Sweatt v. Painter Transcript of Record

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Date is approximate.

Topic
- Education
Notable Person
- Thurgood Marshall
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 3a173b91-c59a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Sweatt v. Painter Transcript of Record, 1948. 3a173b91-c59a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fa6f998c-68ef-47d1-916e-20c40f17dbd2/sweatt-v-painter-transcript-of-record. Accessed June 13, 2025.

Copied!

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1948

No.

HERMAN MARION SWEATT, PETITIONER,

vs.

THEOPHILIS SHICKEL PAINTER, ET AL.

ON P E TITIO N FOR W R IT OF CERTIORARI TO T H E SU PREM E COURT
OF T H E STATE OF TEXAS

FILED

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HERMAN MARION SWEATT, PETITIONER,

vs.

THEOPHILIS SHICKEL PAINTER, ET AL.

ON P E TIT IO N FOR W R IT OF CERTIORARI TO T H E SU PREM E COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 1948

No.

vs.

OF T H E STATE OF TEXAS

INDEX
Original Print

Record from District Court of Travis County, Texas.......... 1 1
Statement of facts............................................................. 1 1

Caption and appearances.......................................... 1 1
Statement by the C ourt............................................ 2 1

Testimony of D. A. Simmons
Direct by Mr. Daniel.................. 8 3
Cross by Mr. Marshall.............. 16 8
Redirect by Mr. Daniel.............. 42 24
Recross by Mr. Marshall.......... 43 24

E. L. Angell (Deposition)
Stipulation.................................. 46 26
Direct Interrogatories .............. 48 27
Cross-Interrogatories offered by

Respondents .......................... 54 30

D. K. Woodward, Jr.
Direct by Mr. Daniel.................. 60 34
Cross by Mr. Marshall................ 69 40
Redirect by Mr. Daniel.............. 110 65
Recross by Mr. Marshall............ 122 73
Redirect by Mr. Daniel.............. 125 75

Charles T. McCormick
Direct by Mr. Daniel.................. 126 75
Cross by Mr. Nabrit.................... 144 86

J udd & D e t w e im jb ( I n c . ) , P r in t e r s , W a s h in g t o n , D . C., F e b . 4, 1949.

-725

11 ISTDBX

Record from District Court of Travis County, Texas
Continued

Testimony of Charles T. McCormick Original Print

Redirect by Mr. Daniel............. 185 i n
Recross by Mr. Nabrit............ 196 119
Redirect by Mr. Daniel............ 208 126
Recross by Mr. Nabrit.............. 212 128

Miss Helen Hargrave
Direct by Mr. Littleton. . . . . . . 214 129
Cross by Mr. Marshall............ 227 138
Redirect by Mr. Littleton........ 240 146
Recross by Mr. Marshall.......... 244 148
Redirect by Mr. Littleton........ 249 151

Hall Logan
Direct by Mr. Littleton............ . 251 152

Miss Helen Hargrave (Recalled)
Redirect by Mr. Littleton........ 259 157

E. J. Mathews
Direct by Mr. Littleton............ 260 158
Cross by Mr. Durham.............. . 263 160
Redirect by Mr. Littleton........ 266 162

Miss Helen Hargrave (Recalled)
Redirect by Mr. Littleton........ 266 162
Reeross by Mr. Marshall.......... 267 163
Redirect by Mr. Littleton........ 268 164
Recross by Mr. Marshall.......... 270 165

Charles T. McCormick (Recalled)
Redirect by Mr. Daniel............ 272 166
Recross by Mr. N abrit............ 274 167
Redirect by Mr. Daniel............ 279 170

Heman Marion Sweatt
Cross by Mr. Daniel.................. 280 171

Dr. Robert Redfield
Direct by Mr. Marshall............ 307 189
Cross by Mr. Daniel................. 318 196
Redirect by Mr. Marshall........ 334 205
Recross by Mr. Daniel.............. 336 206

W. J. Durham
Direct by Mr. Daniel. . . 338 208
Cross by Mr. Marshall.............. 344 212
Redirect by Mr. Daniel. . . 344 212

Earl G. Harrison
Direct by Mr. Nabrit. . . 349 215
Cross by Mr. Daniel. .. 373 224

INDEX III

Record from District Court of Travis County, Texas—
Continued

Testimony of— Continued Original Print

Dr. Charles H. Thompson
Direct by Mr. Marshall.............. 380 228
Cross by Mr. Daniel.................... 445 268
Redirect by Mr. Marshall.......... 469 283

Donald G. Murray
Direct by Mr. Marshall.............. 476 287

E. L. Angell (Deposition)
Cross-Interrogatories offered by

Relator .................................... 483 292

J. B. Rutland
Direct by Mr. Marshall.............. 489 295

Henry Doyle
Direct by Mr. Daniel.................. 494 299

A. W. Walker, Jr.
Direct by Mr. Greenhill.............. 500 303
Cross by Mr. Nabrit.................... 508 308
Redirect by Mr. 'Greenhill.......... 519 315
Recross by Mr. Nabrit................ 522 317
Redirect by Mr. Greenhill.......... 526 319

Dr. Benjamin Floyd Pittenger
Direct by Mr. Greenhill.............. 526 319
Cross by Mr. Marshall................ 548 333

Malcolm P. Sharp
Direct by Mr. Marshall.............. 560 340
Cross by Mr. D aniel.................. 577 351
Redirect by Mr. Marshall.......... 591 359

Presentation of authorities by Mr. Daniel.............. 592 360
Respondents’ exhibits:

1— Standards of American Bar Association. 597 363
2—Resolution of Board of Directors of A. &

M. College, dated Nov. 27, 1946............ 599 364
3—Resolution of Board of Regents of Uni

versity of Texas, passed February 28,
1947 ........................................................ 603 366

6—List of Faculty Members of University
o f Texas School of Law........................ 610 369

7—Announcement of courses issued for
Texas State University for Negroes
Law School ........................................... 611 371

13—Letter from E. J. Mathews, Registrar,
Texas State University for Negroes, to
Herman Marion Sweatt, dated March 3,
1947 .................... 614 372

IV INDEX

Record from District Court of Travis County, T exa s-
Continued

Respondents’ exhibits— Continued Original Print

14— Photograph of building at 104 East 13th
St., Austin, Texas, site of Negro Law
School ......................................................

Relator’s exhibits:
1— Title Cover, excerpt page 259, and pages

260-267, inch, of Association of
American Law Schools Handbook, 1945

2— Photograph of Negro Law School Build
ing .................................................... .......

3— Photograph of Law Building at Univer
sity of T exas..........................................

4— Photograph of Law Building at Univer
sity of Texas ....................................

5— Envelope addressed to Herman Marion
Sweatt, from E. J. Mathews, Registrar

6— Photograph of entrance of Negro Law
School ......................................................

8— Report of Scholarship Aid Fund for
Texas Negro Graduate and Profes
sional Students, 1945-1946....................

9— Department o f Education Statement of
Policy and Procedure applicable to
Negro Aid Scholarship Fund..............

Reporter’s certificate........(omitted in printing) .

Agreement of counsel as to statement of facts. . . .

Caption ..............................................................................
Application for transcript .......................... - .............
Request for additional instruments to be included m

the transcript ................................................................
Application for writ of mandamus..................................
Relator’s second supplemental petition..........................
Respondents’ first amended original answer..................
Respondents’ first supplemental answer..........................
Relator’s third supplemental petition..............................
Suggestion—Want of parties..........................................
Judgment of the Court......................................................
Motion showing availability of Law School and request

ing denial of Writ of Mandamus..................................
Judgment of the Court, December 17, 1946....................
Mandate of the Court of Civil Appeals. . ....................
Respondent’s motion to withdraw stipulations..............
Order extending March Term of Court..........................
Judgment, June 17, 1947......................................; / ' '
Cost B on d ..................................(omitted in printing) .
Order of Court concerning fact stipulations..................

