schools

[ c a pt io n  o m it t e d ]

N o tice  to D ism iss

These Defendants, The County School Board of Roanoke 
County, Virginia, and Herman L. Horn, Division Superin­
tendent of Schools for said County, jointly and severally, 
move the Court to dismiss the Complaint filed in this case 
on the following grounds:

(1) The Complaint fails to state a case upon which re­
lief may be granted in that there are no allegations of 
fact in said Complaint supporting the pleader’s conclusion 
that the denial of the individual plaintiffs’ applications for 
school assignment, transfer, enrollment and admission was 
on account of their race or color.

(2) The individual plaintiffs have failed to comply with 
the requirements of law as set forth in Chapter 12, Article 
1.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the rules 
and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board of the Com­
monwealth of Virginia, adopted pursuant to the provisions 
of said State Statute, relative to school assignment, trans­
fer, enrollment and admission; especially have said in­
dividual Plaintiffs failed to make proper, timely and legal 
application for assignment, transfer, enrollment or admis­
sion to any school in Roanoke County for the 1960-61 school 
year, other than Carver School to which each of the infant 
Plaintiffs has been properly, timely and legally assigned, 
enrolled and admitted for said school year.



16a

(3) If the individual Plaintiffs considered themselves ag­
grieved by any action taken by said Pupil Placement Board 
on their applications for assignment, transfer, enrollment 
and admission from Carver School to Clearbrook School 
for the 1960-61 school year they should have taken the steps 
set forth in said State Statute for administrative relief of 
such action. This they have failed to do. Their right to 
so do still exists. The procedure and remedies provided by 
said State Law (Chapter 12, Article 1.1 of the Code of 
Virginia, 1950, as amended) are fully adequate for deter­
mination and adjudication of Plaintiffs’ rights, and the 
Plaintiffs should be required to follow the procedure set 
forth in said State Law for administrative relief, unless 
and until it becomes apparent that such procedure and 
remedies therein provided are adequate to protect Plain­
tiffs Constitutional rights.

A n sw er

Without waiving their Motion to Dismiss, these Defen­
dants, The County School Board of Roanoke County, 
Virginia, and Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent 
of Schools of Roanoke County, jointly and severally, an­
swer said Complaint with specific reference to the num­
bered paragraphs thereof as follows:

1. The allegations of Paragraph l.(a ) and l.(b) are 
denied.

2. These Defendants are without knowledge as to the 
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 and call for proof 
thereof.

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants
County School Board and Herman L. Horn



17a

3. These Defendants are without knowledge as to the 
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 and call for proof 
thereof.

4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 are denied.

5. Paragraph 5 containing only constitutional and statu­
tory citations and legal conclusions, no answer is made 
thereto.

6. Except that these Defendants admit that Herman L. 
Horn is Division Superintendent of Schools for Roanoke 
County, Virginia, the remainder of Paragraph 6 contain­
ing only constitutional and statutory citations and legal 
conclusions, no answer is made thereto.

7. Paragraph 7 containing only constitutional and statu­
tory citations and legal conclusions, no answer is made 
thereto.

8. Applications for transfer of infant Plaintiffs from 
Carver School, to which each infant Plaintiff had been 
legally assigned, to Clearbrook School, for the 1960-61 
school year were received by Defendant, Herman L. Horn, 
Division Superintendent of Schools of Roanoke County, 
on July 16,1960, and by him presented to the County School 
Board at its next regular meeting on August 9, 1960, and 
thence forwarded by said School Board to the Virginia 
Pupil Placement Board, all as provided by law. At the 
times alleged in the Complaint and at the present time the 
Plaintiffs have failed to take those steps before the Virginia 
Pupil Placement Board required by law for a final deter­
mination of their applications, and especially have said

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants
County School Board and Herman L. Horn



18a

Plaintiffs further failed to follow the procedure for ad­
ministrative relief of any action taken by said Pupil Place­
ment Board if they are aggrieved thereby, as they are re­
quired by law to so do. All allegations of Paragraph 8 not 
herein referred to are denied.

9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are denied.

10. Paragraph 10 containing only statutory citations and 
legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto.

11. These Defendants admit that E. J. Oglesby, Elwood 
T. Justis and Alfred L. Wingo are members of the Pupil 
Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The 
remainder of Paragraph 11 containing only statutory cita­
tions and legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto.

12. The allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 
12 are admitted. The allegations of the second sentence of 
such paragraph are denied.

13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are admitted.

14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied.

15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 are denied.

16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 are denied.

16(a). The allegations of Paragraph 16(a) are denied.

17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 are denied.

18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 are denied.

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants
County School Board and Herman L. Horn



19a

19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 are denied.

A nd  doe F txktheb A n sw eb  to th e  C o m plain t  filed against 
them, these Defendants, jointly and severally, further an­
swer and say:

A. That for a period of many years prior to the filing 
of the applications for transfer of infant Plaintiffs from 
Carver School to Clearbrook School the County School 
Board of Roanoke County had devoted itself to a concerted 
policy and effort of maintaining good race relationships 
in the Public School System of the County, and, pursuant to 
that policy and effort, had desegregated school teachers 
meetings and other school functions and activities. Prior 
to the filing of the applications for transfer of infant plain­
tiffs from Carver School to Clearbrook School no applica­
tion had theretofore been submitted to said School Board by 
any negro pupil requesting admission to any school pre­
dominantly attended by white children.

B. At no time has the County School Board of Roanoke 
County or the Division Superintendent of Schools of 
Roanoke County adopted a policy by resolution or other­
wise requiring the continued segregation of the races in 
the Public Schools of Roanoke County.

C. That The County School Board of Roanoke County 
is now engaged in a general County wide school improve­
ment and construction program, which program specifically 
includes the construction of a new school for Elementary 
children to be erected in the immediate neighborhood in 
which the Plaintiffs reside, which new school will be con­
structed and available for occupancy by pupils at the be­
ginning of the 1961-62 school year, to which new school

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants
County School Board and Herman L. Horn



20a

each infant plaintiff will definitely be assigned and trans­
ferred for said 1961-62 school year.

D. That all legal power and authority of assignment, 
transfer, enrollment and admission of pupils in the public 
schools of Roanoke County is vested in the Defendant, 
Virginia Pupil Placement Board, and any relief sought 
by individual plaintiffs should be directed only against 
that Defendant and not against these Defendants.

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of September, 1960.

T h e  Co u n ty  S chool B oard 
o r  R oanoke Co u n t y , V irgin ia

and

H erm an  L. H orn ,
Division Superintendent of Schools 

of Roanoke County,

By /s /  B e n j . E. Ch a pm a n

Benj. E. Chapman, Their Counsel.

Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants
County School Board and Herman L. Horn

Benj. E. Chapman,
Counsel for these Defendants, 

216% E. Main Street, 
Salem, Virginia.

[ CERTIFICATE OMITTED]



21a

[ c a p t io n  o m it t e d ]

For their joint and several answer to the Complaint in 
these proceedings, in so far as advised material and proper, 
the defendants E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis and Alfred 
L. Wingo say:

1— Strict proof of all of the allegations of paragraphs 
1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Complaint is called for.

2— That Herman L. Horn is Division Superintendent of 
Schools for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and that these 
defendants constitute the Pupil Placement Board of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, is admitted.

3— All of the other allegations of the Complaint are 
denied or constitute a recital of laws and legal conclusions 
as to which no answer is required.

F u rth er  A n sw e r in g :

4— These defendants denied the specific request of the 
plaintiffs for enrollment in or transfer to Clearbrook School 
and continued their enrollment in Carver School purely 
in strict accordance with the Rule and Regulation of the 
Pupil Placement Board requiring the submission of such 
a request sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of 
any school session. At the same time the plaintiffs were 
expressly advised that such action was without prejudice 
to their right to make new application at least sixty (60) 
days prior to the opening date of the 1961-1962 school 
session if they desire to do so.

5— Another Rule and Regulation of the Pupil Placement 
Board, also generally applicable in all cases and duly

Answer of tlie Pupil Placement Board



22a

adopted without regard to race, color or creed, is to the 
effect that no pupil shall be transferred from one school 
to another in the absence of a favorable recommendation 
by local school officials, such rule also resting upon the 
necessity for attaining, as between these defendants and 
the local school officials, orderly administrative proceedings 
in the operation of the public schools. There has been no 
such recommendation in the ease of any of the plaintiffs.

6— These defendants deny that they have enrolled or 
placed any of the plaintiffs in, or denied requested transfer 
to, public schools on the sole ground of race or color in 
contravention of any constitutional rights. These defen­
dants aver, on the contrary, that they have attempted to 
enroll each pupil so as to provide for the orderly adminis­
tration of public schools, the competent instruction of the 
pupils enrolled and the health, safety and general welfare 
of such pupils, in strict accordance with law governing 
and controlling their actions.

7— They further aver that they are under no obligation 
or compunction to promote or to accelerate the mixing of 
the races in the public schools; that no court is constitu­
tionally empowered to direct the mixing of the races in the 
public schools; that no negro child or white child or child 
of any other race has the right to attend a specific school 
merely because he is negro or white of a member of any 
other race; that in the placing of over 500,000 pupils in 
the public schools of the Commonwealth of Virginia, an 
infinitesimal number of complaints has been made to this 
Board by any person on the ground of racial discrimina­
tion; that voluntary segregation of the races is lawful and

Answer of Pupil Placement Board



23a

the normal wish of the parents and children of the over­
whelming majorities of both the negro and white races is, 
in general, in accord with the welfare of the children of each 
race, is not the proper concern of any court, and that until 
appealed to in a specific case, this Board should not as­
sume the contrary.

8—F u rth er  A n sw erin g , that it is also provided by law 
that any party aggrieved by a decision of the Pupil Place­
ment Board may file with it a protest, pursuant to which 
the Board shall conduct a hearing, consider and decide each 
case separately on its merits, which decision enrolling such 
pupil in the school originally designated or in such other 
school as shall be deemed proper, shall set forth the find­
ing upon which such decision is based. That the burden 
of proving discrimination in the placement of pupils on 
the sole ground of race or color rests upon the one alleg­
ing discrimination; that the welfare of each child, regard­
less of race or color, is a factual question to be considered 
and decided by this Board after complaint is made, hear­
ing held and full evidence concerning all surrounding cir­
cumstances is made available; and that until such proce­
dure is pursued no person should be in a position to chal­
lenge the action of this Board on the ground that it has 
discriminated on the sole ground of race or color. That 
notwithstanding ability, readiness and willingness to af­
ford a prompt and full hearing in accordance with law as 
to any specific complaint or grievance, none of the plaintiffs 
has filed any protest with the Pupil Placement Board or 
any of these defendants with respect to any action taken 
by it or them.

Answer of Pupil Placement Board



24a

W herefore , the p la in tiffs  sh ou ld  be den ied  re lie f  on  the 
p en d in g  com pla in t and  the sam e sh ou ld  be d ism issed .

Answer of Pupil Placement Board

A . B. S cott

E . J . O glesby 
E dward T . J ustis 
A lfred  L . W ingo 

Constituting the Members of the 
Pupil Placement Board of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia

By Counsel

A. B. Scott, of
Christian, Marks, Scott & Spicer, 

Counsel for Pupil Placement Board 
1309 State-Planters Building 

Richmond 19, Virginia.

^CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OMITTED]



25a

—2—
Excerpts From Transcript of Trial, May 24, 1961

* # # * #

Mr. Lawson: Yes, sir. May it please the Court, I would 
like to file the motion to amend the complaint, correcting 
the name of the first-named Plaintiff from that of Gwen­
dolyn Yvette Iseley to that of Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh 
and by Emmy and Henry, her grandfather and grand­
mother and next friend.

The Court: Is there any objection to that!
Mr. Chapman: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Let the motion be granted.

—3—
Mr. Lawson: May it please the Court, I should also 

like to move the Court that stipulations in paragraphs 2 
and 3 be admitted; namely, that infant Plaintiffs are Ne­
groes, are citizens of the United States and of the Com­
monwealth of Virginia and are residents and domiciled in 
the County of Eoanoke; that they are within the age limit 
of eligibility to attend the public schools of the said County 
and possess all qualifications and satisfy all requirements 
for admission to the public schools of said County. Fur­
ther, that adult Plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the 
United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia and are 
residents and domiciled in the County of Eoanoke; that 
they are parents or guardians of the infant Plaintiffs and 
are taxpayers of the United States and of the said Com­
monwealth and County.

The Court: Now I will ask if they agree to that stipula­
tion which is, technically, slightly different than what we 
took up in chambers. The only difference is that you are 
asking them to stipulate that they possess all of the quali­
fications and requirements for admission to the schools.
I am sure that they will agree to the stipulation that they



26a

Motions

are residents of the County of Roanoke and that they are 
members of the Negro race.

Mr. Lawson: They are attending the schools in the
—4—-

County.
The Court: And that they are attending the schools in 

the County.
Mr. Lawson: As of now; yes, sir.
The Court: Without asking them to stipulate that they 

have all of the qualifications and requirements; is that 
correct?

Mr. Lawson: That is correct.
The Court: Stipulation so granted and made part of 

the record in this case.
Mr. Lawson: Tour Honor, I should also like to move 

the Court that all exhibits be admitted without formal 
proof.

The Court: Exhibits that we exchanged in chambers 
between Counsel for all parties will be admitted without 
formal proof subject, however, to either side, when they 
are entered individually, objecting on the ground of rele­
vancy if they are so advised.

Mr. Chapman: That is my understanding.
Mr. Lawson: If Your Honor please, I should also move 

the Court to admit the depositions of witnesses B. S. Hilton, 
Herman L. Horn and Arthur G. Trout under Rule 26. 

The Court: On what ground?
Mr. Lawson: On the ground, sir, that these are the 

depositions of parties to the cause and, therefore, he an
—5—

exception under the other rules.
The Court: Are these witnesses available and have been 

subpoenaed?



27a

Motions

Mr. Lawson: Yes, sir. They are here and we intend to 
call them.

The Court: And the depositions are the depositions 
taken prior to the hearing of this case under what is 
commonly referred to as the discovery process in Federal 
procedure ?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, sir.
The Court: The purpose is to entitle each side to ex­

amine witnesses to determine in advance of trial what 
they do or do not know. And they are generally not taken 
for the purpose of introducing them in evidence in sub­
stitution for the testimony of those witnesses in open 
court. The purpose of the rule is that it is always an ad­
vantage to the Court and the jury, if a jury is impanelled, 
to see and hear the witnesses so that they may determine 
their credibility based upon their actions on the stand and 
everything instance thereto. The motion is denied.

Mr. Lawson: If Your Honor please, we would like to 
state for the record that the purpose was to supplement 
live testimony. We thought, under the rule, it was perfectly 
proper.

— 6—

The Court: The motion is denied.
Mr. Scott: In dealing with the parties to the suit, in 

order that the record and Your Honor may have it straight, 
one of those witnesses, B. S. Hilton, while Executive Secre­
tary of the Pupil Placement Board, is not a former party 
to the suit and I wrnuld like to straighten that out.

The Court: That is all right. It doesn’t make any dif­
ference to this Court "whether they are former or other 
parties. The motion is denied as to all depositions, if they 
are available in court and will testify in court.

# # # # #



28a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs Direct

—7—
* * * * *

P l a in t if f s ’ E v id e n c e

H e r m a n  L. H o r n , called as a witness for the Plaintiffs, 
having been dnly sworn, testified as follows.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Will you state your full name and your position 
with the County School Board? A. Herman L. Horn. I 
am Superintendent of the Roanoke County Schools.

Q. How long have you held that position, sir? A. Six
years.

Q Hid you have a previous position in the County School
— 8—

system? A. Yes, sir. I was principal of the William Burt 
High School in 1930 to 1940. I was Director of Instruc­
tion of Roanoke County Schools from 1940 to ’42,

Q. You are one of the parties, defendant, in this case?
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, we request permission 
to examine the witness further as an adverse party.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. I would like to obtain general facts about your 

school system. Would you tell me, first, how many ele­
mentary schools you have in the County? A. We have 
23 schools that are purely elementary. And then we have— 

Q. How many high schools? A. Five high schools. One 
of those is combined—one through twelve. And we have



29a

two other high schools that have the seventh grade through 
the twelfth.

Q. How many of the elementary schools serve only 
Negro pupils and what are their names! A. There are 
two elementary schools in which, presently, only Negro 
children attend—Harlond and Gregg* Avenue.

Q. There is a high school which serves only Negro pupils!
—9—

A. Carver High School serves only Negroes and serves 
elementary and high school. It is combined—grades one 
through twelve.

Q. Are there other schools in the system attended only 
by white pupils! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this true with respect to the staffs and teachers 
and principals at these various schools: in the white 
schools they are all white teachers and in the Negro, the 
principals and teachers— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Staff and so forth! A. Well, the County Staff has 
one Negro coordinator.

Q. I was speaking of the staff at the schools. A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Who is this last person you mentioned! A. We have 
a Negro coordinator of elementary education.

Q. He is assigned to a particular school! A. He serves 
all of the three elementary schools—Carver, Harlond and 
Cregg Avenue.

Q. He coordinates the three Negro elementary schools! 
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nabrit: Now, at this time, Your Honor, I 
would like to introduce or offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 
1 and 2, previously discussed in the stipulation.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



30a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 10—

The Court: Counsel for the Defendant have any 
objection?

Mr. Chapman: May I see them, Tour Honor?
The Court: Yes. Show them to Counsel.
Mr. Chapman: No objection, Tour Honor.
The Court: They may be admitted as Plaintiffs’ 

Exhibits 1 and 2.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, if I may state briefly 

what they are. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 is a tape listing 
the names of the schools in the County and the 
grades they serve and the capacity of the various 
schools.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 is a map of the County which, 
unfortunately, is on a rather small scale. Marked 
on the map by the school authorities are schools’ 
zone lines. And there may be some other markings 
on there which I cannot see.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Doctor Horn, approximately how many pupils do 
you have in your County School system? A. Total en­
rollment runs something over 14,000 at the present.

Q. And about how many of these pupils are Negroes? 
A. There are about—total enrollment—950.

— 11—

Q. 950? A. Out of the 14,000, yes, sir.
Q. Out of 1400? A. 14,000. I am sorry; 14,000.
Q. So, less than one out of 14 students in the County 

is Negro—one out of 14 or slightly less? A. Well, three 
out of 28—would be about one out of every nine. I ’d say



31a

one out of about every nine are Negroes. See, we have 
there three Negroes and 28 schools.