617 374

618 375

635 385

636 386

637 387

638 388

639 389

640 391

641 396

642

643 399

647 400

649 401

650 402
652 403
660 408
668 414
675 418
679 421
682 422
685 424

689 426
700 433
702 434
705 435
708 437
709 438
715
718 441

INDEX V

Order closing March Term of Court................................... 719
Relator’s motion re : original exhibits............................... 721
Order directing Clerk to send up original exhibits. . . . 723
Order amending judgment, July 8, 1947........................... 725
Bill of Costs..............................(omitted in printing). . 726
Clerk’s Certificate....................(omitted in printing) . 727

Proceedings in Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Third
Supreme Judicial D istrict....................................................... 728

Opinion, McClendon, J......................................................... 728
Opinion on motion for rehearing McClendon, J ........... 742
Appellant’s motion for rehearing....................................... 744
Judgment............................................................................... 748
Order overruling Motion for Rehearing............................. 748

Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas.......................... 749
Judgment refusing application for writ of error..................... 749
Motion for rehearing on the petition for writ of error........ 750
Order overruling motion for rehearing of application for

writ of error............................................................................... 756

Record from District Court of Travis County, Texas—
Continued 0riginal

Agreement to send original exhibits to Supreme Court of
the United States in original form ...................................... 757

Bill of C osts......................................(omitted in printing) . . 758
Clerk’s Certificate............................(omitted in printing) . . 759
Order extending time to file petition for writ of certiorari. . 760

442
443
443
444

445
445
460
461
465
465
466
466
466

471

472

[fol. 1]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY,

TEXAS, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 74,945

H e m a n M arion S w e a t t , Relator
vs.

T h e o p h il is S h ic k e l , P a in t e r , et al., Respondents

Statement of Facts

Before Hon. Roy C. Archer, Judge.

A p p e a r a n c e s :

Mr. W. J. Durham, Mr. Thurgood Marshall, Mr. E. B.
Bunkley, Jr., Mr. James M. Nabrit, Jr., Counsel for Relator.

Mr. Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas; Mr.
Jackson Littleton, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas; Mr. Joe
Greenhill, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, Counsel for Re
spondents.

Be It Remembered that on Monday, May 12, 1947, and
succeeding days, all in the Regular March Term of said
Court, there came on to be heard the above entitled and
numbered cause; whereupon the Court admitted into evi
dence the following:

[ fo ls . 2-7] A fter S ession

May 12, 1947

2:00 P. M.

S t a t e m e n t b y t h e C ourt

The Court: It seems this morning that perhaps I wasn’t
as clear in making a statement of this trial as perhaps
I should have been. This case was tried here on stipula
tions and on some testimony other than stipulations and
went to our Court of Civil Appeals, and by agreement of all
parties, the Court of Civil Appeals entered an order in
which this cause was remanded generally to this Court for

1—725

further proceedings, without prejudice to the rights of
any party to this cause. I think we needed that additional
explanation. I f we are ready now, we may go ahead.

Mr. Durham: Relator is ready, Your Honor.
The Court: Are you ready, Mr. Attorney General?
Mr. Daniel: Yes.
Thereupon counsel for relator and counsel for respond

ents presented to the Court a statement of their respec
tive pleadings in this cause.

The Court: I think with the trial being had before the
Court we will be able to hear your testimony and at the
same time bear in mind your exceptions on either side. So,
for the time being, I am just going to carry your exceptions
along in the trial of this case. If at a later time it requires
a little more time on your part to prepare to meet issues that
may be raised, which might be somewhat of a surprise to
[fol. 8] you, the Court will give you that time.

Mr. Durham: To save time, I thought we could go on
with our testimony, we could go on this evening, and maybe
talk about the stipulations after Court adjourns.

Mr. Daniel: Just so it is understood, we have no stipula
tions at this time.

Mr. Durham: That is right, we have no stipulations at
this time.

The Court: I haven’t heard it if you have.
Mr. Durham: It is agreed that respondents will put

their testimony on first, and then we will put our testimony
on, but in the record as it is made up, the relator’s testi
mony will come first in the record.

The Court: All right.
Reporter’s Note:—By agreement of counsel later, this

statement of facts was ordered prepared setting out the
testimony and proceedings in chronological order.

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we have a witness that we want
to put on out of order, and I believe it is agreed we may
do that.

The Court: All right.

D. A . S im m o n s , a witness produced by Respondents, hav
ing been by the Court first duly sworn as a witness testified
as follows:

[fol. 9] Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. State your name.
A. D. A. Simmons.
Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Simmons?
A. Houston, Texas.
Q. What profession are you in?
A. Attorney at law.
Q. Do you hold a law degree?
A. I do.
Q. From what school?
A. The University of Texas Law School.
Q. Do you hold any other law degrees?
A. I have an Honorary Doctor of Law degree from the

University of Montreal and an Honorary Doctor of Law
degree from Loyola University in New Orleans.

Q. How long have you practiced law?
A. Twenty-seven years.
Q. Have you during that time had any official association

with The American Bar Association?
A. I have.
Q. Would you please state your official connection with

the American Bar Association?
A. Well, if I may, I would like to go just a little back of

that, because I understand I am called—I know nothing
about the case, but I am called on as a witness on certain
[fol. 10] phases of the American Bar standards.

The Court: Yes.
A. I have been President of the Houston-Galveston Bar

Association, 1932 and 1933. I was President of the
Texas Bar Association in 1937 and 1938. I was President
of the American Judicature Society in 1940 and 1942. For
the record, I would like to state the American Judicature
Society is the second largest national organization of
lawyers in the country, and I was President of the Ameri
can Bar Association in 1944 and 1945, having heretofore
been on the Board of Governors for five years.

Q. Have you in your American Bar Association work had
occasion to be on any boards that inspected law schools
or passed upon the requirements of whether or not certain
law schools met requirements of the American Bar Asso
ciation?

A. The standards of the American Bar Association are
set by the House of Delegates. They are recommended by
the Board of Governors and the Section of Legal Educa
tion. I have been a member of the Board of Governors in
1937 to 1940, and 1944 to 1946. I have been a member of
the House of Delegates representing the lawyers of Texas,
1936 until today. I am still a member.

Q. In your experience with the American Bar Association,
I will ask you if you have ever had occasion to study the
standards of the American Bar Association as far as law
[fol. 11] schools are concerned?

A. Yes, sir, I am familiar with them. I was a member
of the House when they were voted.

Q. You are acquainted with the standards as they exist
today?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with the physical facilities, the

faculty, library, courses of instruction, and other matters
related to the University of Texas School of Law?

A. Well, I would say that since I was graduated there in
1920, my late visits, I have not counted the law books. I
know they have a very substantial law library. I do not
know how many books, and I know a good many of the
professors, and I am familiar in a general way with the
course of instruction.

Q. Do you know whether or not the University of Texas
Law School meets the standards of the American Bar Asso
ciation for an accredited law school?

A. It is an approved school.

Mr. Durham: We object to that because it is an assump
tion of what those standards are. The witness hasn’t tes
tified what the standards are. It is assuming what the
standards are.

The Court: I believe I will let him proceed, Counselor,
along this line. You will save your point, and maybe
we will get back to it.

A. My answer is: It is an approved law school. It has
[fol. 12] been inspected and approved by the House of Dele
gates of the American Bar Association as having complied
with the standards.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Are you acquainted——
A. I can say what the standards are, briefly.
Q. Will you briefly state what the standards are?
Mr. Marshall: I think the standards are the best evi

dence.
A. I think so.
The Court: The standards are.
A. I assume that counsel on both sides have them.
Mr. Marshall: Unfortunately, if Your Honor please, we

do not have them, except that one person on our staff has
them, and he is not in the court room at this time.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I will ask you if this page contains the standards of

the American Bar Association with reference to approved
schools?

A. That is the copy of the standards as approved by
the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association.

Mr. Daniel: We wish to offer it. We offer from page
1. It is headed, “ Standards of the American Bar Asso
ciation. ’ ’

Q. I believe your testimony was that the University of
Texas Law School has been approved as having met those
standards?

[fol. 13] Said instrument was admitted in evidence as
Respondents’ Exhibit No. 1.

A. That is correct.
Q. Now, I will ask you, Mr. Simmons, at my request,

whether or not you have inspected the law school for the
State University for Negroes here, adjoining the Capitol
grounds in Austin ?

A. Dean McCormick, of the Texas University Law School,
took me when the Court recessed this morning, to the build

ing just north of the Capitol, where on the ground floor I
found three rooms and a hall and toilet facilities. The
first room had three or four or five study desks, a law book
case or two with approximately, I would say, one hundred
and fifty to two hundred books, and there were two class
rooms the Dean pointed out, one' with students’ study
desks; the other one he said was a reserve room in case
more than eight or ten students applied. I saw that. I
know where that is. I walked over to the Capitol. I was
informed, from the reading of the pleadings this morning,
which is all I know about that phase of it. I learned that
the Supreme Court Library was made available by the
statutes. I have a little familiarity with that from twenty
years ago as First Assistant Attorney General. I went
back, and the books seemed to have been kept up to date,
and it is about a hundred or a hundred and fifty yards from
this school.

Q. You are speaking now of the State Library and the
[fol. 14] Supreme Court Library?

A. Yes, s ir ; on the second floor on the north side in the
Capitol Building.

Q. And that was about how far from the school?
A. The north entrance of the Capitol, I would say, was

a hundred yards. This is on the second floor immediately
above the north entrance.

Q. How many volumes of law books are required by the
American Bar Association for a library that meets its
standards ?

A. Well, the standards themselves call for an adequate
library. The interpretation of that, to get it down to
actuality, has been seventy-five hundred well-selected books
with cases, in complete sets.

Q. I would like to ask you if the Supreme Court Library,
with which you say you are familiar, and the State Library
there in the Capitol Building, has been kept up to date, and
if the evidence shows there are over 40,000 books in that
library,—would it meet the requirements of the American
Bar Association for a law.school library?

A. Well, I glanced over some of the sets. They are up
to date. Whether there are 40,000, I would rather leave to
the librarian, but obviously there are a great deal more than
7,500 books, and they are books of a character that would
afford an adequate legal education.

Q. Now then, did you in talking with Dean McCormick
[fol. 15] acquaint yourself as to the courses of instruction
that are being offered to the law school of the Texas State
University for Negroes'?

A. Well, I was merely informed from the set-up, and
from the books on the shelves that the freshmen, first year
law school courses are the courses that would be available
at this time, and that they were the identical books and the
identical courses given the first year law students at the
University of Texas Law School.

Q. I will ask you a hypothetical question. I f the evidence
in this case shows that in the building that you have al
ready inspected, the University of Texas law faculty, the
same faculty members, offered the same courses in law in
that building, and with the library facilities of the Supreme
Court Library that we have mentioned, and if the require
ments for entrance are the same, the requirements for
graduation are the same, as the Texas University Law
School, if the evidence shows that the requirements for
classroom study and all requirements contained in the cata
logue of the University of Texas Law School must be met
in the law school of the State University for Negroes, if
the evidence shows what I have recited, in your opinion,
will Texas University for Negroes Law School offer equal
educational opportunities in law as that offered by the Uni
versity of Texas?

Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please, assuming he is an
[fol. 16] expert, and assuming all that is in the hypothetical
question, I don’t thing this witness is entitled to give a
conclusion as to what the law is in the case. I think that
is your job.

The Court: I think he hasn’t asked him a law question.
I think he is asking him if, as an expert, it is substantially
the same.

Mr. Marshall: The question was whether it furnishes
the equality required.

The Court: Well, he wouldn’t say whether there is an
equality or not.

Mr. Marshall: May we have an exception, please, sir?
The Court: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You may answer, please.
A. In my opinion, the facilities, the course of study, with

the same professors, would afford an opportunity for a
legal education equal or substantially equal to that given
to the students at the University of Texas Law School.

Q. That is all.

Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:

Q. Mr. Simmons, what is the purpose of accreditation
from the American Bar Association, of law schools ?

A. To make standards—pardon me. Would you mind
telling me your name ?
[fol. 17] Q. Thurgood Marshall.

A. And you are from where?
Q. Originally from Baltimore, and now from New York.
A. I like to know who I am talking to.
Q. Good.
A. The purpose of any standards are to set a goal. The

American Bar Association standards are to assure adequate
legal education to those who are going to represent the
public as lawyers. They are merely recommendations, and
as-—and your name ?

Mr. Durham: Durham.
A. As Mr. Durham suggested a while ago, the American

Bar Association is a private association of lawyers, about
40,000, and it set up these standards as a guide to the law
schools, because when the standards were set up there were
a great many law schools in the United States, mainly night
schools, that were giving courses that were deemed to be
inadequate, inadequate to prepare the lawyers of the future
generation.

Q. And isn’t it true that many studies have been made by
the American Bar Association and the officials, including
several past presidents, concerning the inferior education
obtained in small, part-time law schools? Isn’t that true?

A. The Association has been concerned with legal educa
tion since 1896, and it has made many studies. That part is
entirely correct. We are now beginning to engage in a study
[fol. 18] that used to be done by the Carnegie Foundation.

They used to make an annual survey of legal education, and
Mr. Reed of that Foundation, I think, was assigned other
duties about ten years ago, and the American Bar Associa
tion has taken over that officially.

Q. Are you using Mr. Reed officially?
A. No, sir; I happen to know him personally.
Q. Have you read any of his studies?
A. I have many of them in my library.
Q. You are familiar with his viewpoint on part-time law

schools?
A. I would prefer to answer mine. I have studied at

night part time law schools myself. I have studied law in
every form, I think. I studied in my father’s office as a boy.
I came to the University of Texas not having funds to
proceed through. I stopped for a couple of years and went
to night law school, working in Houston, an unapproved
part-time school, with no books except those you could
borrow, and I came back after the First World War and
came back here, and I believe I am familiar with the office
study and small part-time school and the approved law
school, and sympathetic with all three.

Q. As a matter of fact, as of the present time, isn’t the
American Bar Association opposed to part-time law schools ?

A. No.
[fol. 19] Q. Hasn’t the American Bar------

A. For the night school, what they want is legal educa
tion for the future lawyers, and as the small school or the
night school obviously can’t give as much time to the student
as a day school, full-time, they require that they give four
years of three hours in the evening instead of three years
like the regular approved schools, but many of the part
time schools are approved.

Q. Ho you mean approved by the American Bar Associa
tion?

A. Yes, as having complied with these standards.
Q. There is another accrediting agency, the Association

of American Law Schools ?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t this true; their standards are higher than the

American Bar Association’s?
A. In some instances, I think they are more stringent.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that there are some schools approved

by the American Bar Association that are not approved by
the Association of American Law Schools?

A. I think that is true in some instances. I believe Lin
coln University in St. Louis is approved, on our lists------

Q. It is on both of the sections ?
A. That is the law school, I think. My last check, I think

it had 35 students.
Q. Counting the faculty?

[fol. 20] A. Take Howard—that is a colored law school
at St. Louis. Howard School of Law in Washington, the
last time I had occasion to go to that, I believe it had—just
before the war, I believe they had about 67 students. It
is a fully approved school.

Q. Both associations?
A. I think so.
Q. Yes, sir. Is it not true that accreditation by the Amer

ican Bar Association is an asset to the school and the pupil
and the community?

A. We hope so.
Q. And it is your opinion that it is of value to any school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would you not, therefore, say that attendance at

an unapproved school does not give equal education to atten
dance at an approved school?