Q. No, no. I was not talking about schools. I was talk­
ing about pupil ratio to Negroes.

The Court: Isn’t that a mathematical calculation?
I can figure that out.

Mr. Nabrit: Very well, sir.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, about how many teachers do you have—white 
and Negro—and supervisors and so forth? A. We have, 
1 believe, 535 teachers and 37 of them, I believe, are in 
the schools attended by Negroes.

Q. Now, will you describe to the Court what the schools’ 
zoning situation is, what that Exhibit No. 2 indicates? A. 
Well, in Roanoke County the population is growing rapidly, 
and we, of course, are constantly building school build­
ings, and we zone the areas to try to divide the children 
among the schools where we have space.

Q. Do you have a zone for each school? A. Yes. We
- 12-

set up each year a zone for each school for—well, I ’d say 
each year. Of course, some of them continue year after 
year in areas where the population is not growing. But 
in some of the areas where the population is growing 
rapidly, we build new schools and we have to change the 
lines as we build new schools to provide new space, to 
shift children from one school to the other, to take care 
of our crowded conditions. Our schools are crowded in 
our area here.

Q. Well, is it generally true that the students are as­
signed to schools in accordance to the zones that are set

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs-—Direct



32a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

up and that are indicated on that map? A. Those zones 
represent the areas that were assigned the schools for this 
present school year—1960-61.

Q. And the children are assigned in accordance with 
those zones? A. Yes.

Q. Are there exceptions to that? A. Oh, there may be 
a few occasions where there may be exceptions because 
of health conditions of the child. The parents in some 
instances—the children are transferred from a school to 
a school that is some distance away. I think probably in 
the case of one or two where the parents have taken the 
child from school where the child has been ill.

Q. Except for this type of individual exception, the

C€>W . . .students are assigned m accordance with these zones? A. 
Yes, the zones for this present year.

Q. Now, is it true that the zones for the three Negro 
schools in the County are separate zones in the sense that 
they overlap zones established for white schools? A. Yes. 
The three Negroes’ serve the entire County. The zones 
overlap.

Q. You have one Negro high school and four white high 
schools? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, do the four white high schools have separate 
geographic areas that they serve in the County? A. Yes.

Q. And the Negro high school—Carver—serves Negroes 
living everywhere? A. Yes.

Q. And for the elementary schools, the same type of 
thing would he true; that is, the Negro school zones es­
tablished on the map overlap the white schools? A. Yes, 
sir. They do.

Q. Do you recall Exhibit 2? Do you recall correctly that 
it shows the Negro school zones in crayon in one color

V



33a

and the white schools in another color? A. I believe it 
does. But I believe they are on different colors. i

—14—
Q. Now, I believe you indicated that you became Super­

intendent back in 1956? A. 1955.
Q. 1955? A. This is my sixth year.
Q. Was this type of zoning system in use when you 

became Superintendent? A. Yes.
Q. The same type of map? A. Yes. The zones have 

been changed as the community has grown.
Q. Same pattern? A. And the school serves a certain 

area.
Q. How far does that go back in your experience in the 

County—that system? A. I frankly do not recall. I was 
here in 1930—’42—I believe there were different areas 
that each school served. But it was not—I don’t know 
whether they were definite—any rigid regulations or not 
—concerning the zoning, the school zones at that time.

Q. You were away from the County between ’42 and 
’55? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you able to tell, when you came here in 1955, 
that this was the existing system? A. Was I able to tell?
I am not sure that I understand your question.

—15—
Q. When you came here to the County in 1955, did you 

find this system in use when you got here? A. Yes.
Q. Now, are your three Negro schools located in the 

principal centers of Negro population in the County or 
are there considerable groups of Negroes living in other 
areas? A. Well, there are several instances of reason­
able size groups living in other areas.

Q. So, that there are Negro pupils who are in the County

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



34a

in some numbers that are not located in the neighborhood 
where these three schools are? A. Yes, there are.

Q. Now, has your School Board or have you or any of 
your assistants ever made any announcements to the public 
or to parents or teachers or pupils to indicate to them that 
racial segregation was no longer required in your County 
School system? A. Would you repeat your question, 
please?

Q. Yes. My question was whether you have made any 
announcements—

Mr. Chapman: I would like to—
Mr. Nabrit: Let me finish the question.
The Court: Go ahead and repeat the question.

— 16—

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. My question is : whether you—when I say you, I mean 

you and your Board and your Staff—have ever issued 
any announcements to the public to let the public know 
that racial segregation was not going to be a require­
ment in the County in the future there from that time? Had 
you made any such announcement to the County?

Mr. Chapman: We object to that question. Any 
answer to it would be irrelevant. The School Super­
intendent and the School Board is not charged with 
any duty of making any such announcement.

The Court: Your point is well taken. I don’t 
know if they are charged. Will you limit your an­
swer to any official act on your part, as Superin­
tendent of the Schools, and any official act that you 
know of covered by the minutes of the corporate 
body known as the School Board?

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



35a

Mr. Nabrit: I so limit my question, Your Honor. 
The Court: As stated from what you might or 

might not know.

A. The answer is no. There has been no announcement 
from me as an official or by the School Board.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. The Board. I take it that yoiir answer includes that
—17—

there has been no desegregation plan or anything like 
that announced officially by the Board or by you, by the 
official office?

The Court: I didn’t get the question.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. No plan or plans for desegregation or ending segre­
gation announced? A. No.

Q. By the previous question, I mean plans relating to 
ending segregation. A. That is the way I understood your 
question, sir.

Q. Would you corroborate the fact that there has been 
no actual desegregation of schools in the County? By that 
I mean there has been no case where Negroes and white 
children attended school together? A. No, they have not 
attended school together.

Q. That is true as far as teachers are concerned; that 
teachers are also segregated: Negro teachers only for 
Negro students; white teachers only for white pupils? A. 
That is true.

Q. Now, what normally happens when a first-grade child 
is to enter school? Do you have a Spring enrollment pro-

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—-Direct



36a

gram? What does a parent do to get his child into school 
when he is entering the first grade? A. We have prelimi-

—18—
nary enrollment day or days in each school in Roanoke 
County, usually by the first of April, sometime latter 
part of March, where announcements are usually made in 
the newspapers. The parents are requested to bring their 
children to the school to enroll them for the coming ses­
sion.

Q. Is this a fair summary of what they do when they 
get there: They show proof of the child’s age. They fill 
out a State Pupil Placement Form. Is that part of the 
procedure at that time? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What else goes on, anything else? A. Well, they 
usually explain to the parents the procedure for the first 
day of school and the children are usually shown the room 
that they were probably assigned to—generally an orienta­
tion period for the children and the parents.

Q. Now, how does the parent find out if he doesn’t know 
what school to take his child for this? Is it announced in 
the neighborhood or in the newspapers or what? A. Well, 
usually, if the existing lines of the previous year are 
not changed, why, parents are usually aware of the school 
to which the children are to go in. If there are any change 
in the lines of the school, we usually publish those in the 
newspapers and announce to the children, to those who

—1 9 -
are in school, and, of course, people move into communi­
ties who haven’t been there before, why, they probably 
call the school or my office to inquire where they should 
go for the preliminary enrollment.

Q. And when these people make telephone inquiries, to

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



37a

find out where to go, they are advised in terms of the 
zones to go to school in their zones? A, That is right.

Q. Now, what percentage, if you know, of your children 
go to attend these preliminary enrollments? A. The num­
ber will vary in the different schools, but it probably runs 
90 per cent.

Q. 90 per cent. Do you have approximately 10 per cent 
of the children enrolled or indicate that they wmnt to 
enroll at a later time? A. Well, they enroll continually 
from the preliminary day on up. Some people move into 
the community just a few days before the school but, 
usually, they—

Q. Even after the school starts, people move in and 
are enrolled? A. Yes.

Q. Routinely correct? A. Yes. They move in and they 
are enrolled.

Q. Now, when a parent fills out the State Pupil Place-
— 20—

ment form—he fills it out at the school, I think you in­
dicated. Now, what happens to the form then? There is 
a recommendation made or what? A. The form comes to 
my office. The principal or teacher will check to see that 
it is filled out correctly. The form comes to my office and 
some of my staff will go over all of these forms, verify 
and check to see if they are correct, and place on the form 
the school which the child is recommended for admission. 
And then they are forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board 
in Richmond.

Q. Now, I take it that your recommendations, from what 
you tell me, are in general accordance with your zones? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, now, I take it also, from the facts, that most 
of the students are assigned in consistent with the zones;

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiff s—Direct



38a

that the Pupil Placement Board approves these recom­
mendations routinely! A. I assume that they do.

Q. How long has your system been functioning under 
the Pupil Placement Board! A. From the beginning of 
the Pupil Placement Board, I am not sure of the date.

Q. From 1956, ’57, something like that! A. I don’t 
know the date the Pupil Placement Board was—

— 21—

Q. Is it your impression that it is three or four years, 
several years! A. Yes, several years.

Q. Now, during that period has the Pupil Placement 
Board ever rejected one of your recommendations for the 
assignment of a pupil or have they accepted all of them! 
A. I don’t know whether they all have been accepted or 
not. There may have been some rejections. I don’t recall 
of any instances right now. But, of course, there are thou­
sands of placement forms. I do not recall at present of 
any rejections.

Q. So, it is your recollection that the Board has uni­
formly accepted your recommendations. That is your best 
recollection!

Mr. Chapman: I object to that question on the 
ground to get the witness to say what the Pupil 
Placement Board policy is.

The Court: Objection sustained. The Pupil
Placement Board is the best evidence of that. You 
are not a member of the Board. You were not a 
member were you!

A. No, sir.

The Court: Objection sustained.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



39a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you have much moving of pupils within the 
County or any degree of that? A. Yes. There is some 
moving.

— 22—

Q. What happens when a child moves from one area, 
from one zone, shall we say, to another school zone? Is 
he transferred immediately or later or what happens? A. 
Well, when the parents move, they have to file an applica­
tion blank for transfer. But, usually, when a child’s parents 
move within the County, if it is possible for the child to 
continue in that school for the remaining part of the year, 
we prefer that he remain in that school rather than move 
to another school. I believe that in the great majority of 
the cases, why, the children remain through the school 
session and transfer during the summer. Of course, if 
there is a move, they fill out an application blank for trans­
fer to another school.

Q. And subsequently they are transferred? A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you have any specialized high schools or are 

they all general schools? A. All of the high schools in 
Boanoke County—what is termed in Virginia—are com­
prehensive high schools.

Q. Would it be true that you have no high schools set 
aside for any pupils with special qualifications, different 
from the qualifications of the other high schools? I mean, 
do you have, for example, a trade school or vocational 
school, economic school? A. No.

—23—
Q. None of that. You don’t have any school for smarter 

students or average students? A. No, sir.
Q. Or slower students? You don’t have anything like 

that? A. No, sir.



40a

Q. Do you have any appropriate program of grouping 
by ability in the school! I don’t mean the grade. I mean 
the— A. According to ability?

Q. Within grades. A. A few of our schools usually have 
ability grouping, elementary school. But it is not a County­
wide practice.

Q. This is left to the principal? A. The principal and 
the teachers.

Q. Now, will this discussion also apply to elementary 
schools? There are no specialized schools in the County? 
A. No specialized schools.

Q. They take all of the people living in the zones, who­
ever that happens to be; is that correct? A. In the zones; 
yes, sir, if they are in the age limit.

Q. So, the basic qualification to get into a school is that 
you live in a zone and that you be in the proper grade 
and you have to be promoted to whatever grade you are

" —24—
trying to get into; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, do you recall that these Plaintiffs applied to 
enter previously all-white schools or presently all-white 
schools last summer—the summer of 1960? A. I think I 
recall; yes, sir.

# # # *  *

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Before I present this, can you tell the Court what 
happened when these pupils applied, what form the events 
took? Did you get a letter of petition? A. Well, the ap­
plications with seven children were delivered to my office.

The Court: How many children?



41a

A. Seven; on Saturday, July the 16th, with a letter ad­
dressed to me and the School Board. I presented the seven 
applications to the School Board at its next regular session 
which was the first of August. In accordance with the 
State law, they were forwarded then to the Pupil Place­
ment Board in Eichmond.

—25—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. What, if anything, occurred when you presented these 
applications to your local Board! Did they take any ac­
tion on them! A. The only action the Board took was to 
send them to the Pupil Placement Board. Of course, they 
were addressed to the Pupil Placement Board.

Q. These are the Pupil Placement forms you mean! A. 
Yes.

Q. This was a letter to you, was it not, from Counsel for 
these students, Mr. Lawson, enclosing the applications. Do 
you have that with you! A. I think it was addressed to 
me and the School Board.

Q. Do you have that with you! A. I am not sure whether 
I have or not.

Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, I don’t 
know whether this is one of the exhibits.

The Court: You ask him if he has the letter and 
he will answer it. Let him look through there.

Mr. Chapman: It is one of the exhibits, Your 
Honor.

The Court: I am not sure that wasn’t the letter 
that was introduced on the preliminary motion. You 
referred to it.

—26—
The Witness: I have a copy—a photostatic copy 

of the letter.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



42a

The Court: There were some letters or exhibits 
used on that preliminary motion.

The Witness: Here it is.
The Court: He has it there.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did something else accompany this? What were the 
enclosures with this letter? A. The seven applications and 
the—

Q. There is a petition. A. And a petition to the Board.

The Court: They may have taken them out. My 
recollection is that they had some of these forms at 
the preliminary motion.

Mr. Scott: That is my recollection.
Mr. Chapman: Yes.

*  *  #  *  *

—27—
* * * * *

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, all of the documents 
that we suppose to have introduced seem to be in 
this group already in.

The Court: Let me have them. I assume they are 
marked.

Mr. Nabrit: Should those be remarked or re­
numbered, as a matter of mechanics? What is your 
pleasure ?

The Court: They are already marked. They are 
identified sufficiently.

The Court will consider these exhibits as part of 
the record in this case.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



43a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mr. Horn, did yonr County School Board take any 
action, formal action, on the petition that came with the 
applications of these pupils? A. I think that a copy of the 
minutes of the School Board action is in the record. I think 
that will speak for itself.

Q. Did you make any recommendations on these with 
respect to these seven pupils when you sent them along 
to the Pupil Placement Board? A. Yes, sir, I did.

—28—
Q. Did you recommend that their requests be denied? 

A. I recommended that they attend Carver School.
Q. Carver School being the all-Negro school that six of 

them were already attending previously? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the seventh child was a beginner; is that cor­

rect? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you state any reasons for your recommendations 

or communicate them in any way to the Pupil Placement 
Board when you forwarded— A. No.

Q. You did not? A. No.
Q. What did the Pupil Placement Board inform you 

about their action? Did the Pupil Placement Board subse­
quently tell you that these applications should be denied or 
were denied? A. I received a letter, the letter saying that 
—I think a copy of the letter is in the record. Let’s see if 
I have a copy of it.

Q. Well, perhaps we can save time by introducing this 
in exhibit form, Doctor Horn.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 5 to the deposition of Doctor Horn.

The Court: Show it to Mr. Chapman.



44a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—29—
J{. -Sfe St; -5fc SkW W  W w  IP

The Court: Let it be admitted.
Mr. Nabrit: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5 to the depo­

sition of Doctor Horn.
I also offer, Your Honor, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 

8 to Doctor Horn’s deposition which was an extract 
from the minutes of the meeting of the County 
School Board of Eoanoke County held on August 4, 
1960.

Mr. Chapman: Let me see it, please.
Mr. Nabrit: This is the document that was re­

ferred to.
Mr. Chapman: No objection.

—30—
The Court: Let it be admitted.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Can you tell the Court the substance of the answer 
that you got back from the Pupil Placement Board on this 
application?

The Court: Is the answer available ?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir; one of the documents that 

I just introduced.
The Court: It is already in the record. No need 

for him to tell the subject of it. I will read it myself.
Mr. Nabrit: Very well, sir.
The Court: In other words, there is no secret 

about the fact that the Pupil Placement Board re­
fused to consider these applications because they 
contend they were not filed within the period required



45a

by the rules of the Pupil Placement Board; isn’t 
that right ?

Mr. Nabrit: That is our understanding, sir.
The Court: I don’t think there is any dispute 

about that fact.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Doctor Horn, with respect to this 60-day rule, if we 
may call it that, this is a rule adopted by your local Board 
or the Pupil Placement Board? A. 60-day rule?

—31—
Q. That is correct. A. It is a Pupil Placement—adopted 

by the Pupil Placement Board.
Q. Does your local Board have any or did it at that 

time have any similar rule or anything like that, adopted 
locally as to when the time limit of the pupil is to apply 
to enter school the next year?

The Court: What difference does that make 
whether they did or not if they are under the Pupil 
Placement Board? He can answer the question. But 
what difference does it make whether the local Board 
had a different rule, if they are bound. And, of 
course, that is one of the questions before the Court. 
If they are bound by the Pupil Placement Board and 
they make all of the rules they want, it wouldn’t 
have any bearing on it if the Pupil Placement Board 
is the legal body to assigning pupils. I don’t know 
whether it is relevant. But to save time, do you have 
any local rules on that subject?

Mr. Chapman: You are asking him?
The Court: Does the local Board have any local 

rules on when pupils should apply for transfer?

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direet



46a

The Witness: No, sir. The only rule that the 
School Board adopted was with regard to the divid­
ing line and the new North High School and the 
lines were withdrawn and we wouldn’t consider any 
requests to transfer from one school to another. 
But, other than that, I know of none.

—32—
The Court: He said the School Board doesn’t 

have any rules.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. As I understood your previous testimony, you recom­
mended that these transfers be denied when you trans­
mitted them to the Pupil Placement Board, but you did not 
indicate any reasons to the Pupil Placement Board for 
your recommendation; is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Hid you at any subsequent time before they were or 
any subsequent time tell the Pupil Placement Board your 
reasons? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any formal or informal conferences 
with the Board or its staff about these pupils? A. No, sir. 
Except the applications were presented to the Board. That 
is in the minutes.

Q. Presented to your local School Board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you or any of your assistants or staff have any 

conferences with the State Pupil Placement Board or any 
of its Staff about these pupils or send them any memoran­
dum or anything like that? A. No, sir.

—33—
Q. Before they acted? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you do anything after they acted? A. No, sir.
Q. What was your reason for recommending—did you

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



47a

have a reason for recommending that these transfers be 
denied! A. Yes, sir.