A. No, I wouldn’t say that, because any school,—all of
these schools we have named at one time were on the unap
proved list. They had to prove how the facilities may be
equal, but the student body, after all, is the one that is
going to determine the standing of that school, and if the
student body takes advantage of the facilities offered, and
by the State Bar examination, which has no relationship to
the school itself, passed the State Bar examination, and the
students of that school, as many in proportion, uphold the
[fol. 21] teaching of that school, it is likely, of course, to be
approved more readily than one where the product does
not stand the gaff of the State examination.

Q. The American Bar Association waits and watches what
the school is doing before they approve it?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. They always do that, don’t they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you think in the meantime the school still should

be giving the same training as an accredited school?
A. Absolutely. The training is for the individual.
Q. I understand------

A. It has got to be from the inside, what the man develops
himself, what he can absorb himself. If he has the books
and curriculum and physical facilities, the light, the books,
the professors, I would venture to say that a student who
had,—let’s say that school had ten students, with four pro
fessors teaching ten students, that the ten students should
absorb a great deal more law than with ten instructors
teaching seven or eight hundred students.

Q. They approve the school, the curriculum and the plant!
A. And the product.
Q. You don’t just approve it on the product?
A. No, these standards should show there are seven or

eight hundred well-chosen volumes and should have pro-
[fol. 22] fessors who are full time professors in the field of
law.

Q. Did you know that these proposed professors for the
Negro school are to be part time professors? Did you know
that?

A. I understood they were full time law teachers.
Q. Did you understand their work there was to be part

time?
A. I would say that with ten students, it would have to be.
Q. I don’t know what you mean by that.
A. I was advised by the Dean of the Texas University

Law School they will he the same men that teach at the
Tex^s University Law School. They are full time teachers,
of course, employed by the State of Texas to teach students
in law.

Q. But we are talking about the so-called Negro school.
As to that school, they are part time?

A. Yes, sir, that is true. They would also be part time
at the University of Texas.

Q. Did you find out where their offices are?
A. At the other school, but they have a desk here. I was

pointed out,—all I know is what I was told this morning,
and I told you who told me. I was pointed out the books,
the desks, the chairs, and the rooms, and the distance from
the State Supreme Court Library, and I went over there to
see if it was where it used to be.

Q. Do your standards of the American Bar Association,
in accrediting a school,—isn’t it limited to what is in the
school? To be specific------

A. Until students come, this isn’t a school.

[fol. 23] Q. Tliank you, sir; but the other question is this.
If you have a school, for example; you are familiar with the
fact, are you not, that the library in the Library of Congress
is one of the best in the country ? Are you not familiar with
that?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you had a university in Washington with no law

library, but access to the Library of Congress, would you
accredit that school?

A. You are talking to me. I am only one of 185 delegates
in the House of Delegates. I do not personally accredit any
body. If the law school you are talking about had trained
professors, set up by Congress across the street, a hundred
yards from that library, and the Act of Congress said this
library shall be the library of that school, I would say,
so far as I was concerned, I would say they had been
furnished an adequate library, all of the books they could
hope to read or study.

Q. I didn’t say the library was made a part of the school.
I said “ made available” , like it is to everybody else.

A. Yes.
Q. Because it is available, would you, therefore, use that

as a part of the accrediting of the school?
A. Having used this one myself, I know there are not so

many people there but what you can always find table space
[fol. 24] and all of the books you want to study or read.
We are trying to get some law and the standards of the law
into the mind and soul of the individual student. I am not
trying to build a building for you, or law books. We are
trying to build lawyers with character.

Q. But you do require the building with the law books?
A. We require, as I said before, we require that a

certain number of certain proper law books be available.
Q. What do you mean by ‘ ‘ available ’ ’ ?
A. You are the one that asked me,—you said a while ago,

questions on availability. I will say that any time you
have a law library a hundred yards away from your school,
and that the Legislature says these books are for the use
of that school, that those books are available.

Q. I think vou are familiar with the statute that says
they shall be available. Isn’t that the language?

A. I will let the Judge pass on the statute.
Q. You are quoting from it?

A. You were talking about Congress, if the Law Library
of Congress was available, and I am trying to define what
I mean by available.

Q. Do you know of any other school the Americann Bar
Association approved that didn’t have a library in the build
ing where the school was!

A. All I can say is I haven’t inspected over about eight
[fol. 25] law schools personally.

Q. You have been passing on law schools for how many
years ?

A. Personally!
Q. Yes, on the Committee!
A. On the House of Delegates since it was established

in Boston in 1936, and three years before that as a mem
ber of the General Council from Texas.

Q. During that period, has that body approved a law
school that did not have a library in the building where the
law school was!

A. I can’t answer that.
Q. To your knowledge!
A. All we have ever passed on were——
Q. Can we first get an answer to that; and then you can

go ahead! Do you know, to your knowledge, that------
A. I can answer that like lawyers do, either way. I

don’t know, because the practice is this. Mr. Dernuth,
of the University of Colorado, and Mr. Sullivan, from the
University of Illinois, inspect the schools, and they come
back and report to the House of Delegates of the American
Bar Association, “ We have inspected Lincoln University
Law School. It has an adequate available library.” No
body has ever said there is one in the building across the
street, in all of the years that I have acted as one of those
that have passed on it. In the eight schools that I have in-
[fol. 26] spected, they all had libraries either in the build
ing, or in adjacent buildings.

Q. That is the purpose of having libraries in the law
schools!

A. In the school ?
Q. Yes.
A. To make books available so that the student can study

and learn the principles of law.
Q. Don’t your requirements also require that you have a

trained, competent librarian!

A. Someone should be familiar with the books. He
doesn’t need to be a full time librarian.

Q. Do you require that you have a full time dean?
A. The interpretation that has been made by the Com

mittee before they are recommended to the House of Dele
gates, the school should have at least one full time profes
sor or dean for each one hundred or fraction thereof, of
pupils. We don’t require a full time dean, as you quite well
know, Mr. Marshall.

Q. I don’t know anything about what the American Bar
Association requires, because I am not a member of it for
one reason.

A. May I go ahead?
Q. You may proceed.
The Court: Until somebody stops you, you can proceed.
A. This is quite interesting to me. Are you a member of

the Lawyers’ Guild?

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. One of the founders of it, and a member of the Board

[fol. 27] of Directors.
A. Are you a member of the National Bar Association of

Colored Lawyers?
Q. I am a former Secretary for four years of it.
A. That is a national association of colored lawyers?
Q. No, sir; it is an association of American lawyers that

has no bars as to race, creed, or color.
A. Is there a single white lawyer in it?
Q. Yes, sir; Martin Popper, and two or three others that

I can name.
A. Of course, we have colored lawyers in the American

Bar Association.
Q. You had one up until two years ago?
A. Bill Lewis. That is purely aside. We can go on with

the questions. I helped organize The Texas State Bar.
We have colored lawyers in that. We have colored lawyers
in the American Judicature Society, if that has any place
in the record.

Q. Getting back to the law library, and the American
Bar Association. They do require that we have at least one
full time dean or full time professor for each one hundred
students ?

A. There must he one full time man.
Q. I will ask you a hypothetical question. If there is a

law school established here in Texas for Negroes that has
[fol. 28] not a single full time professor or dean, would you
say that that gives the type of education that would meet
the approval of the American Bar Association?

A. Well, I am going to have to assume that this law
school has some students and there are------

Q. Assume not less than one hundred.
A. Lincoln, say, with thirty-one. I would say if, as, and

when this school has enough students to require through the
business facilities, the efforts of a full time man, they should
certainly have one.

Q. Could that school be approved by the American Bar
Association without any full time teacher or dean?

A. Yes, sir, it could.
Q. It could be?
A. Yes, sir; the requirement of one full time professor

for each one hundred students isn’t in the standards. It
is an interpretation made by the Committee as a recom
mendation to the House of Delegates.

Q. So, it would vary?
A. If the Committee found it was adequate. What is the

purpose of having one instructor for each one hundred, or
less? The purpose is stated in the standards to be so that
the professor will be acquainted with the needs and the
studying of the student body. I would assume, and would
so state, that if this school has less than 25 students, that
[fol. 29] three or four professors who are full time profes
sors, not part time, would certainly seem to be adequate.

Q. What would be—and maybe you can’t answer this—
what would be the minimum number of full time teachers,
deans, that you would need?

A. At this time?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. With how many students?
Q. Well, assume we have one.
A. Well, I wouldn’t see the slightest need for a full time

professor to give his full time to this one student.
Q. And—then could that one student get the same type

of education that other students get by having only the
viewpoint of one professor?

A. I didn’t understand that was to be the case. I under
stood they were to assign four.

Q. And you wouldn’t need any full time, then?
A. I wouldn’t think so. I would think; if he had the

same capacity, he could get a better grasp of the principles
of law than if he were one of eight hundred students with
ten professors.

Q. Don’t you require, in accrediting schools, that you
have a full time professor, or professors, for the purpose of
being available to the students during the regular day,
throughout the day, for consultation? Isn’t that true?
[fol. 30] A. No, the purpose, as I stated before, is so that
there will be a sufficient number of instructors so that they
will personally know each student and be available to en
courage and teach him how to study law. Some of them
don’t know how to study law.

Q. I think we are talking about class room work. I am
talking about after class. Isn’t that the reason for a full
time professor, so that he will be available in the afternoon
for consultation?

A. No; so that they will have some chance to individually
and personally know the students.

Q. And another question; do you know the difference
between a law library and a teaching law library?

A. I don’t know what you have in mind, if that is what
the answer is.

Q. I will explain it. For example, under the require
ments, the types of books that you have to have in a law
school library aren’t the books that are required, for ex
ample, in a Supreme Court Library?

A. Well, I don’t think so. They lay more stress on the
law reviews and things of that kind than the practicing
lawyer does; or, I might say, used to, but the Supreme Court
Library here has about everything a general practitioner
would need.

Q. Does it have what a law school needs?
[fol. 31] A. I would say that depends on the course of
study. I have known some law schools to give,—I think
there is one that gives a course in patent law. I question
whether that one would have facilities for teaching much
patent law.

Q. A few others, too. The point I am trying to get at
is that the law library is an important feature of a law
school, a very important feature?

A. That is right.
Q. And the University of Texas Law Library has one of

the best; isn’t that true?
A. It has a very good library.
Q. And isn’t it fully accredited by every association?
A. As far as I have heard.
Q. And does it not have a librarian and an assistant

, librarian?
A. Well, they had a librarian when I was there.
Q. And isn’t it the only library in this section of the

country that has microfilm reports of the records of the
Supreme Court?

A. You had better ask the dean.
Q. I f you are going to compare the two; aren’t you forced

to compare the two libraries?
A. I said, in my opinion, the Supreme Court Library,

which is one hundred yards from your school, has more than
any one, or twenty-five students, would possibly absorb in
three years; and if he absorbed that, he would be competent
[fol. 32] to start practicing.

Q. The answer is that the important thing is that it is
not the number of books necessarily, but the right books
that you will need?

A.'Yes.
Q. And obviously, there are books at the University of

Texas that are not in the library of the Supreme Court?
A. I can’t answer that.
Q. There is a larger percent------
A. I will say that all I have read that qualifies me, if I

am qualified to practice law, are in the Supreme Court
Library.

Q. Do I understand you to say that the basis of your
testimony is that the individual student can get as much
in an inferior school as he can get in a superior school, if
he is smart enough?

A. The inferior and superior are your words. I said, with
the same instructors in the two schools, and the law books
available in the Supreme Court Law Library, a hundred
yards across the street, he can get an adequate legal educa
tion; at least as good as that of the student, one of seven
or eight hundred, getting the similar courses out at the
University of Texas Law School.

2—725

Q. But you don’t think it is a mistake to put all of those
books at the University of Texas Law School, do you?

A. That is not up to me to judge that. I haven’t read all
[fol. 33] of them.

Q. I don’t imagine the librarian has. If the standards
of the Association of American Law Schools are higher or
more stringent than those of the American Bar Association,
as you stated, as a member of the board, how could a student
he said to be offered equal educational facilities in the base
ment across the street as he would at the University of
Texas, assuming that the Association of American Law
Schools requires a minimum of four full time teachers,
irrespective of the number of students?

Mr. Daniel: We object to that question as argument; pre
suming the requirement of the American Association of
Law Schools there, and for the same reason they objected
to the requirements of the American Bar Association, we
object to that question.

The Court: I think he can answer it.

A. It is a little involved. Break it down, if you can.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You stated before the requirements of the Associa

tion of American Law Schools were obviously more strin
gent?

A. I said they were slightly different. They require ten
thousand, and the American Bar, seventy-five hundred. In
the average case that has no meaning. The student won’t
study over 200 books in his courses.

Q. Have you ever taught school?
[fol. 34] A. I have lectured a few times.

Q. But you have never been a full time professor?
A. No, that is correct. I have been a practicing attorney.
Q. You have been a practicing lawyer?
A. Twenty-seven years.
Q. Are you familiar with the teaching curriculum now

used in law schools?
A. Somewhat.
Q. Are you familiar with the teaching methods now, for

instance, the case book, and the old outline method?
A. Yes, sir. The case book gives more stress to the work

done by the student himself in reading, instead of the

professor reading and the student making notes, like he
used to do twenty-five years ago.

Q. And he takes the case book------
A. And studies it himself.
Q. And he goes up in the library and reads the footnotes?
A. Yes, sir; and the law reviews.
Q. Incidentally, how many law reviews did you see in

this library over here?
A. In the——
Q. At the Capitol?
A. I couldn’t say. I have gone through a good many of

them when I was in the Attorney General’s Office.
Q. I am talking about today.

[fol. 35] A. I didn’t see them. I am sure they are there.
Q. You don’t know how many are there now?
A. No.
Q. Assuming the requirements of the Association of

American Law Schools are more strict than those of the
American Bar Association, and the University of Texas is
a member of both, I think we can assume that is a fact. The
Association of American Law Schools requires a minimum
of four full time professors, irrespective of the number of
students. Would you say a student at that school would
get equal educational opportunity with the University of
Texas?

A. I didn’t qualify as an expert on law schools, and I,
perhaps, as a practicing lawTyer, do not lay as much stress
on having as many full time law professors as most people.
I think an occasional practicing lawyer mixed up in the
faculty is a fine thing. The fact that the American Associa
tion of Law Schools wants more full time professors than
the American Bar Association doesn’t change my view.
What we are talking about, affording the opportunity to a
student, assisted by a preceptor who knows some law, can
learn the principles of law and certainly one student, or
ten, or twenty-five, assisted by four preceptors in law
would have a better opportunity, if he has it within himself
to develop, than one who was asked an occasional question
every thirty days or so.

Q. The important thing is that if this proposed school used
[fol. 36] in the first hypothetical question did not, and could
not under those facts, meet the requirements of the Associa
tion of American Law Schools, and the University of Texas

does meet them; would you say that that is giving equal
facilities ?

A. It wouldn’t have the slightest effect on the student,
whether he was a trained lawyer when he left the school or
not.

Q. Would that be equal?
A. Equal facilities for what? For him to acquire a legal

education?
Q. No, sir.
A. Whether they were a member of the Association would

be utterly immaterial.
Q. The question would be whether that would be facilities

equal to the facilities at the University of Texas.
A. If you are talking about physical facilities------•
Q. I am talking about the whole law school—both. Would

you say that that law school that you saw today, even with
the opportunity to use the Capitol library, afforded facilities
equal to that that you have seen repeatedly at the University
of Texas?