# # # # *

—37—

The Court: What reason did you have? First let 
me ask you: These recommendations are signed by
E. B. Broadwater, Assistant Superintendent. That 
is not you?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Bid you make any written recom­

mendations?
The Witness: No. Mr. Broadwater signed them 

at my request.
The Court: As an assistant?
The Witness: My responsibility. I made the deci­

sion.
—38—

The Court: You told him, in other words, what 
to put in there ?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: For what reason did you recommend 

that these applicants should be assigned to Carver 
School? That is the question.

The Witness: For the reason that we had the 
space for these children at Carver School and we 
did not have the space for them at Clearbrook 
School. And these children, regardless of what race 
or creed they would have been, I would have made 
the same recommendation.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, with reference to the space, how did you de­
termine that? Did you make an investigation? What did

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



48a

you do? A. No, I didn’t have to make an investigation. 
I had the facts that the schools had been organized, the 
teachers employed back in March or April. And this school, 
the Clearbrook School at that time and this time were 
using a storage room for a classroom. The pupil-teacher 
ratio was greater at Clearbrook than it is at Carver. I 
had this same problem to face, if I would recommend seven 
children—in this area where these seven children live there 
are probably 125 children that go to Carver School-—I 
would have recommended these seven children to Carver. 
I certainly would have been consistent if others had ap-

—39—
plied.

Q. Let me see if I understand your statement. You have 
125 other Negroes in this same neighborhood where these 
Plaintiffs live? A. Approximately that number. I couldn’t 
say exactly. But South Court and Southern Hills—in that 
area.

Q. None of them had made any application to them or 
indicated—had any of them made any indication to you 
where they wanted to go to school? A. No.

Mr. Chapman: I object to that question. It is 
irrelevant to this particular—

The Court: To save time, let it come in. Objec­
tion overruled.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, Doctor Horn— A. I try to deal fairly with 
people in the community. If parents of children in a par­
ticular area ask to go to a particular school—if I allow 
a few to go, I would have to allow all of them to go if 
they asked.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



49a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Q. Doctor Horn, did I understand you to tell me earlier 
that when people move into a new neighborhood, no mat­
ter what time of year they move in, when they enter the 
system for the first time, they are allowed to go to the 
school in that zone, right! A. Yes.

—40—
Q. Now, these Negro pupils, these seven Plaintiffs, they 

live in the Clearbrook zone—for the white pupils! A. 
That is right.

Q. White pupils moving into the County into that zone 
after the people applied would be admitted routinely? A. 
Yes.

Q. Yes. A. In moving in there are not going to be 
more than probably outside a half dozen or so people 
move in. There wouldn’t be 125 people move into Clear­
brook area in a couple of months’ time.

Q. But, if a half dozen or seven white students moved 
into the Clearbrook area any time during the school year, 
they would be assigned to Clearbrook, wouldn’t they, 
under your normal practice? A. Yes. But, when you are 
talking about seven children living here in the area with 
probably 125 or 50 other children living around them, ex­
actly the same conditions, if I say yes to those seven, then 
I have no basis whatsoever of saying no to 100 more if 
they want to come—to be consistent.

Q. So, this is what you are telling me: That your view 
was if you admitted these seven Negroes, you would have 
to admit all of the rest of the Negroes to Clearbrook? A. 
If I recommended—

—41—
Mr. Chapman: Argumentative.
The Court: I think that is a little argumentative. 

Let’s get on with the questioning. He made it very



50a

clear because lie is giving you Ms reason. Whether 
it is sound or not is another question. He said he 
didn’t recommend this because if he did he would 
feel duty-bound to recommend 125 others if they 
applied. Now, that is his reason, whether anybody 
likes it or not.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, sir, is it true that white students who applied 
for Clearbrook, to enter Clearbrook, enrolled in Clear- 
brook after these pupils applied? You had more white 
pupils in Clearbrook later in the year than you knew about 
in the summer when you made this decision; didn’t you? 
A. Yes. Unfortunately, a few people moved in there. 
People moved away and others moved in.

The Court: Do you know, Doctor, how much the 
enrollment in Clearbrook increased, if any, say 
within ten days after the opening of the school until 
the end of it? How much the school population in­
creased? Do you have those figures?

The Witness: We have those figures. Just a 
minute. I have a copy of the figures here. How 
much they increased in October—of course, many

—42—
of these children who came in later were children 
who just entered. They were in the community. 
They didn’t enter the first day.

The Court: That is the reason I said within ten 
days after the school opened.

The Witness: I think I have those figures here.
Mr. Chapman: I believe that information was 

supplied with the exhibit that we agreed on this 
morning.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



51a

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, Exhibit 4, which I have 
in my hand, doesn’t exactly answer your question 
that you have just asked.

The Court: Let Doctor Horn see Exhibit 4 and—
The Witness: I have here the copy of the state­

ment which he has. On September 6, the day school 
opened, there were 383 at Clearbrook and October 
first—395. But that increase was probably—

The Court: You had 395 on October first. Did the 
enrollment in that school after October the first up 
to the present time materially increase or decrease 
over the 395 figure?

The Witness: It stayed practically the same. 
There were few drop-outs.

The Court: You have the figures. Was there any 
change in that 395 figure up to the present time?

The Witness: I don’t have the exact figures pres­
ent but there is very little change—maybe as many

—43—
as five either way.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 4, Doctor Horn’s deposition—

The Court: It may be admitted.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, did you ever take any action to advertise the 
Pupil Placement Board’s 60-day cut-off rule in this com­
munity? A. No, sir.

Q. How was that rule made known to you—by memo? 
A. Yes.

Q. Here is the memorandum? A. Yes.

Mr. Nabrit: Mr. Chapman, I am offering this 
memorandum—Memorandum No. 24, July 17, 1959.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



Mr. Chapman: Yes, sir. We want that in.
The Conrt: Let it be admitted.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. When you got Memorandum No. 24, that you refer 
to as to the 60-day rule, what did you do with it here in 
your local community? A. Well, the memorandums come 
from the State Placement Board, State Department of Ed­
ucation, and kept it on file.

Q. You didn’t reproduce it locally and distribute it? A.
- 4 4 -

No.
Q. You didn’t send copies around to the principals? A. 

No.
Q. Teachers? A. No.
Q. Parents? A. No.
Q. Newspapers? A. I did not send it to the newspaper 

but—
Q. I am asking what you did. A. But in Richmond it 

was but I don’t recall the time. But I didn’t release it to 
the press, not the practice.

Q. You just put it in the file? A. We keep it as basis 
for our action—all other memorandums that we receive 
and instructions.

Q. Was it read to the School Board? A. No. The min­
utes would have to be checked to see whether they were 
read to the School Board. The memorandums come in and 
kept. I do not think it was read to the School Board.

Q. Am I correct in saying that you did not take any 
action to publicize this or make it known to anybody? You 
just filed it when you got it, right? You didn’t feel ob­
ligated? A. It is not my responsibility; no, sir.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



53a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—45—
Q. And you didn’t do anything along that line? A. No, 

sir.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I don’t know if Your 
Honor is familiar with this Exhibit 6.

The Court: Let me see it.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, that memorandum refers to the 60-day rule on 
transfers; does it not? A. I think it would be well to read 
it.

The Court: Go ahead. It says: “ Subject: Transfer 
request.”

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you know of any case in Roanoke County where 
this rule has been applied to people entering school for the 
first time? A. What do you mean now—60-day rule?

Q. That is right. A. I do not recall. But people who 
enter school unless they-—the application usually goes in 
long before opening of school.

Q. Did you not tell me that people moved in all of the 
time right after school? A. Yes.

Q. And they don’t have to apply 60 days before school 
opening when they move to the County to enter the first

- 4 6 -
grade? A. I believe you are asking questions which some­
one from the Pupil Placement Board is in much better 
position to answer than I.

Q. I am asking you what has happened here in the 
County. I am not dealing with what the law requires. I 
am asking what— A. I would have to go back and check



54a

the records. I am not sure. We have several thousands of 
those applications come through. I don’t remember whether 
first grade or transfers. Our procedure is primarily rou­
tine. We check the application to make sure that the birth 
certificate is in and the child enters school in the area in 
which the child comes from. Other than that, we pay very 
little attention to them because the authorities in the Pupil 
Placement Board are not my office.

Q. You have a large General Electric plant in your 
County with a lot of children’s parents working in that 
plant? A. Yes.

Q. You have a substantial degree of mobile population 
—people moving in and out in that connection—people 
coming in and moving out of the County all of the time. 
A. Yes; County of 60,000 people.

Q. And when they come in, the children go to school; 
is that right, in the zones? A. Well, they have to apply 
for assignment to the school. Everyone that comes in has 
to apply.

—47—
Q. Everyone that comes in goes to school in the zone; 

doesn’t he? A. I would think that is pretty generally true, 
yes.

* # # # #
— 48—

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you know what the respective distances are be­
tween their homes and those three schools? A. I would 
say it is approximately two and one-half miles to Clear- 
brook, and probably one and one-half miles to Ogden, 
probably nine or ten miles to Carver.

Q. Now, how do these children get to Carver; do you 
know? A. Transported by school bus.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



55a

Q. There is a main highway that comes through there. 
What route number is that? A. That is US 220.

Q. 220. Now, isn’t it true that there are groups of white 
children who ride the school bus down Route 220 to Clear­
brook School who live within the Clearbrook zone but even 
farther than these people? In other words, they come right 
through this section where these Plaintiffs live going on 
the school bus to Clearbrook? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your school buses are segregated by race, too? All 
Negroes ride all-Negro buses and all white children ride 
all-white buses? A. When you speak of Negro bus and 
white bus, they are all the same—interchange.

Q. Negro bus drivers and white bus drivers? A. I be-
—49—

lieve that is true.
Q. And Negro drivers drive Negro pupils and white 

drivers drive white pupils? A. I believe that is true.
Q. Drivers are not interchanged? A. No.
Q. Now, you mentioned before that you had 125, approxi­

mately, Negro pupils live in this neighborhood where the 
Plaintiffs live. That group is all transported to Carver by 
bus every day? A. Yes.

Q. Nine miles each way? A. Approximately.
Q. What is the high school zone that serves that part 

where this group of 125 Negroes live? A. Cave Springs 
High School.

Q. Do you know offhand how far that is? A. Oh, I 
guess seven—seven or eight miles.

* * * * *

— 50—
* * * * *

Mr. Nabrit : Your Honor, at this time I have three

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct



Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—51—
additional exhibits. I have exhibited them to Mr. 
Chapman during the recess and I understand he 
has no objection.

The Court: All right. They will be admitted.
Mr. Nabrit: Shall I describe them? They are— 

two of them were exhibits with the deposition of 
Doctor Horn and were marked 7A and 7B. These 
are letters from Doctor Horn to the three families, 
the Plaintiffs involved here, dated August 29, 1960. 
And the next exhibit is an extract from the minutes 
of the meeting of the County School Board, Roanoke 
County, held on September 13, 1960; portion of the 
minutes from executive session.

The Court: What number is that exhibit!
The Clerk: That would be No. 3, Your Honor.
Mr. Nabrit: And the last item is Plaintiffs’ Ex­

hibit from the deposition which was a memorandum 
from the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Place­
ment Board to the Local School Board dated Sep­
tember 1, 1960. Briefly, this memo changed the 60- 
day rule and we now have in effect a July first rule 
and also some slightly different wording.

 ̂  ̂  ̂ ^

—52—
# * # # *

Q. Now, I think you mentioned earlier that the Carver 
School is a combination high school and elementary school? 
A. Yes.

Q. Carver serves Negroes? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any white schools that have a combina­

tion like this? A. I mentioned in the first part of the hear­
ing that we have elementary children at Cave Springs and 
at Northside.



57a

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—53—
Q. Those schools serve one through twelve also? A. No, 

seven.
Q. Seven through twelve? A. Seven. Well, Northside 

serves one through seven but Cave Springs—seven through 
twelve.

Q. And Northside will eventually serve seven through 
twelve ? A. Eight through twelve.

Q. So, basically, you don’t have any white school plant 
that serves one through twelve like this centralized setup 
for Negroes at Carver? A. No, sir.

Q. You must have a number of Negro students in ele­
mentary school coming from considerable distances, don’t 
you, all over the County? A. Well, depends upon what 
you mean by considerable distance.

Q. Coming from a lot of different white school zones 
on the map. A. I would assume probably three-fourths of 
them ride the school bus.

Q. Eide the school bus but they reside in various— A. 
Parts of the County.

Q. Parts of the County? A. Yes.
—54—

Q. Different zones. They are fairly scattered in dif­
ferent areas; is that right? A. Yes, they are.

Q. As I recall, you have a map on the wall of your of­
fice where you have pins indicating the concentration of 
pupils. So, you keep track of where the pupils in the 
County live, don’t you? A. Of course, the great majority 
of the children live near Eoanoke City. Our population 
is constantly around Eoanoke City.

Q. But, from this, you have a continuing study of where 
pupils live in the County going on. You keep track of it— 
the school or— A. We make the spot map, oh, probably



58a

every two or three years. The one in my office was made 
in the Spring of 1959, as I recall.

Q. And by spot map, you find out where every child 
lives and what grade he is in'? A. Yes.

Q. So, you are able to know that the Negroes live all 
over the County. You have some basis for knowing that1? 
A. Beg pardon?

Q. You have this census—would indicate to you that
- 5 5 -

Negroes live all over the County? A. Yes, they do.
Q. And that Negroes living in a lot of different areas 

go to Carver? A. Yes.
Q. Now, before you submitted these applications of the 

Plaintiffs to the Pupil Placement Board, did you make or 
have made any type of investigation of these pupils’ quali­
fications, family background, academic background, school 
records, health, anything pertaining to law enforcement, 
anything like that; did you make any investigation? A. 
No.

Q. No investigations whatsoever? A. No, sir.
Q. And you had none made? A. I had none made.
Q. The Board didn’t have any, did it? A. Beg pardon? 
Q. Your School Board didn’t have any made? A. No, 

sir.
Q. Have you made one since? A. No, sir.
Q. Any type of investigation? A. No, sir.

* * * * *
—6 0 -

Cross Examination by Mr. Chapman:

Q. Doctor Horn, prior to the filing of the subject appli­
cations in this case, has there ever been any request made 
by any Negro child or his parents or guardian for trans-

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Cross



59a

fer of any Negro child from a school to which he had been 
assigned to a school in which only white children were in 
attendance? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Doctor Horn, when does this school year that began 
last September close? A. Closes June the 8th.

Q. 1961? A. 1961.

Mr. Chapman: That is all, sir.
The Court: Any questions, Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Scott:

Q. Doctor Horn, it has been introduced in evidence a 
map of the County of Eoanoke with the placing of the

- 6 1 -
various and sundry schools in Roanoke. Has that ever 
been communicated to the principal Board? A. No, sir. 
That is merely for the use of the County. We do not 
assign pupils to schools. We merely recommend to the 
Pupil Placement.

Q. Has the Pupil Placement Board ever assigned to you 
or made up for you any district map for the schools? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Who, so far as Roanoke County is concerned, places 
the pupils in Roanoke County? A. I am not sure that I 
understand your question.

Q. Who does the actual placing? A. The Pupil Place­
ment Board.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Cross

* * * # #



Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—62—
A r t h u r  G. T rout , called as a witness f o r  the Plaintiffs, 

having been duly sworn, testified as f o l lo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Lawson:

Q. Please state for the Court your full name and your 
official position on the Roanoke County School system. A. 
Arthur G. Trout. My official position is Chairman of the 
Board.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Trout? A. Bigley District, 
Roanoke.

Q. How long have you been Chairman of the Board? A. 
The end of June, I believe it would be seven years.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Board? 
A. Since 1952.

* * * * *
K —63—

By Mr. Lawson:

Q. Do you generally preside over the meetings of the 
Board? A. Generally, yes.

Q. Do you keep records of your meetings? A. We have 
a clerk that keeps records of the meetings called.

Q. Are you generally aware of what is going on in the 
meetings? A. Yes, generally.

Q. I would like to ask you, Mr. Trout, whether or not, 
since the decision of the Supreme Court in 1954, your 
Board has adopted any recommendation, rule or regula­
tion with reference to the desegregation of the school sys­
tem in Roanoke County? A. None.

Q. Have you made any announcement of any intention 
to adopt any? A. None.

Q. You are familiar with the applications that are sent



61a

to Richmond, are you not? A. I am familiar with them, 
yes.

Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Trout, in building schools for 
Negroes, you build them where the greatest concentration

—64—
of Negroes is? A. Since my appearance on the Board, 
we have only built two Negro schools or in the process of 
it and they are in concentration of Negro population, yes.

Q. Isn’t it further true that in planning the schools in 
Negro zones, that you plan your school space based on the 
number of Negroes that you espect to serve? A. Restate 
that.

Q. Isn’t it also true that in planning the schools for 
Negroes in these Negro zones that you plan your school 
space—the number of rooms and the facilities—based upon 
a number of Negroes that you expect to serve? A. Border 
area, yes.

Q. Isn’t that true of the Pinkard Court School that you 
are building now? A. For the general confines of the 
geographical area which is bordered by ridges and the high­
ways.

Q. Now, there was some testimony here a moment ago 
by Doctor Horn that he did not recommend that assign­
ment of these seven Negroes, the Plaintiffs, because of the 
over-crowded condition at Clearbrook. Is it true that you 
still have the over-crowded condition at Clearbrook? A. 
The administrative staff would have better information 
than I would, Mr. Lawson. I do not know.

Q. You do know what the situation is? A. That is right.
—65—

Q. Can you tell us then, please, whether or not any plans 
have been made to integrate this school with the children 
that have to go by there every day? A. No plans have 
been made, no.

Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs'—Direct



62a

Q. When these petitions were received, did the Board 
take any action on them at all? A. The Board voted to 
send them to the Pupil Placement Board in Richmond, 
according to the State law.

Q. After they were sent there, has any action been taken 
with reference thereto? A. By whom?

Q. By the Board, the local School Board? A. None.
-J5* TT TP

—68—
Q. Now, among other things, were you present at the 

meeting of the School Board on September 13, 1960? A. 
If the minutes say that I was, I imagine I was. Do you 
have a copy of those?

Q. I hand you a copy of the extract, certified by your 
clerk. A. That is my name. I was there.

Q. This is already in evidence. I was going to ask you 
a couple of questions about it. You also are building a 
new elementary school in the Cave Springs District, are 
you not? A. That is correct.

Q. What action did the Board take with reference to 
building a new Negro elementary school at that particular 
meeting? A. I would have to see the minutes, Mr. Lawson. 
I would be glad to read it or you can read it.

The Court: Don’t the minutes speak for them­
selves, Mr. Lawson?

Mr. Lawson: I think so.
The Witness: Have they been admitted, Your 

Honor?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Lawson: I will save time then. We will with­

draw that question.

Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs—Direct



63a

Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs'—Direct

—69—
By Mr. Lawson:

Q. Was any action taken with, reference to purchasing 
property for the site of this school prior to the receipt 
of these applications from these seven Plaintiffs! A. Ac­
tion was taken on location of a piece of property in that 
area for a school as far back, I believe, as 1949 or ’50.

Q. What was the nature of that action? A. That we 
would put a school in the southern end of the County.

Q. You said now this action was taken in 1949 or ’50; is 
that correct? A. After the 1949 annexation—somewhere 
in that area. Another action was taken in 1956 which I am 
more familiar.

Q. You were not on the Board in 1949, were you? A. 
No.

Q. So you don’t know whether the action was taken? A. 
I don’t know the action but I know there was talk of it.

Q. But not a single piece of property was acquired until 
after we filed these applications; is that correct? A. Not 
acquired, but negotiations were started for them.

Q. But negotiations were not started until after the 
September 6, 1961 meeting of your School Board; isn’t 
that correct? A. I couldn’t tell you.

—70—
The certified minutes so state that no action was 

taken. This meeting of the Board authorized the employ­
ment of Mr. Chapman to purchase these lots at a sum not 
to exceed $300 a lot. That is what the minutes so—

Q. That is the action, but we had been looking consider­
ably prior to that.

The Court: How long had the School Board been 
actually looking itself or through agents for a site 
for the school in that general location?



64a

The Witness: I believe, Your Honor, since 1956.
The Court: Did the School Board as a body offi­

cially or unofficially inspect more than one site 
physically ?

The Witness: Committees.
The Court: Did they go out and look at the site?
The Witness: The committees, yes.
The Court: Approximately how many sites did 

they look at before they decided on this site in that 
general area?

The Witness: Your Honor, I don’t have that in­
formation exact, but I think it was in the neighbor­
hood of three sites.

The Court: Go ahead.
# # # # *

—73—

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

B. S. H il t o n , called as a witness for the Plaintiffs, was 
duly sworn, and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mr. Hilton, state your name and official position. A. 
B. S. Hilton; Executive Secretary, Virginia Placement 
Board.

Q. Where is your office? A. 9 North Third Street, Rich­
mond, Virginia.

Q. Are you the principal administrative officer of the 
Board. Are you the top salaried employe? A. I think so.

Q. How long have you had that position? A. I took 
that position in July the first, 1959.

Q. Did you have a previous job working for the Pupil 
Placement Board? A. I did.



65a

Q. What was that job? A. I was administi'ator of the 
Arlington office previous to that.

—74—
^

Q. Now, when I refer to Pupil Placement Board Memo­
randum No. 24, 60-day rule, do you know what I am speak­
ing about? Are you familiar with that? A. Yes.

Q. When this rule was adopted, do you know what action 
was taken in terms of publicizing it? First, who was it 
distributed to first? Do you know? A. You mean the 
mimeograph memorandum?

Q. That is right. A. All superintendents of schools in 
Virginia.

—75—
Q. One copy to each one? A. One or more if they re­

quested it.
Q. Initially, you just sent one? A. Sent the one and if 

there was a request, we sent more.
Q. Did you or your Board send along with that memo­

randum any request that local authorities publicize what 
it contained? A. I don’t think so.

Q. Now, was there any publication of this rule—memo­
randum—in the form of a paid notice or anything like 
that in the newspaper—paid notice, official, verbatim? A. 
Not in the form of a paid notice.

Q. Is it true that such releases were available to the 
newspapers in Richmond when you made it available? A. 
Yes. The release was made available to both Richmond 
and United Press and to the Associated Press.

Q. Are you speaking of this particular release? Do you 
know if they got it or just general— A. I think this ap­
plied to this particular release.

Q. This is based on your general practice: when you 
adopt a rule, you make it available? A. That is right.

B. 8. Ililton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



66a

Q. Now, I understand this 60-day rule is no longer in
—7 6 -

effect and you have a new rule on that subject—Memo­
randum 30. Are you familiar with that! It is now in 
evidence. A. Yes. There is a ruling which makes specifi­
cally July 30th instead of stating 60 days.

Q. The 60-day rule—60 days from the beginning of 
school in various communities, so that made it a different 
cut-off date in different communities around the State? 
A. There would have been a slight variation.

Q. Now, by its terms, the 60-day rule refers to transfer 
requests and does not mention initial enrollments or initial 
assignments. Were there any announcements by the Board 
to superintendents, to the public, to anybody, what instruc­
tions would be given to the word “transfer” ? A. I don’t 
know if there was any specific published announcement. 
I do know that there have been interpretations given to 
superintendents of schools.

Q. Individual superintendents who inquired? A. Yes. 
Those who might have inquired and I believe there were 
a number who did inquire further.

Q. Do you know if there was any inquiry from Roanoke? 
A. I don’t recall.

Q. Roanoke County, I mean. A. I don’t recall about 
Roanoke County.

Q. Now, what explanation would you give when people
—77—

inquired what “ transfer” meant, whether it applied to 
initial enrollments? A. The original Board, which insti­
tuted this regulation, gave, I believe, the interpretation 
that it applied to original applications as well as to those 
who applied to transfer from a particular school to an­
other particular school.

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



67a

Q. This was interpretation communicated to people who 
asked? A. Not the particular members of this Board, the 
other members.

—78—
* * * * #

Q. Mr. Hilton, do you know it to be a practice in a 
number of communities, including Roanoke County, that 
people who come to initially enroll in school after the 60- 
day deadline had gone by were still accepted? A. I think 
I know what you mean.

Q. That happened to one of the Plaintiffs in this case, 
didn’t it? A. Now, here, I believe this is what you mean: 
Where a parent moves his residence, this 60-day ruling 
had never any intention of being applied. It was never 
applied. But it was necessary for the parent to move his 
residence into a different school area in order for it not 
to apply.

Q. Now, these things you are telling me, these two in­
terpretations are spelled out clearly in Memorandum 30, 
aren’t they? A. And it has been the general practice— 
all school divisions understood the application of the Pupil 
Placement Board.

Q. Now, just tell me this: One of these Plaintiffs who 
applied to you was a first-grader, isn’t that right? A. I 
believe so.

—79—
Q. Now, she applied to you after the 60-day deadline 

had gone by, correct? A. Well, the office after the 60-day.
Q. You wrote the various letters to the local authorities 

here informing them that this child applied after the 60- 
day deadline? A. That is right.

B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



68a

Q. Now, this child was, nevertheless, admitted to a 
school, wasn’t she! A. That is correct.

Q. She was assigned to Carver School? A. That is right.
Q. So, the fact that she applied after the 60-day cut-off 

date didn’t keep her out?

Mr. Scott: If Tour Honor please, if Mr. Nabrit 
is asking this witness what he did as Executive Sec­
retary and as administrative officer, pursuant to the 
action of the Board, he is perfectly qualified to 
answer. If he is asking Mr. Hilton about the action 
taken by the Board and why they did thus and so, 
the members of the Pupil Placement Board are here 
and they are the ones to testify and not Mr. Hilton. 
I object to Mr. Hilton saying what action or what 
was in the minds of the Pupil Placement Board 
other than what he did as administrative officer pur­
suant to that action.

— 80—

The Court: Your objection is sustained as far as 
official action of the Board is concerned. However, 
he may testify as to what he did personally pursuant 
to what he understood the official action would be.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, may I address myself 
to that, sir?

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Nabrit: My question to Mr. Hilton was asked 

as to his knowledge of what was going on. Mr. 
Hilton has been in his office at the Pupil Placement 
Board since 1959. Subsequent evidence will show 
that the present members of the Pupil Placement 
Board took office at a later date. I was trying to

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



69a

find out how this 60-day rule was administered by 
asking the witness questions about what happened.

The Court: He may testify to anything he did as 
Secretary or administrative officer of the Board, 
which he did pursuant to either what the official 
action of the Board happen to be or pursuant to 
what he thought they pertained to. You can ask 
what he did pursuant to any action of the Board 
but not what the Board itself did.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I confess confusion. I 
am trying to ask him what happened in terms of—

The Court: Specific cases, proceed to ask him what
—81—

happened, if he knows. Don’t ask him to express 
an opinion. A fact is a fact. If you want to show, 
and I believe it is already in the record, that one 
of these applicants was in fact assigned to the 
Carver School subsequent to the date of the filing 
of these petitions, that is a fact. One of them was 
assigned—this first-grade student.

The Witness: This child had never had any place­
ment at all.

The Court: I understand that. But, regardless 
of the reason, was she assigned to a school and, if 
so, when and what school? You don’t need to give 
me any reason why it was done. Just tell me what 
happened.

The Witness: The assignment of this child—
The Court: I can’t hear.
The Witness: The assignment of the particular 

child in question, I believe, was to the Carver School.
The Court: When was the assignment made and 

what is the child’s name?

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



70a

The Witness: That took place on August 29, 1960. 
The Court: What is her name so we will know 

who we are talking about?
The Witness: As I have it recorded, it is Barbara 

Lynn West.
— 82—

The Court: And what grade was she assigned to 
on August 29th?

The Witness: She would have been last year in 
the first grade, having never gone to school.

The Court: First grade in Carver School?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Now, that is a fact.

# * # * #
—83—

■ik -Ur -«• -Ifc■A' "A* w  w  "A~

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, approximately how many of these Pupil Place­
ment forms come before you every year for assignment? 
A. Approximately 200,000.

 ̂  ̂  ̂ 4N
—90—

Q. Now, this category of application forms that you pre­
sent to the Board in large bundles, would I be correct in 
stating that those are applications accompanied by recom­
mendations, local recommendations ? A. Most of them are.

Q. And recommendations in accordance with the pupil’s 
wishes rather than opposing his wishes, right? A. I don’t 
know whether I understand what you mean.

Q. These are cases where the local authorities assign the 
pupil to the school he wants to go to. A. They make—the

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



71a

local people usually make a recommendation as to the school 
they should go to.

Q. And these are the applications you were talking about 
that you submit in large groups to the Board, right? A. 
That is right.

* * * * *

—92—
 ̂  ̂ ^

Q. When did the old Board go out of office, do you know? 
A. June 1,1960.

Q. Do you know when the new members had their first 
meeting? A. Approximately July the 25th. That may be 
within a few days.

# # # # #
—93—

* * # # #
Q. What happened to the Pupil Placement forms that 

came into your office between the time the old Board went 
out of office and the time the new Board had the first meet­
ing they held there? A. They were held there and being 
processed but not approved.

Q. Now, do you know when 60 days before the opening 
of the school in Roanoke last year was? A. Well, it seems 
to me that school was to open on September 6th.

Q. 60 days before that would have been early— A. Ap­
proximately July 6th or 7th.

—94—
Q. Now, when the applications of these Plaintiffs, these 

seven Plaintiffs, came before your Board, were they ac­
companied by any other documents? Were there some 
letters attached? A. There was a letter from Doctor Horn.

Q. Was it also accompanied by a letter—a copy from 
Mr. Harrison to Doctor Horn? A. No, sir.

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



72a

Q. There was not! A. Not that I recall. Yes. I beg 
your pardon. I have—no, that is not it either; nothing 
there. This was a later document that I had.

Q. Now, do you have there the letter from Mr. Horn 
to you of August 16, 1960, transmitting these applications 
to you! A. I have a letter dated August 15, 1960.

Q. 15th! A. Yes.
Q. I believe this was a letter that you read to me during 

the deposition; wasn’t it! A. I believe I read this to you 
at that time.

Mr. Nabrit: Mr. Chapman, we would like to offer 
this letter.

Mr. Chapman: I think it is already in the evidence 
as an exhibit.

* * * # #
—96—

The Clerk: This will be Exhibit 4.
The Court: Let it be admitted.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mr. Hilton, the Board had this letter of transmittal 
when it considered these seven applications, did it not! 
A. Yes.

Q. And this letter from Doctor Horn to you identifies 
these children as Negroes, does it! A. I believe the word 
is used there.

Q. And it also indicates that they indicated who their 
attorney was and so forth! A. I believe that is right.

Q. There wasn’t any problem when the Board considered 
these seven children as Negroes that they were Negroes; 
they had this information!

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



73a

The Court: I don’t want to get the record mixed 
up. I understood that the Board did not consider 
these applications other than the fact that they were 
turned down on the ground of being filed too late. 
Now, is that correct or otherwise!

Mr. Scott: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, perhaps it is my phrase­

ology that is causing difficulty.
The Court: I just didn’t want to get the record—

By Mr. Nabrit:
—97—

Q. Did your Pupil Placement Board have a meeting on 
or about August 29 when these applications were discussed 
by it! A. They didn’t come up for discussion.

Q. There was no discussion of these! A. No discussion 
except the dateline was there and they didn’t comply with 
the dateline for making application.

The Court: So the Court will have correct infor­
mation, did you turn these applications down from 
the administrative standpoint because you concluded 
that they did not comply with the rules or did you 
convey that information to the Board and the Board 
then acted upon it!

The Witness: I conveyed that information to the 
Board and the Board then acted upon it.

The Court: Do you have the minutes of the Board 
acting on these!

Mr. Scott: I do not have the minutes.
The Witness: No, I don’t. I have a copy of the 

minutes.
The Court: Well, let’s have it. That is the best

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



74a

evidence the Board acted on this officially. Let’s get 
it in the record.

* * * * *
—98—

The Court: Don’t read it. Just let Counsel read it.
I hate to interrupt. Let’s not get into a conversa­

tion with the witness.
I want to know if that is the official minutes, re­

gardless of what it says. Let’s introduce it. Because 
the minutes speak officially for the Board, regardless 
of what this or any other witness says.

Mr. Nabrit: That will be Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Now, Mr. Hilton, to make sure we are clear, at this 

meeting on August 29, did the Board have before it the 
Pupil Placement form of these seven children and that 
letter of enclosure? A. Yes.

Q. The letter from Doctor Horn, that was introduced; at 
that August 29th meeting, those documents were there? 
A. They were there.

—99—
Q. And they were physically before the members of the 

Board, right on the table? A. They were on the table. I 
don’t think the Board made any examination of the appli­
cations.

Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, the copies 
of this Pupil Placement form that were introduced 
in evidence before Your Honor on the temporary 
motion hearing contain no information at all on the 
line where it says “ action by State Board.” Perhaps

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



75a

I should, ask the witness whether your file copy 
has any action indicated—the Pupil Placement form. 
Do you have your signature at the bottom?

The Witness: Yes, we have that.
The Court: You have the original Board minutes?
The Witness: Yes; the original copy.
The Court: Let’s introduce that.
Mr. Nabrit: Do they show your signature?
The Witness: They show my stamped signature 

and the school to which they are to attend.
The Court: Let that be introduced into the record 

and made an official record.
The Witness: May I interject a point of explana­

tion here on this ?
The Court: You may interject anything you want

— 100—

to, but it is always dangerous. I suggest that you 
allow your Counsel to ask you anything you want 
to ask. But you may make any statement you want 
to.

Just a minute. Don’t confer with him at the pres­
ent time. Mr. Hilton, don’t confer with him at the 
present time because Mr. Scott is not testifying.

Mr. Scott: Go ahead and explain.
The Witness: In processing—what I wmnted to 

mention here so it will be understood by the attor­
neys. In processing the forms, when we turn down 
a request and place where it says “ action by the 
State Board the above-named pupil is hereby as­
signed to” we write in the name of the school that 
they have been attending. That is done on all of 
those where their applications are turned down for 
a specific school.

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



76a

The Court: I am not so much interested in the 
—I want to know what was done. Let the exhibit be 
introduced. Make them all one exhibit. No use to be 
separate. Just put the number there.

Mr. Nabrit: Exhibit 6.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mr. Hilton, that Exhibit 6, those seven forms contain 
your stamped signature at the bottom. Is that placed on 
there with your authorization? A. Yes, sir.

— 101—

Q. And, all of these Pupil Placement forms, do you ever 
sign any Pupil Placement forms in your own handwriting? 
A. No, sir.

Q. They are all stamped? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you hit the stamp yourself or does your secretary 

do it? A. We have a group of people who do that.

The Court: Did you do it in this case?
The Witness: I did not.
The Court: You authorized it?
The Witness: I authorized it.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, is this the practice with all 200,000 a year, to 
have your rubber-stamp signature? A. Physically impos­
sible for me to sign all of those.

Q. You don’t sign any of them? A. I don’t sign any 
of them.

Q. Now, who writes in the handwritten part there under 
the heading “ action by State Board” on the Pupil Place­
ment form? A. One of the processors.

Q. The processors write that in? A. Yes, sir.

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



77a

Q. Mr. Hilton, do you have in your office a map of the 
school district of Roanoke—the school zones? A. Roanoke

- 1 0 2 -
County?

Q. Yes, that is right. A. No.
Q. Have you ever had a copy since you have been in of­

fice? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Ever asked for one? A. Never asked for one.
Q. Did you know that they use zones? A. Well, I might 

have learned a little about it when the depositions were 
being taken.

Q. Is that the first time that you knew that Roanoke had 
school zones? A. I assume that.

Mr. Chapman: Objection.
The Court: Objection sustained.
The Witness: I don’t know.
The Court: You either knew it or don’t know it; 

not what you assume. He says he doesn’t know and 
didn’t then know.

Mr. Nabrit: That is correct.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. You didn’t know that Roanoke had school zones. Did 
you know that school zones were used in any system in the 
State? A. Yes.

—103—
Q. You knew that. And you had seen school zone maps 

in other communities ? A. Yes.
Q. Has your Pupil Placement Board at any time since 

you have been working there ever issued any instructions 
or memo or anything in that nature to local school officials 
telling them anything with respect to overlapping or sepa-

B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



78a

rate school zones for Negro and white pupils? Have you 
ever had a memo on that subject? A. No memo.

The Court: What was the answer?
The Witness: No.

# * # # #
— 104—

# * # # *
Q. Mr. Hilton, do you know whether your Board has 

uniformly filled out the local recommendation for assign­
ment in Boanoke County since you have been associated 
with them? A. I didn’t understand.

Q. Have you uniformly assigned pupils in Boanoke 
County in accordance with the local recommendations?

Mr. Scott: He doesn’t do the assigning, sir. He 
is asking this witness if assignments—

The Court: The Court understands that the Board 
does the assigning. He intended to ask him: does

— 105—

he have knowledge of the Board ever having done 
anything in the case of Boanoke County other than 
follow the recommendation of the local school of­
ficials. Do you understand the question?