A. To one student?
Q. No, not limited to one student for this question. You

may go back to one student next time.
A. Someone once said that Mark Hopkins, long-time pro-

[fol. 37] fessor at Williams College, sat on the end of a
log and taught a student on the other end of the log. It
depends on the student and instructor, and what they are
talking about. Whether they belong to an association or
have complied with the standards, in my opinion, for this
purpose, is utterly immaterial. If you have competent
instructors with adequate books to teach that student, he
can get his legal education.

Q. Mr. Simmons, let’s start with------
A. I couldn’t see how he could fail to get that if there were

one or ten, where he couldn’t get a better education than
any ten you would get in the other school, because half of
them, I regret to say, look out the window. It gets humid,
as it is here in the court room, and he would get a little
sleepy, and he looks out the window, and he couldn’t do
that if there were one or ten.

Q. Are you opposed to large law schools?
A. I am not advocating them. I am not impressed much

by numbers, Mr. Marshall.
Q. Since you say we get equal facilities, in your

opinion------

A. I didn’t say that. I said he had an equal opportunity
to get a legal education, is what I said.

Q. Could he get an equal opportunity to get a legal educa
tion in a law office?

A. I think so. The finest lawyers I have ever known, that
picture of that one over there, for instance (referring to
[fol. 38] photograph hanging in court room.)

Q. Mr. Simmons, if we can stay on the facilities——
A. All right.
Q. The best way to get on it is to take the concrete ones.

In your mind, is there any comparison in value of the build
ing where the University of Texas Law School is with the
building across the street where the Negro school is sup
posed to be?

A. I think both of them could well be improved. The
Texas Bar Association has been trying for years to get
them to tear down the one at the University and build an
adequate one.

Q. What do you mean by ‘ ‘ adequate ? ’ ’
A. For the number of students. It was built in 1907.
Q. Is the one across the street equal in monetary value?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Certainly not. Approximately how many professors

do they have at the University of Texas Law School?
A. I don’t know. The school has changed from fifty year

before last to eight hundred and something now. I couldn’t
tell you.

Q. Is the library at the University of Texas Law School
larger than the library at the Capitol, and the one in the
Negro law school together?

A. Each one of them have, in my judgment, fifty thousand
volumes, approximately. I don’t know how many more,
[fol. 39] Q. Fifty thousand in that law school over there?

A. At the Supreme Court approximately, I say.
Q. Approximately how many in the basement of that

building ?
A. I couldn’t say. The Texas University Law School------
Q. No, the Negro law school?
A. They had about 200 books, I would say.
Q. What kind of books?
A. They seemed to have some books on torts and con

tracts and legal bibliography and Texas Law Review, and
a few miscellaneous books of that character. They didn’t

have any books that I saw, on equity, or on courses that you
would give to post-graduates or seniors. These seemed to
be, as far as these books were concerned, they seemed to be
limited strictly to beginners.

Q. Did you see the American Digest there?
A. In this ground floor of the Colored Law School Build

ing?
Q. Yes.
A. No, they were not there.
Q. The United States Supreme Court Reports?
A. They were not there.
Q. Any state reports?
A. They were not there.
Q. There were no reports there?
A. No.
Q. There were some case books and text books?

[fol. 40] A. Yes, and the Law Review. It was The Texas
Law Review. I suppose they are partial to that one.

Q. Is that the only one?
A. That is all I saw. I wouldn’t say the only one.
Q. Do you know the type of books required in an approved

law school to be used in the first year courses?
A. These same books on torts, contracts and legal biblio

graphy are the same ones used at the University of Texas.
Q. Don’t they teach legal bibliography in the library, and

use all of the books in the library?
A. That is where you learn it.
Q. Do you not teach legal bibliography in the library?
A. I couldn’t answer that. Not when I went to school.

They taught it in the class rooms.
Q. We are comparing these facilities as of today.
A. I have outlined at some length what I saw, and in my

opinion, if a man wants to become a lawyer, so far as the
books, the curriculum, and the professors are concerned, he
can become a lawyer with what is offered him here. Some
people want a big law library and a big school. I happen to
have studied in night school and a law office, and this school.
Perhaps I am not as impressed with a big school as some
other people.

Q. I understand, but as one point in this case, the State
makes an allegation that they are affording equal educational
facilities, not equal opportunity to learn, necessarily,
[fol. 41] A. All I understood was that the State was re

quired to furnish substantially equal facilities and op
portunity to acquire a legal education. I am not arguing
the law. I am not a lawyer in this case. I was just passing
through the city. By reason of having been president of
the lawyers from Houston to the United States, they asked
me to talk about the standards. I f you want me to argue
about whether these facilities are worth as much as some
thing else, you had better get somebody else.

Q. Hasn’t the American Bar Association taken a specific
stand urging the abolishment of all law schools not set up
as parts of universities?

A. Well, they have taken a stand that they do not in
general approve what they call the commercial law schools.
I recall no resolution saying that they must be part of a
university.

Q. You set all of the standards or ultimate goals?
A. They are recommendations.
Q. Didn’t the American Bar Association cooperate with

the Dallas Bar Association in taking all of the small law
schools in Dallas and centering them at Southern Methodist
University, the American Bar Association?

A. Some of our men, I am sure, helped with that. The
schools there were commercial schools, the night schools,
as I recall. I might add there is some movement on foot
to do the same thing in Houston.
[fol. 42] Q. Go right ahead.

A. I have been asked by the President of the University
of Houston if I won’t discuss with them means by which
they could take over one or two night schools in Houston,
and those are commercial schools. The Houston Law School
is a night school which I attended back thirty years ago.
I would be very happy to see them a part of a university,
personally.

Q. Do you know what hours the Capitol Library is open?
A. Not right now. I studied there many times, day and

night.
Q. Do you know the hours?
A. I do not know.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Mr. Simmons, the two smaller law schools that you

mentioned which are recognized by the American Bar Asso
ciation and the American Association of Law Schools,
Howard University and Lincoln University, are they separ
ate Negro law schools?

A. That is my understanding.
Q. As to the facilities, in your opinion, are the three class

rooms that you have inspected, for the Negro law school,
based on from one to ten students, equal as far as the op
portunities for study and class room work are concerned,
with three class rooms at the University of Texas for 850
students?

A. Well, we have seats, and the professor could do very
ffol. 43] nicely here teaching ten or fifteen students. He
certainly, I think, could get more into their heads than sitting
with 300, and in the back row.

Q. Referring back to the question asked on cross examina
tion as to whether you knew of any accredited law school
that had its law library in a separate building, are you
acquainted with the University of Michigan Law School?

A. I have been there many times.
Q. Are you acquainted with the location of the library

building ?
A. It is in the same quadrangle. It is in the W. W. Cook

Library Building, across the quadrangle from the Law
School. As a matter of fact, I at one time had an office in
Hutchens Hall, a part of that building. Hutchens is Presi
dent of the American Judicature Society.

Q. That is all.

Recross examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Isn’t there a connecting alcove between the Law

Library and the Law School at the University of Michigan?
A. It is a large school, and it is a beautiful quadrangle of

buildings. Hutchens Hall and W. W. Cook Library are
very close.

Q. The same is true at Yale?
A. I am not so familiar there.

[fol. 44] Q. When you say Howard University is a Negro
university or school, do you know that of your own knowl
edge!

A. All I say is that it was accredited as a colored law
school.

Q. Do you know whether or not there are any other
students prevented from attending there!

A. I don’t know anything about it. All I know is that in
the accredited law schools, Lincoln and Howard are listed
as colored law schools.