The Witness: Yes. I don’t remember.
The Court: He doesn’t remember.
The Witness: There are too many forms for me 

to recall.
Mr. Nabrit: You don’t recall there has been any 

such case?
The Court: He said he doesn’t remember. There 

are too many applications. They always followed 
the recommendations. Is that your answer?

B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



79a

The Witness: He is asking—
Mr. Scott: Roanoke County he is talking about?
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Nabrit: Do you have any idea? Would yon 

think they followed what percentage of the cases?
Mr. Scott: Objection.
The Court: Objection is sustained.
You want to get the record, you can show it, Mr. 

Nabrit, if you want, and deem it material, by sub­
poenaing all of the records that the Pupil Place­
ment Board had had from everybody in Roanoke 
County, and you may examine them and that is the 
answer. They either have or they haven’t.

—106—
Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, the testi­

mony indicates that some 15,000 students are in the 
County. To show that evidence in the way you 
suggest would require to bring in thousands of Pupil 
Placement forms.

The Court: I am not suggesting you do that. 
If he knows, I will make him tell you. But he says 
he doesn’t know. It is too many for him to remember.

Do you know whether they have always followed 
the recommendations or not?

The Witness: In Roanoke County?
The Court: In Roanoke County.
The Witness: Pretty generally, I say they do. 

There may be instances—
The Court: He says generally, generally they 

have, but he cannot recall every instance.

B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct



80a

B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you recall testifying on depositions in the office 
of Superintendent Horn on March 22, 1961; depositions 
in this case? A. Beg pardon?

Q. Do you recall testifying on depositions on March 22, 
1961, in this case? A. Yes.

Mr. Chapman: What page?
—107—

Mr. Nabrit: Page 75, the top of the page.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you recall the following questions being asked 
you and the following—your giving the following answers? 
Two questions and two answers I am going to read: 
“ Question: Would it be true that almost all, if not all, and 
tell me which Pupil Placement forms from Roanoke County 
come to you with some type of recommendation by local 
authorities? Answer: I think they do. Question: Do you 
recall any instance in which your Board had not followed 
that local recommendation? Answer: Not as to Roanoke 
County.”

The Court: That is the testimony you gave before 
the depositions?

The Witness: Yes, that is my testimony.
# # # # #



81a

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—108—
4b 4b 4bw  w  w  w  w

E rnest  J. O glesby, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs, 
was duly sworn and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Would you state your name, sir. A. Ernest Jackson 
Oglesby.

Q. Mr. Oglesby, what is your connection with the State 
Commission? A. I am Chairman of the State Pupil Place­
ment Board.

Q. What is your occupation, sir? A. I am a teacher of
—1 0 9 -

mathematics at the School of Engineering at the University 
of Virginia.

Q. Now, Professor Oglesby, when did you take office on 
the Pupil Placement Board? A. I don’t know the exact day.

Q. The month. A. It was about the middle of July, 
1960. But I think it is the 17th. But there was testimony 
today—but it is a little later than that. But it is perfectly 
possible. I don’t remember.

Q. Now, do you recall a meeting around the end of 
August, August 29, I believe it is, 1960, when applications 
of the seven pupils involved in this law suit came before 
you? A. I remember that those applications came before 
us late in August. I would not know the day. I know 
exactly what happened at the time these applications came 
before us. We examined carefully as to when they had 
been made. We found that they were well after the 60-day 
period. And we turned them down without any question, 
with the—were any recommendations made by the Roanoke 
County School? I don’t know if they made any recommenda­
tions, but they were turned down by us on the 60-day rule.



82a

Q. Had you taken any action? I take it this 60-day rule 
you mentioned is the 60-day rule adopted by your predeces­
sors on the Board, right? Had you ever applied it before—

- 1 1 0 -
refuse to consider a transfer before these seven students? 
A. I am sure that we had. Though I don’t know the esact 
date. I know that we used it to turn down a good many 
applications—both white and Negro—during the summer. 
How many we turned down before the date of the Eoanoke 
County, I am not sure, but I know we used it before that.

Q. When you say you turned down applications, you 
mean you turned down transfer requests; is that what you 
mean? A. Or requests for original placement which were 
out of order of the program as it was ordinarily used by 
the local school board. In other words, we considered the 
two things were the same.

Q. In other words, if someone came in late, he was still 
allowed to go to school, right, but not go to a school not 
recommended by local authorities; is that how it operates? 
A. We did not consider applications for transfer from 
the ordinary area in which that student in the school, in 
which that student would have gone if it came after the 
60-day period.

Q. So that in the case of students who came before you 
initially entering school, they were allowed to initially en­
ter school in accordance with the local authorities’ recom­
mendation, right? A. May I make a statement? It may 
clear up between us.

Q. Well, if it is responsive to this question or on this
- I l l -

subject. A. I think it answers your question.
Q. Go ahead, sir. A. The applications acted on by the 

Pupil Placement Board are those in which the wishes of

Ernest J. Oglesby— for Plaintiffs— Direct



83a

the parents differ from the ordinary assignment which is 
recommended by the school board. All those were acted 
on carefully. Some of those are Negro and some of them 
are white.

Q. So that these are the only applications that your 
Board actually studies and considers and the others are 
handled by your administrative staff; is that right? A. 
We, of course* approve of the work done by the admin­
istrative staff. We keep general oversight. But the only 
ones that we spend time on are those where there is a 
conflict between the desire of the parent and the recom­
mendation of the local schoolboard. Now, that local school 
board may be information recommendation or it may be 
—if they simply send it in to us without any recommenda­
tion of any sort whatsoever, but if they don’t recommend, 
wre look into it.

Q. When they don’t recommend and you look into it 
and find there is no dispute, then your administrative staff 
handles it? A. Right.

Q. And you look into it and find there is a dispute be­
tween the parents and the local authorities, then it is 
handled by the placement board? A. Then it is handled

— 112—

by the Placement Board.
# # # # #

—114—
# # # * #

Q. Now, Mr. Chairman, are you aware of any announce­
ments by your Board relating to announcement or com­
munication to local school authorities relating to school 
zones, separate zones for Negro and white children? A. 
No, we haven’t had any announcement of that kind. We 
had been asked to approve, in the case of Waynesboro,

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct



84a

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—115—
certain changes in lines over there for a certain school, 
having nothing to do with race, actually. But in general 
we had not had oversight in the matter of zoning in various 
areas although I am sure we are all aware around the 
State of Virginia there is a lot of school zones. And I 
am aware of the fact that we have certain school zones 
in my county.

Q. Well, my question really relating not to just school 
zones generally but to the existence of separate zones for 
Negroes and white that overlap, and has your Board ever 
taken any action or done anything with respect to that 
situation? A. None whatsoever that I know anything 
about.

Q. Ever discuss it since you have been on the Board? 
A. I don’t remember any discussion of that kind. I cer­
tainly wouldn’t swear that they didn’t take place. But I 
don’t remember. It made no impression on me.

Q. Has your Board, your State Pupil Placement Board, 
ever since you have been in office, ever participated in the 
formulation of any plans for desegregation of any school 
district in the State? A. No, certainly not. Our idea— 
our understanding of the law and the decision of the Court 
was that when somebody applied for a school, we were 
suppose to give him what he wanted, regardless of race, 
creed and color. But there was nothing in the decision, 
the Brown case, that said we have to proceed to try to

—116—
bring about the desegregation of the State of Virginia, 
and certainly nothing of that kind has ever come up.

Q. You don’t contemplate doing anything of that nature? 
A. Certainly not. I don’t think the decision of the Supreme 
Court in 1954 called for anything of that sort. It called 
for us to give a Negro applying for a white school to give



85a

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

him a square deal and that is what we were trying to do.

—118—
* *  ̂ # #

Q. Now, I want to go hack just a bit to make sure I 
understood you. Did you indicate to me before that this 
July first rule also is going to apply just to students that 
where the parents disagree with the local school author-

—119—
ities? A. In general, if the local school authorities and 
the parents don’t disagree, there is nothing for the Pupil 
Placement Board to do.

Q. So, your answer would be that— A. If I understand 
your question, I say, I think the answer is yes. I am not 
too sure I know exactly what you mean.

Q. What about my question don’t you understand?

The Court: Ask him the question over again.
Don’t ask him whether he understands it again.
Any clarification, you ask him the question again.
Just repeat your question and let him answer.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Do you remember indicating to me that your Board 

gave individual attention to cases where pupils were in 
conflict with the local recommendations, where the parents 
conflicted with the local recommendations? A. Yes.

Q. Now, is this July first rule primarily designed for 
that category of pupils? A. Yes. But that doesn’t mean 
racial because the biggest case we had last year was the 
case of 39 whites that appealed the decision where there 
was a conflict of interest between what their parents 
wanted and what the school board had assigned.



86a

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—120—
Q. What community was that, sir? A. That was Waynes­

boro case.
Q. This was white parents seeking to transfer their 

children from one school to another? A. Yes.
Q. Your Board would not transfer them for the reason 

that they were late? A. We turned them down. They ap­
pealed. We had a hearing.

Q. That would be in this category? A. Bight.
Q. That the parents were in dispute with the school 

board. A. If they had not lived up to the 15-day and 
60-day rule, they would have been thrown out. I might 
add still further that after a long, all-day hearing on that 
we granted the request. Then, a week or two later, one 
of the parents wanted to change and wanted to be put back 
and we did not require that because that came after the 
60 days and the 60-day rule prohibited it. I don’t know 
whether I made myself—

Q. Asked for a transfer and tried to withdraw and you 
wouldn’t consider the withdraw. A. Let me go over in 
detail.

The Court: I understand it. You do not grant
—121—

any requests for transfer knowingly that are not 
made within the 60-day or statutory period?

The Witness: That is what we try to do.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. I thought you were going to indicate to me that you 
might grant such if there was no conflict between the school 
board and the parents as to where the child should go? 
A. I think we would in that case. That would—might be



87a

an administrative procedure. You got to do that in any 
school. In the school system you have a certain amount 
of that. When the school burns down, yon have to move 
the children over to another school. When the school gets 
overcrowded, you have to move the children to another 
school.

The Court: In other words, you are saying for 
good cause shown?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: The Board in its discretion, has in 

the past and may in the future, consider group ap­
plications within the 60-day period?

The Witness: I am not too sure, Your Honor, 
that I know of any case where we have done it. We 
would certainly consider it.

The Court: I say, you have indicated that you 
do not. If a school burned down, I think you were 
certainly correct—just because the 60-day period

— 122—

had lapsed you wouldn’t leave those students out 
of school all year. You would assign them to the 
new school.

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And that is the exception. And any 

other exceptions that the Board thought were 
proper, you reserve the right to assign them within 
any period you want to even though the 60 days 
had expired?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Nabrit: Wouldn’t this be an additional ex­

ception within that category: the ease of a parent 
enrolling a child in the system for the first time,

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct



88a

the first-grader parents, the parents of a first-grade 
child?

The Court: Ask him specifically.
Mr. Nabrit: Who didn’t apply before July first.
The Court: Let me ask him specifically the ques­

tion so we can get it. He has been alluding to this 
question a long time. What happens if I failed for 
any reason to enroll my child in a Virginia school 
and I am living in Virginia and I don’t get around 
to doing it because, call it neglect if you want, for 
making application the day before school opens— 
I am talking about the new student, the first grade 
—what happens to that child—colored or white?

The Witness: I would say, sir, that we take the
—1 2 3 -

recommendation of the local school board on that. 
Place them where they want to.

The Court: Now let me ask you the same ques­
tion. If I moved into Virginia in the middle of the 
school year from another State, and I am a new 
citizen and I have two children of school age, am 
I entitled to enroll them in the school—either col­
ored or white children?

The Witness: I think so, sir. And there would 
be no attempt to apply any 60-day rule.

The Court: In other words, if they moved on 
July the second, they would be entitled to go to 
school the next year and the Pupil Placement Board 
would assign those students?

The Witness: Yes. It is my intention—
* * =* * *

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct



89a

Ernest J. Oglesby-—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

Cross Examination by Mr. Scott:

« a- Jfe -It;W TP TP T

—124—
* # # # #

Q. Do you consider that you are controlled by recom­
mendations of the local school board? A. I don’t think we 
are controlled by anybody on earth.

—125—
The Court: That is a good answer in one respect, 

but you evaded his question. Does the school board 
specifically control or influence your decisions lo­
cally?

The Witness: No, sir, they don’t control us. I 
would like to add that, naturally, we are going to 
pay a good deal of attention to what they tell us. 

The Court: You give consideration?
The Witness: Yes, we make the decisions and it 

is our responsibility.

By Mr. Scott:

Q. Now, in connection with these group transfers that 
may come after July the first, what do I understand you 
to mean by that so-called administrative transfers; what 
are they? A. My impression there is that invariably that 
is the case where you got to move some grade from one 
building to another, usually an emergency situation.

Q. In other words, it involves a substantial number of 
pupils ? A. Right.

Mr. Scott: That is all.
The Court: Let me ask one question, so that the 

record will be complete. What standard or criteria



90a

does the Board use in determining where a child 
shall be assigned in a case where the applicant 
wants to go to a place other than where the local

—1 2 6 -
school board had recommended that he or she should
go?

The Witness: So far, sir, I can only remember 
two: the question of distance and the question of 
standardized tests which would indicate that the 
student who is asking to go to a certain school is 
so far below the average in that school that we 
feel that it would be very bad for us to put him 
in—wre feel it would probably assure his failure. 
So, actually, the quality of the student and the ques­
tion of distance is all we consider.

The Court: In other words, basically, and if I 
have this wrong, certainly correct me. Basically, 
if a student applies in proper time and in the 
proper form for a transfer from school A to school 
B, and if he lives closer to school A than he does 
to school B, is it the general policy of the Pupil 
Placement Board to assign him to the school that 
he lives nearest to, assuming his general educational 
qualifications are at least up to average.

The Witness: I think the answer is yes. But to 
that I ought to say that there have been exceptions. 
There was an exception.

The Court: I know there are exceptions.
The Witness: In which we put a Negro in a 

school in a white school further—the school would 
transfer him because there were certain work he

—127—
could get in that white school that he couldn’t get 
in the colored.

Ernest J. Oglesby■—for Plaintiffs—Cross



91a

The Court: I understand that you take into con­
sideration the abilities of the child—colored or 
white—to maintain the standards then in existence 
in that school?

The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: But, assuming he or she—colored or 

white—is at least up to the average in the school 
sought, generally speaking, then residence, that is 
physical location in relation to school, is the basic 
criteria?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: Just a few questions.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. You say academic standard and residence are the 
factors you consider when there is a dispute between the 
Board and the parent. Now, were you just talking about 
those two cases where you had protests in hearings or 
are you talking about all of the cases in this category? A. 
I wasn’t talking about those cases. I was talking generally.

The Court: I understood that the question ap­
plied—my question applied to any student any­
where in the State who filed an application for 
transfer.

—128—
The Witness: That is correct, sir.

Ry Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, does your Board have any written regulations 
or statement aside from the statute under which you op-

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



92a

erate relating to criteria for the assignment of pupils in 
this situation? A. Those things are open records and I 
cannot answer that question and be sure that my answer 
would be correct. We have, so far as I know, no regula­
tions of any sort that hadn’t been published and our prin­
cipal regulations are the two that we have been talking 
about; that is, the 60-day rule and the 15-day—the July 
first and the 15-day rule—and we certainly have no other 
procedure setup that has any more than general guidance 
and I wouldn’t know what that is. The only two things 
I know that we use are distance and academic ability.

Q. Now, sir— A. There has been a lot of talk one time 
or other by the other Pupil Placement Board about vari­
ous standards, but we are not using them.

Q. Now, when you were explaining the academic ability 
standard that you use, you mentioned that you accept only 
people who are above the average in the school they are 
trying to get in. A. I did not put it that way. What I

—129—
said is if a student applied to us for a transfer whose 
work was so bad that it was a pretty sure bet that that 
child would fail in the environment he was asking to go 
into, we would turn him down. Now, if that child were 
turned down and appealed to us within 15 days for a hear­
ing and we examined further, we might, of course, find 
out we were wrong. We might put him in that school. 
But our first impression would be that we think his work 
is such, that his ability is such that he cannot carry the 
work and we are not going to do him a favor and put him 
in there.

Q. So, he would have to be above average? A. He would 
have to be good enough for us to believe that he would 
do the work in the environment in which he wants to go.

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



93a

Above average, the correct description of that I don’t 
know.

#  *  #  *  *

—131—
# # * #

Q. Now, I think the Court’s question about residence and 
your application of criteria relating to place of residence, 
was framed in terms of nearness of home and the school. 
Is that what you use or do you use this and school zones 
or both or what? A. If a student asked to transfer from 
school A to school B and we have to decide that transfer 
was based on distance, it would depend upon entirely which 
school is closer. School zones that might or might exist 
would not have anything to do with it.

Q. So, while the school system routinely organize its 
pupils on the basis of zones, when they come before you

- 1 3 2 -
in a dispute, you just use distance? A. That is correct. 
And I can give you the actual case where we did that.

Q. Just one case where you did this? A. I can give you 
one case where we did it. There have been a number of 
others. I can quote a case in which I can tell you within 
four hundred feet of what the distance was.

The Court: Let’s not go into specific cases. His 
testimony, as Chairman of the Board, is that he uses 
distance plus this achievement and intelligence test, 
distance being the primary criteria between the 
child’s home and the school sought to be entered. 
That is very clear.

The Witness: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Nabrit: I wanted to know if he still used this

Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

nearness.



94a

The Court: He said it would still be distance, 
regardless of whether a local board did or did not 
have a school zone; isn’t that correct!

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: In other words, I understood his an­

swer to be it doesn’t make any difference if Roanoke 
County has overlapping zones. They are going to 
pass on Roanoke County students who do apply based

—133—
upon the formula he just described; isn’t that 
correct?

The Witness: That is correct, sir.
# # # * #

—134—
* * * * *

H e r m a n  L. H o r n , having been previously sworn, was re­
called and testified further as follows:

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mr. Horn, am I correct in understanding that there 
is a new school to be constructed called the Pinkard Court 
School in the neighborhood where these Plaintiffs live? 
A. The school is under construction.

Q. When is it planned for completion, do you know? 
A. Beg pardon?

—135—
Q. When do you hope to occupy it? A. Beginning the 

school term in September.
Q. Now, have you appointed a staff at that school? A. 

Yes.
Q. Principal? A. Yes, sir.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiff s—Recalled—Redirect



95a

Q. Teachers? A. Yes.
Q. All Negroes, are they? A. Yes.
Q. There is no question but that this is planned to be 

an all-Negro school next year? A. Well, it will be pre­
dominantly Negro.

Q. Have you determined what students are going to be 
assigned there?

v

The Court: What is tha|?
Mr. Nabrit: Determined an area—to be drawn.
The Court: What difference does it make whether 

he has or not drawn an area, geographical area for 
the school. The Pupil Placement Board, through its 
Chairman, says that they don’t pay any attention to 
those boundaries, on applications.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I contend that that the 
continued administration of overlapping school zones 
by local authorities, make a substantial difference.

—136—
The Court: Go ahead and ask him the question. 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Have you got a zoning for this school prepared? A. 
Yes, there is an area which would be in attendance there 
for this school. We will have a list of children in that area 
which we will send to the Pupil Placement Board for their 
approval.

Q. Have you already done this or something you are 
planning to do? A. We have a list prepared.

Q. You have a list prepared? A. Yes.
Q. Are all of those students Negro. A. All of them on 

the list are Negroes.
Q. Imagine none of these students have indicated their

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Recalled—Redirect



96a

wishes, these students there on this list. A. This will be 
an administrative transfer.

Q. Now, the capacity of this school is what, this pro­
posed school? A. Well, we have a potential of eight class­
rooms and usually we assign about 29 to 30 children to a 
classroom, which would mean—well, it could accommodate 
240.

Q. Now, you have 150 people on this list for the school, 
right! A. It is between 125 and 150.

—137—
Q. Now, would that provide for using all of the class­

rooms there? A. No.
Q. Empty rooms? A. Will be empty rooms; yes, sir.
Q. Is your Clearbrook school going to be overcrowded 

like it was ? A. It will be full; yes, sir.
Q. Overcrowded right at the maximum? A. Well, there 

will be transfers. We are building a new school in the Cave 
Springs High School, Cave Springs elementary school. We 
will transfer some children from various schools to relieve 
or request transfer from various schools to other schools. 
We have five elementary schools under construction. By 
administrative transfers, we will move students out of 
schools that are crowded and try to bring them down to 
reasonable limits in each of our schools.

Q. And these 125 or 150 Negroes in this area are now 
students who go to Carver? A. Yes.

Q. Except those below school age now? A. Yes.
Q. Those at school go to Carver? A. Yes.

—138—
Q. Now, how did you determine how big a school to 

build in that neighborhood? Are all your schools about that 
size or what? A. No.

Q. Is this a small school as your schools go or large? 
A. Well, it is, I assume, probably below the average size.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs— Recalled—Redirect



97a

Q. Do you have anything smaller than this? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know which ones those are? A. Yes; Brook- 

mount, Carwood; Hollins, Gregg Avenue.
Q. Any of those recently built? A. Ogden.
Q. Any of those schools recently constructed? A. Yes.
Q. Did you determine the size on the basis of the popu­

lation of the neighborhood? A. Population in the area, 
neighborhood area.

Q. Now, Pinkard Court, of that size, was determined on 
the basis of the population in its neighborhood? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. And that would be the Negro population in that neigh­
borhood, right? A. Well, there are some white families in 
that area. I wouldn’t say it was entirely Negro.

—139—
Q. You counted the white families when you— A. Beg 

pardon?
Q. Are you telling me that you determined this school 

with reference to the whole population of this neighbor­
hood, including whites and Negroes? A. The population 
of this neighborhood is predominantly Negro, a few whites 
that live there who have very little influence upon the size 
of the school.

Q. When we speak of this neighborhood, what are we 
talking about, what size area are we talking about? A. 
Oh, it is an area—it is extremely difficult for me. I say 
several square miles. Probably five square miles includ­
ing—that is a rough guess. I have no idea. Southern Hills 
thing is highly built up area. Pinkard Court and Slate 
Hill are all relatively compact ; many homes and they are 
right close together.

Q. And there are white and Negroes in this area? A. 
Some white families in that area.

Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs— Recalled—Redirect



98a

Colloquy

Q. Are those white children who are presently bussed, 
those who are presently bussed to Clearbrook! A. Yes. 
We went over that in the original testimony.

* * * * *
—140—

* * * * *

Mr. Lawson: Your Honor, I should like to move 
the Court that the evidence which was taken at the 
preliminary hearing last Fall before Your Honor 
be considered along with the evidence produced here 
today.

The Court: It isn’t necessary to move. It is al­
ready part of the record and will be considered. 

* * * * *
—141—

* * * * *

The Court: All right. Let the record show that 
the Counsel for the Roanoke County School Board 
and school officials have rested and doesn’t desire to 
put on any evidence. Let the record show that the 
Counsel for the Pupil Placement Board doesn’t de­
sire to put on any evidence and is resting his case. 
And the Attorney General’s Office, who is associated 
with these gentlemen, likewise have no evidence that 
they wish to present and they are resting.

# # # # #



99a

EXHIBITS INTRODUCED AT TRIAL

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 to Deposition of Dr. Horn

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

P u pil  P lacem en t  B oard

July 17,1959 

Memo # 2 4

To: Local School Boards and
Division Superintendents of Schools

F r o m : B. S. Hilton, Executive Secretary

S u bject  : T ransfer  R equests

At its last meeting, the following action was unanimously 
adopted by the Pupil Placement Board: »

“ It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement 
Board will not consider any transfer request submitted 
to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement 
of any school semester.” / /

B. S. H.



100a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6

(See opposite) SESr’



101a

School'Division (S s^ o r  County): t P k

t o r s

C o m m o n w e a l t h  o f  V i r g i n i a  

P u p i l  P l a c e m e n t  B o a r d  

A P P L IC A T IO N  F O R  P L A C E M E N T O F  PUPIL

M

(N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application of each pupil who has 
moved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for
the first tim e.).

I, the undersigned p a re n t /o r  legal gu ard ian , o r  other person  hav in g  cu stody  o f  the ch ild  n am ed  b e low , request that this

JLLEAJL& ZJLoJL.child be p la ced  in the P u b lic  S ch oo l System  in  the C o u n ty / •  
and in support thereof, subm it the fo llo w in g  in form a tion : (PRINT OR TYPE)

FU LL N A M E  O F  C H I L D : .  B A i c S A j e A  l y / v r j

A D D R E S S : f ?  D  H  7 g , ___ S ~ ~  < Q  0  A  ( T p i  </ ---------------------------- — -----------

PO ST O F F I C E : P  0  A  ) 1  t  / C < t -  ( ____(I... -4 _________________________________ _________________ ________________- j . --------------

S C H O O L  Y E A R  F O R  W H I C H  E N R O L L M E N T  1$ R E Q U E S T E D :

u t u r  A r  en tir es -..  T i c t  a 'T»i'T?xrr\T?T'i. —P —■' f  W H E N :N AM E O F  S C H O O L  L A S T  A T T E N D E D

A D D RES S O F  S C H O O L : _________________________

YEARS IN  S C H O O L : ___________________ G R A D E X
C O U N T Y /O R  C I T Y :

ST A TE  O R  C O U N T R Y  O F  B I R T H :  V. t  Y £  L i t  ' &  -----------

P H Y S IC A L  O R  M E N T A L  H A N D IC A P S  O R  D IS A B IL IT I E S :

S R V -.B J U H - i l £ -  B I R T H  D A T E :

___________ C O N D I T I O N  O F  H E A L T H : „Q..

A /ot/e_________________

P A R T IC U L A R  A P T I T U D E S : ______________________________— _ ---------------- ---------------------- --------- ------------- ---------------------------------------------

N AM E A N D  L O C A T I O N  O F  S C H O O L  O R  S C H O O L S  I N  V I R G I N I A  IN  W H I C H  A N Y  O T H E R  C H I L D R E N  O F  

Y O U R S  A R E  E N R O L L E D : ^  f  I / .& X -------<3 / .S lJ U ------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------

T h e  fo re g o in g  is certified  on  oa th  or  a ffirm ation  to  b e  t r u e a n d  com plete , ^  q L y.

S ig n e d : _

Date: 6  -  £ = = £ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ =_ ^

( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

i n f o r m a t i o n  a n d  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  F r o m  L o c a l  S c h o o l  B o a r d

If child is entering fo r  the first tim e is date o f  ch ild ’ s birth  on  a p p lica tion  sam e as on  birth  c e r t if ica te ? -  

Comments con cern in g  p u p il: -----------— -------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------- ---------------------------------

Recom m endation as to  school to  w h ich  pu p il should  be assigned : ^

H eadier: - C. xO■

A c t i o n  B y  S t a t e  B o a r d

J C A L  S C H Q p L  B O A R D  -

• • *7~y V—-iAb~ 7 (tSu)

L O C A L

By

T h e above-nam ed  pup il is^heijeby assigned^to—  _____( L r J L J ^ s J L

1 the C ou nty  of.

[ isjaeceby assigned t o _

LC _

{Tale)

s ch o o l

FOR THK PUPIL PLACKMKNT BOARD OF THR COMMONWEALTH OP VIRGINIA

AUG 2 9 196ft



102a

S c h o o l ‘Div i s i o n  C o u n t y ) :

C O M M O N W E A L T H  O F  V I R G I N I A  

P U P I L  P L A C E M E N T  B O A R D  

A P P L I C A T I O N  F O R  P L A C E M E N T  O F  P U P I L

(N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application o f  each pupil who has 
m oved to Virginia from  another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for 
the first tim e.).

I, the undersigned p a r e n t /o r  legal guard ian , o r  o th er  person  hav in g  cu stody  o f  the ch ild  n a m ed  b e low , request that this

ch ild  be p la c e d ‘ in the P u b lic  S ch oo l System  in the C o u n ty /  A  Mo / f t L  C /.<Z.Atf QfPiA.—
and in support thereof, subm it the fo llo w in g  in fo rm a tio n : ( P R IN T  O R  T Y P E )

F U L L  N A M E  O F  C H I L D : / C  _______ / V\ A . / S  /
^  FIRST Ml

A D D R E S S : ___ A ,  O  M  f  g - ____ £ ~  ! 3  O Y  i >  - L  V / ________

\A/S' J 7 ~

P O S T  O F F IC E o A
S C H O O L  Y E A R  F O R  W H I C H  E N R O L L M E N T  IS  R E Q U E S T E D : 

N A M E  O F  S C H O O L  L A S T  A T T E N D E D : L ------------------- __________________W H E N : /  _________

<L-A D D R E S S  O F  S C H O O L :^ -  y ' 7 ~  __________ C O U N T Y /O R  C I T Y :

Y E A R S  IN  S C H O O L : L  G R A D E ____ £ ________ S E B I R T H  D A T E : 7 ~

S T A T E  O R  C O U N T R Y  O F  B I R T H :  V ' V  y ' t , / H  /  A  . . . .  ..______ C O N D I T I O N  O F  H E A L T H : -----------

P H Y S IC A L  O R  M E N T A L  H A N D I C A P S  O R  D I S A B I L I T I E S ; A / D  A /  g -

P A R T I C U L A R  A P T I T U D E S : _____________„_____ ________-------------■— ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N A M E  A N D  L O C A T I O N  O F  S C H O O L  O R  S C H O O L S  IN  V I R G I N I A  IN  W H I C H  A N Y  O T H E R  C H I L D R E N  O F  

Y O U R S  A R E  E N R O L L E D : 7 - .- 3.. Y . vLAJZL, . d  L i k - M --------V .j iL . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D ate:

T h e  fo re g o in g  is certified  on  oa th  o r  a ffirm a tion  t o  be  true and  A m p le te . ^  O  &  fi*ft* O

S ig n e d : u L ____t J l g J  Jcv i ■ — —r:--------------- ------- eK-f-/- ---------------------------------------------------------------- —— r

Address :  ...  ̂ UBs

( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

In f o r m a t i o n  a n d  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  f r o m  L o c a l  S c h o o l  B o a r d

I f ch ild  is entering fo r  the first tim e is date o f  c h ild ’s birth  on  ap p lica tion  sam e as on  birth  certifica te ?_  

C om m ents con cern in g  p u p i l : _________________ __ ... .— -------------------*-------- «— -------------------------- ------------------------------------

R ecom m en dation  as to  school to  w h ich  pup il should  b e  assigned

P rincipal or 
H ead T ea ch e r '7Y)a, , c .(Q. L O C A L  S C H O O L  B O A R D  .

By

A c t i o n  B y  S t a t e  B o a r d

T h e  above-n am ed  pup il is hp*eby assigned to^  

in the C ou nty  {p i t f )  of_.

{Title) 

____Ischool

FOR THE PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD OP THE COMMONWEALTH OP VIROINSA

AUG 2 9 I960 2.



103a

S c h o o l  Div i s i o n  (Ci t y  ) : '̂ j\&  ( ] «*L

C O M M O N W E A L T H  O F  V I R G I N I A

P u p i l  P l a c e m e n t  b o a r d

A P P L I C A T I O N  F O R  P L A C E M E N T  O F  P U P I L

(N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application of each pupil who has 
moved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for 
the first time. ) .

I , the undersigned  p a r e n t /o r  legal guardian , or  other person  hav in g  custody  o f  the ch ild  n am ed  b e low , request that this

chad  be  p la ced  in the P u b lic  S ch oo l System  in the C o u n ty /o r  Oi»y -----C  / t - &  / P  &  -----
and in  support thereof, subm it the fo llo w in g  in form a tion : < p r i n t  O R  T Y P E )

F U L L  N A M E  O F  C H I L D :  0  ------------------ C A  &h.--------
t\ nV T  MIDDLE

A D D R E S S : J L  D  ~ t . ..C ____ S Z  &  £  "X, ^  "2- V --------------------------------------------

P O S T  O F F I C E : ^  0  3 , i ]  J - J Z S - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S C H O O L  Y E A R  F O R  W H I C H  E N R O L L M E N T  IS  R E Q U E S T E D : !L j= -

\A/‘ J?S

/ 9  / s L t i

N A M E  O F  S C H O O L  L A S T  A T T E N D E D : C  ---------------------------------------------------------- W H E N : ^ ‘f A -------------

A D D R E S S  O F  S O T T O O T ./ -  V  °k. ■ A T '  S a L  / c  / > / __________ C O U N T Y / 0 f i - e F ¥ ¥ t  <><3. h  °  KA * ------------------

Y E A R S  I N  S C H O O L :  ____ f / ___________ G R A D E _____ ___________S E X ■.£.~ A j A A l B I R T H  D A T E :

S T A T E  O R  C O U N T R Y  O F  B I R T H : \ /  J  J£<m /  W 1  & ______________ C O N D I T I O N  O F  H E A L T H :  <A A A D _ ------------

P H Y S IC A L  O R  M E N T A L  H A N D I C A P S  O R  D I S A B I L I T I E S :  ------ A ' ' <7 / l  C .-----------------------------------------------------------------

P A R T I C U L A R  A P T I T U D E S :

N A M E  A N D  L O C A T I O N  O F  S C H O O L  O R  S C H O O L S  IN  V I R G I N I A  IN  W H I C H  A N Y  O T H E R  C H I L D R E N  O F  

Y O U R S  A R E  E N R O L L E D : C  d  Y  V _____ £  3  /  G M .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing is certified on oath or affirmation to be true and com plete^^^ QC* P \
Signed: o < A ~  r o z .

Date: ^  ^  ~~ G  D ______  Address: _

p T in "

( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

In f o r m a t i o n  a n d  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  f r o m  l o c a l  S c h o o l  b o a r d

If chad is entering for the first time is date of chad’s birth on application same as on birth certificate?^ 

Comments concerning pupd: --------------------- ——-----------------------------— ----------------------------------------------------

Recommendation as to school to which pupil should be assigned:

S & s r t l ^ 4).

A c t i o n  B y  s t a t e  b o a r d

The above-named pupil is hejjjby assigned to. 

in the County

L O C A L  S C H O O L  B O A R D  /  p

By: /  T V *

TOR TH * PU PIL  PLACRMBMT

AUG 2 9 I960
O P TMB COMMONWIALTM O P V IM IM IA



fOMB MO. I

School 'Division (City  or County):

C O M M O N W E A L T H  O F  V I R G I N I A  

P u p i l  P l a c e m e n t  B o a r d  
A P P L IC A T IO N  FO R PL A C E M E N T O F  PUPIL

(Note: A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application of each pupil who has 
moved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for 
the first time.).

,04a

I, the undersigned parent/or legal guardian, or other person having custody of the child named below, request that this

child be placed in the Public School System in the County/ ^ o  A  / V O k / = -  C l ! L 2 ^ J L
and in support thereof, submit the following information: (Print o r  t y p e )

FULL NAME OF CHILD: /JQ t>A . 2  A /  V B / T E _______A / )  JX S  / l/___________________

ADDRESS: &________________________ S ' ^  3 _____________________ _______________________________________

POST OFFICE: / 2  <2. A  JoJ L Q J Z J L _________________________________________________________

SCHOOL YEAR FOR W HICH ENROLLMENT IS REQUESTED:

NAME OF SCHOOL LAST ATTENDED: (2  A £ i/ E  / ? ________________ _________  W HEN: / f . - U i .

ADDRESS OF SCHOOL:^

YEARS IN SCHOOL: ____ J L

STATE OR COU N TRY OF BIRTH :

C O U N T Y /OR- C IT Y . / ? . .  Q A .  /V 2  T  -J ____

2 ______ SEX: E E / V )  A  < /sf^IR T H  D ATE: M ~  S ' — E ' O

v ; £ 6 s r \ i  / a  ____CON DITION  OF HEALTH : a #  D ______

GRADE-

PHYSICAL O R  MENTAL HANDICAPS O R  DISABILITIES: / V ' a  A /  E "

PARTICULAR APTITUDES: A / e T ~  <=* i d ________________________________________________

NAME AND LOCATION  OF SCHOOL O R  SCHOOLS IN V IRG IN IA IN W H ICH  ANY O TH E R  CHILDREN OF

YOURS ARE ENROLLED: ____A /  0  A /  E T _____________________________________________________________________

The foregoing is certified on oath or affirmation to be true and complete. £ / / V £  PJ?£>Y£r*S  7 ’

Siffned:

Date: / (* , / * * & *

. ( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

I N F O R M A T I O N  A N D  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  F R O M  L O C A L  S C H O O L  B O A R D  

If «*h*1d is entering for die first time is [date of child's birth on application same as on birth  certifica te  ? _  

Comments concerning p u p il:-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------— —

Recommendation as to school to which pupi| should be assigned: C jQ a a h A S  / £ ^ J L h a 4 A

LO‘

By:

C A L  S C H O O L  B O A R D * - / ------  .