Q. That is in the American Bar Association listing!
A. That is what I was being asked about. Would you

like to see that!
Q. No. I was there when it was accredited. How long

will it be, assuming your hypothetical school here,—I mean,
involved in the hypothetical question------

A. Don’t say my hypothetical school.
Q. I withdraw that. That school that you went in today

over here across the street!
A. I don’t think anything is a school until it has got some

students. The building where I was today!
Q. That the building, if it should be opened as a school,

how long would it have to operate before the American Bar
Association would be in a position to accredit it!

A. I think preferably it ought to wait and operate long
enough to see if the student body was seriously interested in
studying law, or if they had some other purpose, and then if
[fol. 45] it complied with the standards, it would be given
a provisional approval.

Q. Can we stop there and see about how long that would
be!

A. I can’t say. I have known of instances where, for
instance, I believe St. John’s University in New York,
Brooklyn, was kept on provisional approval for two years;
and I believe the University of Georgia Law School was
put on provisional approval when it had some difficulty with
a gentleman named Talbot.

Q. How long after the provisional approval until you
get it on the entire approval!

A. I would say two years.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Daniel: That is all.
(Witness excused.)

Mr. Daniel: I would like to make a statement as to the
order of our evidence, now that we have Mr. Simmons
excused. You will excuse him?

Mr. Marshall: Certainly.
Mr. Daniel: We first wish to offer the—call the attention

of the Court to Senate Bill 228, which authorized A. & M.
College to set up a law school at Prairie View, and then to
offer the resolution on that college, authorizing the estab
lishment of it, and a deposition showing what was done
[fol. 46] under the bill, in order that the record might be
complete, since the filing of this suit, as to how the State has
attempted to meet its obligation; and then we will go into
the new school here in Austin.

At this time we offer the resolution of the Board of
Directors of A. & M. College, dated November 27, 1946.

Mr. Durham: That is the same resolution that was in
troduced on the trial before.

Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond
ents’ Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. Daniel: We next wish to offer from the deposition
of E. L. Angell the agreement of counsel as to waiver of
formalities in the taking of this deposition, and I will ask
Mr. Littleton if he will read the direct answers. I will
propound the questions that were submitted by the State,
by the Respondents, to Mr. Angell.

The following agreement of counsel ordered copied into
the record at this point.

I n t h e 126th D istr ict C o u rt of T ravis C o u n t y , T exas

No. 74,945
H e m a n M ario n S w e a t t

vs.
T h e o p h il u s S h ic k e l P a in t e r , C h a r le s T ilford M cC o r m ic k ,

Edward Jackson Mathews: Board of Regents, Dudley K.
[fol. 47] Woodward, Jr., E. E. Kirkpatrick, W. Scott
Schreiner, C. 0. Terrell, Edward B. Tucker, David M.
Warren, William E. Darden, Mrs. Margaret Batts Tobin,
and James W. Rockwell
The parties to the above entitled and numbered cause,

through their attorneys of record, agree that the deposition

of Respondents’ witness, E. L. Angell, who resides at Bryan,
Brazos County, Texas, may be taken without the filing with
the clerk of said court of notice of intention to apply for
commission to take the answers of such witness to inter
rogatories attached to such notice, or service of copy thereof,
and of the attached interrogatories, or five days’ time be
fore issuance of commission, as otherwise required by law,
and further agree that a commission to take such deposition
shall be issued by such clerk immediately, and that such
deposition shall be taken as provided by law in accordance
with such commission and the attached direct and cross
interrogatories by any officer authorized thereto by law at
any place where the witness may be found and returned in
the statutory manner for use as evidence in the trial of
such cause, and further agree that when such deposition is
returned it may be so used, subject to all other legal objec
tions, at the trial of such cause.

Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas, by (s.)
[fol. 48] Jackson Littleton, Assistant Attorney
General, Attorneys for Respondents. By (s.) W.
J. Durham, Attorney for Relator.

The following was read into the record, Mr. Daniel read
ing the Direct Interrogatories, and Mr. Littleton reading
the answers, from Deposition of E. L. Angell.

E. L. A n g e l l , (Deposition.)

Direct Interrogatories to be propounded to E. L. Angell,
Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and
Mechanical College, a witness for Respondents in the above
entitled and numbered cause, for the taking of his deposi
tion:

Q. 1. What is your name!
A. 1. E. L. Angell.
Q. 2. Where do you live?
A. 2. College Station, Texas.
Q. 3. What is your position or employment?
A. 3. Assistant to the President of the A. & M. College

and Secretary to the Board of Directors.
[fol. 49] Q. 4. How long have you held such position?

A. 4. Assistant to the President since June of 1941, with
the exception of about two years in the Army. Secretary
to the Board since January of 1946,

Q. 5. State whether you are the same E. L. Angell who
testified in a hearing of the case, Sweatt v. Painter, on
December 17, 1946.

A. 5. I am.
Q. 6. State whether you are familiar with the provisions

of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the
Agricultural and Mechanical College on the 27th day of
November, 1946, being Minute Order No. 203-46, and en
titled The Establishment of Law Course for Negro Students.

A. 6. I am.
Q. 7. State if you are the same E. L. Angell who certified

to said resolution by testimony in the hearing of the case
of Sweatt v. Painter on December 17, 1946.

A. 7. I am.
Q. 8. State who, if anyone, was assigned the responsibility

of carrying out the purpose of the resolution.
Mr. Durham: Just a minute. We object to that answer

for the reason that the resolution would be the best evidence
of its contents. The resolution is in evidence before this
Court.

The Court: I think that is true.
[fol. 50] Q. 9. State what, within your knowledge, was done
to carry out the provisions of said resolution.

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we want to ask that, until
I make my objection, Mr. Littleton be asked to stop at the
word “ renovated.”

Mr. Littleton: Do you mean as to all of the other para
graphs ?

Mr. Durham: We have no objection to any portion of it
down to there.

Counsel and the Court conferred off the record regarding
said answer.

Mr. Daniel: Just read it to the Reporter, and let him get
exactly what you say.

A. 9. A suite of rooms in an office building at 409% Milam
Street, Houston, Texas, was secured. These rooms were
completely renovated. This suite of rooms was furnished
with new furnishings purchased for that purpose.

The services of Attorney William C. Dickson were secured
as a teacher for the law courses.

Immediately available were some 400 basic law reference
books. A list of books required for first year law students

was furnished by the Dean of Law at the University of
Texas. It was ascertained from a law book firm that these
books could be delivered to Houston on 24 hours ’ notice,
[fol. 51] The immediate supervision was under the direc
tion of the Principal of Prairie View University, Dr. E. B.
Evans.

Q. 10. State whether any building or housing facilities
were acquired.

A. 10. Yes ; suite of offices at 4091/2 Milam Street, Hous
ton, Texas.

Q. 11. If you have stated that building and housing facili
ties were acquired, state the location of such facilities, and
describe them fully.

A. 11. Suite of three rooms at lOO1/ ̂Milam Street, Hous
ton, Texas, which was an office building.

Q. 12. State whether anything was done to secure pro
fessors for the instruction of the law courses mentioned in
the resolution.

A. 12. William C. Dickson was employed.
Q. 13. If you have stated that anything was done, then

state what arrangements were made, and the names of in
dividuals with whom they were made.

A. 13. William C. Dickson was employed, to teach the law
courses, the supervision of the establishment was under the
direction of Dr. E. B. Evans, Principal of the Prairie View
University.

Q. 14. If you have stated that any instructors and pro
fessors for the law courses mentioned were secured, then
[fol. 52] state the names of those secured and the qualifica
tions of each.

A. 14. William C. Dickson was employed to teach the law
courses. He is a practicing attorney in Houston. His
training includes Bachelor of Arts degree from Pomona
College of California, the Bachelor of Law degree from
Harvard University, and the Master of Law from Boston
University. In case of need of an additional teacher Dick
son’s partner, H. 8. Davis, Jr., was available. He holds an
A. B. degree from Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia,
and a J . D . degree from Northwestern University.