A C T I O N  B Y  S T A T E  B O A R D

TE* above-named pupil is herph*; assigned to 

in the County I fik fT o t------—

~A~ fruit)
—school

FOB TUB n n i  W A OIM11TT B O M B  OF TM8 COMMOMWKALTM OF VIBOINIA

AUG 2 9 1960



School Division 0Si*y or County)

105a

C o m m o n w e a l t h  o f  V i r g i n i a  

P u p i l  P l a c e m e n t  B o a r d  

A P P L I C A T I O N  F O R  P L A C E M E N T  O F  P U P I L

(N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application o f each pupil who has 
m oved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for 
the first tim e.).

I , the undersigned p a r e n t /o r  legal gu ard ian , or  other person  hav in g  custody  o f  the ch ild  n am ed b e low , request that this

ch ild  be p la ced  in the P u b lic  S ch oo l System  in  the C o u n t y / C ity o f . Jh S- /C  £  Aj
and in support thereof, submit the following information: ( prin t OR TYPE)

F U L L  N A M E  O F  C H I L D : 

A D D R E S S : / '  ■ ■'

>/•■ a / J - / .
c X_-p 1/

P O S T  O F F I C E : l ?£2 . / • f  f  ( I  < ? ■

S C H O O L  Y E A R  F O R  W H I C H  E N R O L L M E N T  IS. R E Q U E S T E D : / — l  4 L * e  y - k r

N A M E  O F  S C H O O L  L A S T  A T T E N D E D : C  S  y  l / Z  K ________________________________  ___  W H E N :

A D D R E S S  O F  S C H O O L  

Y E A R S  IN  S C H O O L :

:4 j Cd/Zs’!> C O U N T Y / e f t  e t T ¥ -:

_  W H E N :

A ?..'A  jV  ' /C

G R A D E .. _sexk££j£
S T A T E  O R  C O U N T R Y  O F  B I R T H :  V  ■ ' V C  /  / '  / $ __________

P H Y S IC A L  O R  M E N T A L  H A N D I C A P S  O R  D I S A B I L I T I E S :

______  B I R T H  D A T E : / a 1 -  '  4  -  j T U i

C O N D I T I O N  O F  H E A L T H : C? J  f  - C --------------

-Ay Q  J \ /  <?

P A R T I C U L A R  A P T I T U D E S : ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

N A M E  A N D  L O C A T I O N  O F  S C H O O L  O R  S C H O O L S  IN  V I R G I N I A  IN  W H I C H  A N Y  O T H E R  C H I L D R E N  O F  

Y O U R S  A R E  E N R O L L E D : J . V r i / c  ) ' _______ i  / A ______________________________________________________________________________

T h e  fo re g o in g  is certified  on  oa th  o r  a ffirm a tion  to  be  tin e  and  com plete . /y / y  /

S ig n e d : A

D a te : _»____________________________ -__ A d d re ss : e * .  ^  &

" £  S T

( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

I n f o r m a t i o n  a n d  R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  F r o m  l o c a l  S c h o o l  B o a r d

I f  ch ild  is en terin g  fo r  the first tim e is date  o f  ch ild ’ s birth  on  ap p lica tion  sam e as on  birth  ce rtifica te?-----------

C om m ents con cern in g  p u p i l : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- — --------------------- -----------

R ecom m en d a tion  as to  sch oo l to  w h ich  pu p il should  be assigned:

Principal or  
H ead T ea ch e r

A c t i o n  B y  S t a t e  B o a r d

T h e  ab ove -n a m ed  pu p il i: 

in the C ou n ty  of.

1 isjaereby assigned to_

D C A L j S C H O O L  B O A R D .  a C  j

B).T / J  f  iry-ffi—tj-AjL-CAN-pU-Y* /t/V-VQ .

--------
[T itle)

< 2 .
t THE PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

AUG 2 9 I960



106a

S c h o o l  Division (jS*y o r  C o u n t y )

C o m m o n w e a l t h  o f  V i r g i n i a  

P u p i l  P l a c e m e n t  B o a r d  

A P P L I C A T I O N  F O R  P L A C E M E N T  O F  P U P I L

(N o t e : A birth certifica te  or p h otosta tic  c o p y  th er eo f  shall b e a tta ch ed  to the a pp lica tion  o f  each  pu p il w h o  has 
m ov ed  to V irgin ia  from  an oth er  sta te fo r  w h om  a pp lica tion  is m ade fo r  en ro llm en t in V irgin ia  sch ools  fo r  
th e first t im e . ) .

I, the undersigned p a r e n t /o r  legal guard ian , or  o ther person  hav in g  cu stody  o f  the ch ild  n am ed b e low , request that this

ch ild  be  p laced  .in the P u b lic  S ch o o l System  in the C o u n t y /o r  Grty o f ^ ^ ------ —  — — 1 ~
and in support thereof, submit the following information: (prin t  o r  TYPE)

F U L L  N A M E  O R .  C H I L D :  

A D D R E S S : K G U L  A ?

r r /  S  < * !< - ? &  *  V

.Jr.
P O S T  O F F I C E : ----------7 7  0  -------------------------  -------- -------------------- /  » - _

S C H O O L  Y E A R  F O R  W H I C H  E N R O L L M E N T  IS  R E Q U E S T E D : §  &

N A M E  O F  S C H O O L  L ^ f t A T T E N D E D : c S X Z ' A  O  0  W f M i :  3Z/) <2̂ / ?  < /< 5

A D D R E S S  O F  S C H O O L : v j c f / - e r  S f - ________ __________ C O U N T Y /O R  C I T Y :  S z .  /  /  / / / ?

Y E A R S  IN  S C H O O L : _______ ___________ G R A D E ______ J c L  —  _ S E X : _ M a . / < 2  B I R T H  D A T E  e ^ J U J L j  i & / r w

S T A T E  O R  C O U N T R Y  O F  B I R T H : V - f i  -C O N D I T I O N  O F  H E A L T H : ^  O  O  < g -

P H Y S I C A L  O R  M E N T A L  H A N D I C A P S  O R  D I S A B I L I T I E S :  ------------- P f_  0 _ t 7  € -  -  - ----------------

A  o h  •€-P A R T I C U L A R  A P T I T U D E S :

N A M E  A N D  L O C A T I O N  O F  S C H O O L  O R  S C H O O L S  IN  V I R G I N I A  IN  W H I C H  A N Y  O T H E R  C H I L D R E N  O F  

Y O U R S  A R E  E N R O L L E D : A ^ o  e ?  -e

T h e  fo reg o in g  is certified  on  oath  or  a ffirm ation  to  be  true and  com p lete

7 -  /  /C74 e Signed:
D a te : c  7  '  Address

~u/rt>£~£ T / ?£ t ~~£s t

( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

I N F O R M A T I O N  A N D  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  F R O M  L O C A L  S C H O O L  B O A R D

I f  ch ild  is entering fo r  the first tim e is date o f  c h ild ’ s birth on  a p p lica tion  sam e as on  birth ce rtifica te? .

C om m ents con cern in g  p u p i l : ---------------------

R ecom m en d a tion  as to  school to  w h ich  pup il should  be assigned:



«.a. FORM

S ch oo l D iv is ion  ( d r y " o r  C o u n ty )  :

107a

C o m m o n w e a l t h  o f  V i r g i n i a  

P u p i l  P l a c e m e n t  B o a r d  

A P P L I C A T I O N  F O R  P L A C E M E N T  O F  P U P I L

(N o t e : A  birth  ce r ti fica te  or  p h o to s ta tic  c o p y  th er eo f  shall be a tta ch ed  to  th e  application  o f  each  pup il w h o has 
m o v ed  to  V irgin ia  fro m  a n o th er  s ta te fo r  w h om  app lica tion  is m ade fo r  en rollm en t in V irginia schools fo r  
th e  first t im e . ) .

I, the u n d ersigned  p a r e n t /o r  legal g u ard ian , o r  other person  hav in g  custody  o f  the ch ild  n am ed b e low , request that this 

ch ild  be  p la ced  in  the P u b lic  S ch o o l System  in the C o u n t y /o r  -0 ity  o f C / ■ £ * & * * * &
and in support thereof, submit the following information: ( prin t  OR t y p e )

____  _  -------------------------------------- K  <S~ <-> S  0 S 7

e -5 ~ 3 / x  7  r.o  ffca . S?  Q If /_/? ^  1 y  ____________

F U L L  N A M E  O F  C H I L D : _

A D D R E S S : ____

P O S T  O F F I C E :

S C H O O L  Y E A R  F O R  W H I C H  E N R O L L M E N T  IS  R E Q U E S T E D : J  &  &  $ < $ 2 ^

N A M E  O F  S C H O O L  L A S T  A T T E N D E D : f f  & ■ r  C — $  £>a_ w h e n T “9 &  -o>

A D D R E S S  O F  S C H O O L :  W c f - f c i ~  S  t ______________________ C O U N T Y /O R  C I T Y :  l ,  j S ' S ? -------  ^ JZ
Y E A R S  I N  S C H O O L : G R A D E - S E X : B I R T H  D A T E : A ! . o f ' . r t u / ? s /

S T A T E  O R  C O U N T R Y  O F  B I R T H : f i f o Q r  Z lQ  )  V ______  C O N D I T I O N  O F  H E A L T H : <P~ O  C  <Jr 

P H Y S I C A L  O R  M E N T A L  H A N D I C A P S  O R  D I S A B I L I T I E S :   H iL . 6 - __________  ______________________________

P A R T I C U L A R  A P T I T U D E S :  .  . M a n  e _____________________________________________________  . . . .  _____________

N A M E  A N D  L O C A T I O N  O F  S C H O O L  O R  S C H O O L S  IN  V I R G I N I A  IN  W H I C H  A N Y  O T H E R  C H I L D R E N  O F  

Y O U R S  A R E  E N R O L L E D : ______ A c  1  t )  ____________________________

T h e  fo re g o in g  is certified  on  oa th  o r  a ffirm a tion  to  be  true and  com plete . 

y  y  S ign ed :

D ate  ^  /  n &  $  A d d ress :tQsU.

( j  h/ p  fife T V s r
| _ o f'

( F O R  U S E  O F  B O A R D S  O N L Y )

In f o r m a t i o n  a n d  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  F r o m  l o c a l  S c h o o l  B o a r d

I f  ch ild  is en terin g  fo r  the first tim e is date  o f  c h ild ’ s birth  on  a p p lica tion  sam e as on  birth  certifica te?  

C om m en ts  c o n ce rn in g  p u p il :  ------------------------- ----------------------------- ------  - - -----  —  ............................ — ............ -

R e co m m e n d a tio n  as to  s ch oo l to  w h ich  pup il should be  assigned: (2
P rin cip a l or  
H ead  T e a ch e r : TTfiy.C- L O C A L  S C H O O L  B O A R D ,  „ ___

By. f  I&O/vL
A C T I O N  B Y  S T A T E  B O A R D

T h e  a b o v e -n a m e d  p u p il is hefeF^assigned to  ^

in th e  C ou n ty  { J C * o f  -  P f f  ■ d E >  . C 7

{ T it le )  

school

HK PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD OF T

j\UG 2 9
^WEALTH OF \)



108a

s«

c(
ai

F

A

P<

S<

N

A

Y

S'

P]

P,

N

Yi

IP
If

C.

R.

Pi
H

A

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn

OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT

ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS
H erm an  L. H orn , S u perin ten d en t  

S alem , V irgin ia

A n  E xtract  F rom  t h e  M in u tes  of t h e  M eeting  of th e  
Co u n ty  S chool B oard of R oanoke C o u n ty , V ir g in ia , 

H eld on A ugust 4, 1960

The County School Board of Roanoke County met this 
day in the Board Room with the following members pres­
ent: Arthur G. Trout, Chairman, Big Lick Dist.; William 
J. Lotz, Cave Spring Dist.; W. H. Starkey, Catawba Dist.; 
Dr. C. R. Woodford, Town of Vinton; and Mrs. Frank B. 
Thomas, Salem Dist. Absent: L. M. Whitmore, Town of 
Salem. There were also present Dr. Herman L. Horn, Div. 
Supt. of Schools, and Mrs. Hazel F. Ballentine, Clerk.

Dr. Horn presented applications received on July 16, 1960 
from seven Negro children seeking admission to the Clear- 
brook School. The names of the pupils and their parents 
or guardians are as follows:

Parent or Guardian 
Jacquelyn L. Ferguson 
Jacquelyn Ferguson 
Alvin J. West, Sr. 
Alvin J. West, Sr. 
Alvin J. West, Sr. 
Alvin J. West, Sr.
Mrs. R. M. Iseley

Pupil
J ean Millicent Ferguson 
Gregory Morris Ferguson 
Lula Marie West 
Alvin West, Jr.
Barbara Lynn West 
Judy Carol West 
Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh



109a

On motion of William J. Lotz, seconded by Mrs. Frank B. 
Thomas, the Board directed that these applications be sent 
to the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia in Richmond for processing.

Dr. Horn stated that in his opinion the assignments of pu­
pil to the various schools for the session 1960-61 should be 
frozen as of this date. Whereupon, on motion of Dr. C. R. 
Woodford seconded by William J. Lotz, the following 
resolution was unanimously adopted:

W hereas , the school facilities of Roanoke County are be­
ing used to the maximum limits, and

W hereas, pup ils  have been assign ed  on the basis o f  u sing 
fa c ilit ie s  to the best advan tage, and

W hereas, teachers have been  em p loyed  and  assign ed  to 
sch ools  on the basis o f  the p resen t p u p il assignm ent, and

W hereas, a n y  tra n s fe r  o f  p u p ils  fro m  one sch oo l to another 
w ou ld  cause ov ercrow d in g  and u n sa tis fa c to ry  teach ing  
con d ition s,

Now, T herefore, B e I t  R esolved that pupils will not be 
transferred from one school to another for or during the 
session of 1960-61 except in cases where parents have 
moved from one school area to another.

Dr. Horn proposed that lines be established indicating the 
areas from which pupils will attend Northside High School, 
as follows:

All pupils in grades 8, 9, and 10 living in the areas cur­
rently served by Conehurst, Catawba, South View, and 
Burlington elementary schools will attend Northside 
High School.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn



110a

Pupils in grades 8, 9, and 10 living in the area east 
of Mason’s Creek (between Mason’s Creek and Roanoke 
City) which is served by the Broad Street elementary 
school will go to Northside High School.
Pupils in the 8th, 9th, and 10th grades living in the 
area north of the Shenandoah Division line of the 
Norfolk & Western Railroad in the Mountain View 
School area will go to Northside High School. Those 
living south of the Shenandoah Division line of the 
Norfolk & Western Railroad will go to William Byrd 
H. S.
Seventh grade pupils in the Conehurst and South View 
elementary school areas will be housed in the North- 
side High School for the session 1960-61.

On motion of W. H. Starkey seconded by Mrs. Frank B. 
Thomas, the boundaries as recommended by the Supt. were 
established.

A Copy—Teste:
/s /  H azel F. B allentdste 

Cleric

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn



111a

OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT

ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS
H erm an  L. H orn , S u perin ten d en t  

S alem , V irgin ia

August 15, 1960

[Stamp—August 16, 1960]
Mr. B. S. Hilton, Executive Secretary 
Virginia Pupil Placement Board 
9 N. 3rd Street, Room 204 
Richmond, Virginia

Dear Mr. Hilton:

I am enclosing herewith the applications of seven Negro 
children to be admitted to the Clearbrook Elementary 
School in Roanoke County. These applications were sub­
mitted to the Roanoke County School Board Office on 
Saturday, July 14, by Mr. Reuben Lawson, an attorney in 
Roanoke City.
There is one child, Barbara L. West, who will be entering 
school for the first time. The birth certificate was not sub­
mitted with the application.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  H erm an  L. H orn

Herman L. Horn 
Div. Supt. of Schools

HLH :db 

Enclosures 7

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4



112a

(Letterhead of Commonwealth of Virginia, Pupil Place­
ment Board, 9 N. 3rd Street, Richmond, Virginia)

August 16, 1960

Mr. Herman L. Horn, Div. Supt.
Roanoke County Schools 
Salem, Virginia

Dear Mr. Horn:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 
15, 1960 enclosing seven applications for transfer to the 
Clearbrook Elementary School in Roanoke County.

Since you state that these applications were received by 
you on July 14, it would not be in accordance with Pupil 
Placement Board regulations to consider the applications 
for transfer of these pupils at the beginning of the fall 
semester, September 1960. I refer you to Pupil Placement 
Board Memo #24, issued July 17, 1959./,

Will you kindly convey the above information to the parents 
of the children who are applying for transfer.

Yours truly,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5H to Deposition of Dr. Horn

BSH :gj

B. S. Hilton 
Executive Secretary



113a

August 29, 1960

Mrs. E. M. Iseley 
Boute 5, Box 823 
Eoanoke, Virginia

Dear Mrs. Iseley:
The application for your child to be placed in the Clear- 
brook School was forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Since this application was not received in the office of the 
County School Board of Eoanoke County until July 16, 
1960, the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board 
states that it would not be in accordance with the Pupil 
Placement Board regulations to consider the application 
for transfer of this pupil at the beginning of the fall semes­
ter, September 1960. He refers to the Pupil Placement 
Board Memo No. 24 issued July 17, 1959, which states:

“ It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement 
Board will not consider any transfer request submitted 
to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement 
of any school semester.”

Until the Pupil Placement Board acts upon the application, 
your child, Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, will be assigned to 
the Carver School.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7A

Very truly yours,

H e r m a n  L . H o r n
D iv . S u p t. o f  S c h o o ls

H L H  :db



114a

August 29, 1960

Mr. Alvin J. West, Sr.
Route 5, Box 824 
Roanoke, Virginia

Dear Mr. West:
The applications for your children to be placed in the Clear- 
brook School were forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Since these applications were not received in the office of 
the County School Board of Roanoke County until July 
16, 1960, the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement 
Board states that it would not be in accordance with the 
Pupil Placement Board regulations to consider the applica­
tions for transfer of these pupils at the beginning of the fall 
semester, September 1960. He refers to the Pupil Place­
ment Board Memo No. 24 issued July 17,1959, which states:

“It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement 
Board will not consider any transfer request submitted 
to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement 
of any school semester.”

Until the Pupil Placement Board acts upon the applica­
tions, your children, Alvin Jr., Judy Carol, Barbara Lynn, 
and Lula Marie, will be assigned to the Carver School.

Very truly yours,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7B

H e r m a n  L . H o r n
D iv . S u p t. o f  S c h o o ls

H L H  :db



115a

August 29, 1960

Mrs. Jacquelyn L. Ferguson 
Route 5, Box 790 
Roanoke, Virginia

Dear Mrs. Ferguson:
The applications for your children to be placed in the Clear- 
brook School were forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Since these applications were not received in the office of 
the County School Board of Roanoke County until July 16, 
1960, the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board 
states that it would not be in accordance with the Pupil 
Placement Board regulations to consider the applications 
for transfer of these pupils at the beginning of the fall 
semester, September 1960. He refers to the Pupil Place­
ment Board Memo No. 24 issued July 17,1959, which states:

“It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement 
Board will not consider any transfer request submitted 
to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement 
of any school semester.”

Until the Pupil Placement Board acts upon the applica­
tions, your children, Jean Millicent and Gregory Morris, 
will be assigned to the Carver School.

Very truly yours,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7C

H e rm a n  L . H o r n
D iv . S u p t. o f  S c h o o ls

H L H  :d b



116a

Minutes—Pupil Placement Board 
August 29,1960

The Board unanimously denies the transfer requests from 
the parents of the following pupils in Roanoke County, 
Virginia, in accordance with Pupil Placement Board regula­
tions requiring the submission of such requests sixty days 
prior to the commencement of any school session.

Barbara Lynn West denied placement in Clearbrook School
Lula Marie West denied transfer to Clearbrook School

Judy Carol West denied transfer to Clearbrook School
Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh denied transfer to Clearbrook 

School

Albin West, Jr. denied transfer to Clearbrook School
Gregory Morris Ferguson denied transfer to Clearbrook 

School

Jean Millicent Ferguson denied transfer to Clearbrook 
School

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5



117a

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
P u pil  P lacem en t  B oard

September 1,1960

Memo #30

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9

T o : Local School Boards and
Division Superintendents of Schools

F r o m : B. S. Hilton, Executive Secretary
S u bject  : R egulation  of P lacem en t  B oard to Clarify  and

S upersede M emo #24, D ated J u ly  17, 1959.

At its meeting on August 29, 1960 the following regulation 
was unanimously adopted by the Pupil Placement Board:

The Pupil Placement Board will not consider applica­
tions for original placement or transfer filed with it 
or with the local division superintendent of schools 
after July 1st for the ensuing school session unless 
a change of the applicant’s residence subsequent to 
July 1st necessitates a new placement.

The Pupil Placement Board will appreciate it if the Divi­
sion Superintendent will notify it immediately upon receipt 
of any applications referred to above.

Sincerely,

/ s /  B. S. H ilton

B. S. Hilton 
Executive Secretary



118a

E xcerpt  F rom  t h e  M in u tes  of t h e  R egular M eeting  of 
t h e  R oanoke C o u n ty  S chool B oard H eld on 

S eptem ber  13, 1960

School Administration Building, Salem, Virginia

September 13,1960

The County School Board of Roanoke County met this day 
in regular session, with the following members present: 
Arthur G. Trout, Chairman, Big Lick Dist.; William J. 
Lotz, Cave Spring Dist.; Dr. C. R. Woodford, Town of 
Vinton; W. H. Starkey, Catawba Dist.; and Mrs. Frank B. 
Thomas, Salem Dist. Absent: L. M. Whitmore, Town of 
Salem. There were also present Dr. Herman L. Horn, Div. 
Supt. of Schools, and Mrs. Hazel F. Ballentine, Clerk.
An executive session was held in a luncheon meeting at 
Bradford’s Restaurant at 12:30 to discuss several adminis­
trative matters.
Dr. Horn reported that the hearing on the request for an 
interlocutory injunction of the seven Negroes seeking ad­
mission to the Clearbrook School would be held in Richmond 
on September 15, 1960. The Supt. stated that the School 
Board’s defense would be based on two arguments, to wit: 
(1) the petition was not submitted to the School Board 
until July 14, which was too late to comply with the time 
requirement; (2) a school in Cave Spring District will be 
completed before the 1961-62 session and these pupils would 
be enrolled in that school next year. If they transfer this 
year from Carver to Clearbrook this would mean two trans­
fers in two years, which is considered detrimental to a 
pupil. If the injunction is denied, he stated a trial will be 
held at a date set by the Judge.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3



119a

Among the items taken up at this time was the site for the 
proposed elementary school in Cave Spring District. Dr. 
Horn reported that he and Mr. Welton Stone were nego­
tiating with the owners of the property located in Pinkard 
Court off Bt. 220. The Board felt that a sum not to exceed 
$300.00 per lot should be offered the owners. After further 
discussion, Mr. Lotz moved that Benj. Chapman be retained 
as attorney to examine and approve titles, and that the 
committee be empowered to make the purchase and to use 
their best judgment if it became necessary to exceed the 
offer of $300 per lot. The motion was seconded by Mrs. 
Thomas and unanimously passed.

The Board then adjourned to the Superintendent’s Office 
and convened in regular session at 2 P. M.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3

A Copy—Teste:

/ s /  H azel  F. Bal l e x tin e  
Clerk



120a

Grades and  Capacity  of S chools— S eptem ber  1960 

R oanoke Co u nty

Grades Capacity

W il l ia m  B yrd H ig h  8-12 900
W il l ia m  B yrd Jr. H ig h  5-7 240
R oland E. C ook 1-5 420
M t . P leasant  1-7 540
C ataw ba  1-7 120
M t . V ernon  1-7 240
O gden 1-7 180
Oa k  G rove 1-6 570
Clearbrook  1-7 360 L
B e n t  M o u n tain  1-7 120
Cave S pring  7-12 1,000
B ack  Creek  1-7 240
S tark ey  1-4 120
B u rlin gton  1-7 480
M o u n tain  V ie w  1-7 420
S ou th  V ie w  1-6 510
N orthside 7-10 1,000
S ou th  S alem  1-6 300
F ort L ew is  1-7 360
G lenvar  1-7 420
Con eh u rst  1-6 420
W est S alem  1-7 480
A ndrew  L ew is  H ig h  8-12 1,350
A ndrew  L ew is  A n n e x  7 240
B road S treet 3-6 720
A cademy S treet 1-3 450
Craig  A ven u e  1-7 150
H ollins  1-6 100
Carver 1-12 630

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 (Horn)



121a

OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT

ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS 
H erm an  L . H orn , S u perin ten d en t

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4  (Horn)

S alem , V irgin ia  

Clearbrook School

Enrollment—September 6, 1960 383
“ October 1, 1960 395

Carver School

Enrollment—September 6, 1960 639
“ October 1, 1960 686

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Clearbrook School 30.3
Carver School 25.4

Pupil-Classroom, Ratio

Clearbrook School 32.9
Carver School 32.6



122a

[ caption  om itted ]

Filed: July 10,1961

Under date of July 16, 1960, several Negro children, 
through their attorney, tiled with the Superintendent of 
the Roanoke County Public Schools, Pupil Placement Board 
forms, seeking admission to the schools nearest their homes. 
The said applications were promptly presented to the 
Roanoke County School Board and from there forwarded 
to the Pupil Placement Board for processing.

Under date of August 30, 1960, the parents of the said 
children were notified by the Executive Secretary of the 
Pupil Placement Board that their applications to enroll 
their children in the schools requested were denied in ac­
cordance with Pupil Placement Board rules and regula­
tions requiring the submission of such requests sixty days 
prior to the commencement of any school session. This ac­
tion was taken without prejudice to their right to make new 
applications at least sixty days prior to the opening date 
for the 1961-62 school session, if they desired to so do.

The parents of the said children did not protest or appeal 
this ruling.

Under date of August 31, 1960, the said infant children 
instituted this suit against the County School Board of 
Roanoke County; its Division Superintendent, Herman L. 
Horn; and E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis and Alfred L. 
Wingo, individually and constituting the Pupil Placement 
Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as parties defen­
dant. The plaintiffs prayed, among other things, that the 
Court enter a judgment declaring that the enforcement, 
operation or execution of certain sections of the Code 
of Virginia, commonly known as the Pupil Placement Act,

M e m o r a n d u m  Opinion



123a

violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu­
tion of the United States; that the procedure sections of the 
Pupil Placement Act need not be pursued as a condition 
precedent to judicial relief from the imposition of segrega­
tion requirements based on race or color; and that the ac­
tion of the members of the Pupil Placement Board, in ad­
ministering and enforcing the provisions of the Pupil Place­
ment Act, deprives them of their liberty without due process 
and equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

The plaintiffs further prayed that the Court enter a 
temporary and permanent injunction, restraining the de­
fendant School Board and its Division Superintendent 
from any and all action that regulates or affects, on the 
basis of race or color, the admission, enrollment or educa­
tion of the infant plaintiffs, or any other Negro children 
similarly situated, to and in any public school operated by 
the defendants; and that an order be entered directing the 
defendants to present to this Court, within ten days, a com­
plete and comprehensive plan, which shall provide for a 
prompt and reasonable start toward desegregation of the 
public schools under their jurisdiction and control.

The motion for a temporary injunction was heard Sep­
tember 15, 1960, and denied. Whereupon, the defendants 
promptly filed their responsive pleadings, including a mo­
tion to dismiss. The defendants, in their answers, generally 
denied the allegations of the complaint and asserted that 
all rights of assignment and enrollment in the public schools 
of the County of Roanoke were vested in the Pupil Place­
ment Board. They further alleged that the plaintiffs had 
not exhausted the administrative procedures provided for 
in the Pupil Placement Act.

Memorandum Opinion



124a

The matter was then fully heard on the merits, and the 
record thus made discloses the following facts:

Six of the transfer applications in question were signed 
by the parents of the infant children on June 6, 1960. The 
other application was dated June 16, 1960. All of the ap­
plications were in the possession of the plaintiffs’ attorney 
from that date until July 16, 1961, at which time he filed 
them with the Superintendent of the Roanoke County 
Schools.

The rules and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board 
requires that all such transfer applications, from both white 
and colored students, be filed at least sixty days prior to 
the commencement of any school session.

The Pupil Placement Board denied these “ requests for 
transfer”, solely, on the ground of late filing. None of the 
plaintiffs noted a protest or indicated they were aggrieved 
by the assignments made by the Pupil Placement Board.

All assignments and placement of children in the schools 
of Roanoke County are made by the Pupil Placement Board. 
The School Board and its Division Superintendent do not 
make any assignments or any recommendations in refer­
ence thereto. All information received from the applicants 
is forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board for processing.

The evidence further indicated the Roanoke County 
School System operates under what is known as the “ Feeder 
System” ; that is, certain geographically located elementary 
schools feed their students on graduation to certain junior 
high schools, which, in turn, feed their graduates to certain 
high schools. Except in cases of requested transfers, ap­
proved by the Pupil Placement Board, this feeder system 
applies to both white and colored students. All students 
enrolled in school after December 29, 1956, remained in the 
schools formerly attended until graduation, except in the

Memorandum Opinion



125a

case of approved transfer. New students and those who 
change their residence within the County prior to gradua­
tion, are assigned to the appropriate school by the Pupil 
Placement Board.

No evidence of any kind was offered indicating that the 
Pupil Placement Board had discriminated on account of 
race or color in the assignment of any student, new or trans­
ferred, to the schools of Roanoke County.

The determinate question in this case is, whether or not 
the Pupil Placement Board, in denying the applications 
of the infant plaintiffs to attend the schools of their choice, 
discriminated on the ground of race or color. The answer 
to that question must be in the negative.

There is absolutely no evidence that these transfer ap­
plications were denied on the ground of color or race. They 
were denied solely on account of the fact that they were not 
timely filed. The rule that all transfer requests must be 
submitted sixty days prior to the commencement of any 
school session is not unreasonable and must be complied 
with except in unusual cases. It applies to all students, 
white and colored alike.

Plaintiffs offered no explanation in re the delay in filing 
their applications except to state they were turned over 
to their attorney on the dates they were executed, namely, 
June 6 and June 16, 1960. Plaintiffs’ attorney offered no 
explanation for his retention of these applications, for ap­
proximately forty days prior to filing, except to state that 
he was not fully acquainted with the rules and regulations 
of the Pupil Placement Board and that the infant plaintiffs 
should not be deprived of their constitutional rights on ac­
count of his dereliction.

Such unexplained and unjustified delay in complying 
with the administrative requirements of the Pupil Place-

Memorandum Opinion



126a

ment Board does not constitute a proper legal ground for 
dispensing therewith. To the contrary, the Court of Ap­
peals for the Fourth Circuit has consistently required 
Negro pupils desirous of being reassigned to schools with­
out regard to race to pursue established administrative pro­
cedures before seeking intervention of a federal court. 
Farley v. Turner, 281 F. 2d 131.

The appeals to the state courts which these statutes pro­
vide are judicial, not administrative remedies; after ad­
ministrative remedies before the Pupil Placement Board 
have been exhausted, judicial remedies for denial of con­
stitutional rights may be pursued at once in the federal 
courts without pursuing state court remedies.

There is no question as to the right of the infant plain­
tiffs to be admitted to the schools of the County of Roanoke 
without discrimination on the ground of race. They are 
admitted, however, as individuals, not as a class or group, 
and it is as individuals that their rights under the Con­
stitution are asserted. (Henderson v. United States, 339 
U.S. 816.) It is the Pupil Placement Board of Virginia 
which must pass in the first instance on their right to be 
admitted to any particular school. They can not enroll 
themselves and we can think of no one better qualified to 
undertake the task than the officials having that respon­
sibility. It is to be presumed that these officials will obey 
the laws, observe the standards prescribed by the legisla­
ture and avoid the discrimination on account of race which 
the Constitution forbids. Not until they have been applied 
to and have failed to give relief shall the federal courts be 
asked to interfere in school administration. (With minor 
changes in order to comply with the factual situation in 
this case, the above was quoted from Chief Judge Parker’s 
opinion in Carson v. Warlick, 238 F. 2d 724.)

Memorandum Opinion



127a

The plaintiffs further pray that this Court enter a de­
claratory judgment construing certain sections of the Code 
of Virginia, commonly known as the Pupil Placement Act. 
As these sections of the Virginia. Code are not facially un­
constitutional, this Court, deems it improper to pass upon 
the validity of these statutes under the Doctrine of Federal 
Abstention. See Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167. Con­
struction and/or the constitutionality of the Pupil Place­
ment Act should first be determined by the Supreme Court 
of Appeals of Virginia. The plaintiffs, or other persons 
similarly situated, should so file if they are thusly advised.

The plaintiffs further pray that this Court enter judg­
ment, declaring the administrative procedures provided for 
in Title 22, Sections 232.8 to 232.14, inclusive, of the Code 
of Virginia, are inadequate to secure and protect their 
rights to non-segregated education and need not be pur­
sued as. a condition precedent to judicial relief from the 
imposition of segregation requirements based on race or 
color. Without passing on the constitutionality of these 
sections of the Virginia Code, the Court is of the opinion 
the administrative procedures set forth therein are not 
unreasonable and must be complied with except in unusual 
cases. They apply equally to all, regardless of race, color 
or creed.

There is no evidence in this case to justify the prayer 
of the plaintiffs that the present members of the Pupil 
Placement Board are administering and enforcing the pro­
visions of the Pupil Placement Act so as to preserve, per­
petuate and effectuate the policy, practice, custom and 
usage of assigning children to separate public schools on 
the basis of their race or color. To the contrary, the evi­
dence in this case clearly indicates that the members of the 
Pupil Placement Board are conscientiously endeavoring to

Memorandum Opinion



128a

perform their official duties in accordance with the law and 
without regard to race, color or creed. These prayers are 
therefore denied.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in DeFebio 
v. County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia, 100 
S.E. 2d 760, has heretofore held that the enrollment or 
placement of pupils in the public schools of Virginia, is 
vested in the State Pupil Placement Board; further, there 
is no evidence in this case indicating that the School Board 
of the County of Eoanoke or its Division Superintendent 
are, in fact, performing these duties; therefore, there is no 
legal justification for the entry of a permanent injunction, 
and the motion so requesting is herewith denied.

Counsel for the defendants should prepare an appro­
priate order in accordance with this opinion, dismissing 
the complaint; submit the same to counsel for plaintiffs for 
approval as to form, and the same will be accordingly en­
tered. Costs will be assessed against the plaintiffs.

/ s /  O rest E. L ew is  
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion

Bichmond, Virginia 

July 6,1961



129a

Judgment

[ c a p t io n  o m it t e d ]

This action having been duly matured came on for hear­
ing on May 24, 1961, upon the complaint, the answers and 
motions to dismiss of the defendants, the evidence taken 
in open court, and was argued by counsel.

U pon  C onsideration  W hereof , the court being of the 
opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief 
sought in their complaint and that the defendants’ motions 
to dismiss should be sustained, and having set forth the 
reasons for such conclusions in a memorandum opinion 
under date of July 6, 1961, heretofore duly filed and now 
made a part of the record as its findings of fact and con­
clusions of law:

It is accordingly A djudged, O rdered and D ecreed that the 
complaint be and is hereby dismissed at the plaintiffs’ costs, 
and that this action be forthwith stricken from the docket, 
to all of which the plaintiffs, by counsel, object and except.

/ s /  O ren  ft. L ew is  
United States District Judge 

Oct. 4/1961



130a

Judgment

Seen
/s /  R euben  E. L aw so n , Atty. for Plaintiff

/ s /  B e n j . E. Chapman 
Attorney for the County School Board 
of Roanoke County, Virginia, and 
Herman L. Horn, Superintendent of 
Schools.

We ask for  this:

/ s /  R ussell A lton W righ t  
for A. B. Scott and A, B. Scott 

Special Counsel for Pupil Placement Board

/ s /  F rederick  T. Gray 
Fred T. Gray

Attorney General of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.

A True Copy, Teste:
Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., Clerk

By: / s /  G race A. H arper 
Deputy Clerk

(Seal)



131a

Notice of Appeal

Filed November 1,1961
Isr th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or t h e  W estern  D istrict  op V irginia  

Roanoke Division 
Civil Action No. 1095

G w endolyn  Y vette I seley , 
an infant, etc., et al.,

T h e  C o u n ty  S chool B oard op 
R oanoke C o u n ty , etc., et al.

Notice is hereby given that Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, 
an infant, and Raymond M. Iseley and Helen Iseley, her 
grandfather and grandmother and next friends; Judy 
Carol West, Alvin West, Jr., Lula Marie West and Barbara 
Lynn West, infants, and Alvin West, their father and next 
friend, plaintiffs in this cause, hereby appeal to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the 
final judgment dismissing the action entered in this case on 
October 4, 1961.
Date: October 31,1961

/ s /  R euben  E. L aw son  
Reuben E. Lawson 
19 Gilmer Avenue, N.W. 
Roanoke, Virginia
J ames M. N abrit , III 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



/

3a

.... .