Q. 15. State whether any library facilities were obtained.
A. 15. Yes, as stated in answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
Q. 16. If you have stated that library facilities were ob

tained, then describe fully the kind of facilities secured.

A. 16. Yes, as stated in answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
Q. 17. If you have stated that a law school or law courses

were provided pursuant to the resolution of November 27,
1946, then state when they were provided.

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to that as not being
responsive to the question asked. He asked him when it
was established, and he said available. He doesn’t answer
that question.
[fol. 53] The Court: Yes, I think that is right.

Mr. Daniel: All right, sir. We withdraw that Question
17.

Q. 18. I f you have stated that a law school or law courses
were provided, then state whether such school or courses
were open for registration to qualified applicants.

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to that answer for
the reason the answer is “ the law course was available.’ ’
He gives no dates or time, and it is not responsive to that
question. It isn’t even intelligible.

The Court: It doesn’t seem to be responsive, or even
helpful.

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, it says whether or not it was
open for registration of qualified applicants. I don’t know
if the fact that it was available------

The Court: He could have said yes or no.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, he could.
Q. 19. If you have stated that such school or courses were

open for registration to qualified applicants, then state the
dates that such registration was opened and closed.

A. 19. It was opened on the 1st of February, 1947, and
closed on the 14th day of February, 1947,------

Mr. Durham: Follow it on out; “ * * * which was four
[fol. 54] days longer * * *------ ’ ’

The Court: That portion of it isn’t responsive.

Q. 20. If you have stated that registration for a law
school or law courses was opened and have given the dates,
then state whether during such period any applications for
registration were made.

A. 20. No qualified applicants applied.

Mr. Daniel: That is all we wish to offer until we see what
you are going to offer on cross.

The Court: You spoke about some stipulations you will
work out. Perhaps you will be able to work out something
on that.

Mr. Durham: We don’t intend to offer the crosses at this
time.

Mr. Daniel: We wish to offer some of them, then. Prom
the deposition of Mr. Angell we wish to offer the following
questions and answers from Cross Interrogatories pro
pounded by Relator.

Mr. Daniel read Cross Interrogatories, and Mr. Littleton
read answers, from Deposition of E. L. Angell, as follows:

Q. 1. By what authority was a Law School for Negroes in
Houston set up?

Mr. Durham: When he gets down to the word “ and” I
want to object to it. The resolution is the best evidence,
[fol. 55] The Court: That is right.

Mr. Daniel: You are asking him for it at this time.
The Court: I believe he can state the law, and the resolu

tion. The resolution is in.
A. 1. The law course for Negroes was established under

authority of Senate Bill No. 228 of the 49th Legislature, and
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the A. & M. College
pf November 27, 1946.

Q. 2. What action, if any, did Prairie View University
take in accordance with said resolutions in setting up a Law
School for Negroes in Houston?

A. 2. The Principal of Prairie View University, Dr. E.
B. Evans, was charged with details of setting up the law
course.

Q. 3. How much money was expended in setting up this
Law School for Negroes in Houston?

A. 3. I do not know.
Q. 4. Were books, equipment and supplies for this Law

School for Negroes in Houston purchased for cash or by
State requisition or vouchers?

A. 4. They were purchased by Prairie View University,
using their funds.

Q. 26. What salary agreement was made with each
teacher ? If the agreement was written, attach a copy of the
[fol. 56] same to this deposition.

A. 26. Dickson was to be paid at the rate of $5,000.00 per
year. The agreement was made by Dr. E. B. Evans of

Prairie View University and I do not have a copy of the
agreement.

Q. 27. What salary was paid each of these teachers?
A. 27. He was paid at the rate of $5,000.00 per year.
Q. 29. How much time was each teacher required to give

to the work of the Law School, that is, state whether the
teachers were to give part time or full time and if part
time, exactly how many hours per day, per week.

A. 29. Full time if necessary.
Q. 41. When was this library purchased and what was

its purchase price?

Mr. Durham: We want to object to that word “ available” .
He asked him what he purchased, and it is not responsive.

The Court: Let me read it.
Mr. Durham: We object to the entire part of it after we

leave the word “ made” , —“ Some 400 basic reference law
hooks were made * * *” ------

The Court: Let him put the question again.
(Mr. Daniel read Question 41 as set out above.)
The Court: I don’t believe that is responsive.
Q. 42. How many library stacks or book cases were ac-

[fol. 57] quired, and what kind?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as not being responsive.
The Court: It is not responsive.
Q. 45. Give the name and qualifications and salary of

each of these officers of the Law School for Negroes in
Houston:

(a) Dean
(b) Registrar
(c) Librarian.
Mr. Durham: We object to that for the reason the answer

is not responsive.
The Court: He doesn’t appear to answer it at all. I will

give you your bill on it.
Mr. Durham: Is that No. 45, Your Honor?
The Court: Yes, I am giving you your point on that.
Mr. Durham: We object to that for the reason it is not

responsive. He doesn’t name anybody.
The Court: I think perhaps if you will break it up a little,

it might be responsive. He might say the dean and registrar

were officials of Prairie View University. It is going to be
difficult to understand. I will give your point on it.

A. 45. The Dean and Registrar were officials of Prairie
View University and Prairie View University was to furnish
[fol. 58] librarian services at the Houston establishment.

Q. 49. State what courses of instruction were offered in
the Law School for Negroes in Houston in detail, as follows:

(a) Name of course.
(b) Case book and text book used.
(c) Hours per week classes scheduled to meet.
(d) Time of day each class scheduled to meet and the

number of the room in which it was to meet.
(e) The number of semester or quarter hours credit to

be given for each course.

Mr. Durham: We object to that as being a conclusion of
the witness.

The Court: And it isn’t responsive either.
Mr. Durham: And it isn’t responsive.

Q. 53. Did the faculty of the School of Law for Negroes in
Houston prepare the curriculum, schedule the classes and
otherwise conduct the general educational work of the law
school?

Mr. Durham: We object to that. It isn’t responsive.

The Court: I think it isn’t responsive.
Q. 58. Is this Law School for Negroes still in existence

in Houston?
Mr. Durham: We object to that. That isn’t responsive.
The Court: The first sentence ends it; yes.

[fol. 59] Mr. Durham: The first sentence.

A. 58. The facilities were rented until the 1st of March.

Mr. Daniel: All right, that is all. We wish to call the
attention of the Court to Senate Bill No. 140 of the 50th
Legislature, and briefly to review that before we put on the
evidence that follows that.

The Court: I think we will take that up in the morning.
3—725

(Court was recessed at 4:30 p. m., May 12, 1947, until
9:00 a. m., May 13, 1947.)

Morning Session

May 13, 1947

9 :00 A. M.
Mr. Daniel: May it please the Court, I would like to call

attention of the Court to Senate Bill No. 140 of the 50th
Legislature, which became effective March 3, 1947. Bather
than read the sections that have to do with the establish
ment of the State University for Negroes in Houston,
Texas, I will go over those paragraphs and summarize
them, if that is all right with the Court.

(Counsel at this point summarized portions of said bill.)
[fol. 60] I would like to call Mr. D. K. Woodward.

D. K. W oodw abd , Jr., a witness produced by the Re
spondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn as a
witness, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. State your name, please, sir.
A. D. K. Woodward, Jr.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Woodward!
A. Dallas, Texas.
Q. And what is your business!
A. I am a lawyer.
Q. What, if any, official capacity do you have with the

University of Texas!
A. I am a member of the Board of Regents, and Chairman

of that Board.
Q. How long have you been Chairman of the Board of

Regents of the University of Texas!
A. Since the end of November, 1944.
Q. Have you, since becoming Chairman of the Board of

Regents of the University of Texas, acquainted yourself
with the matter of education for Negroes in Texas!

A. To the best of my ability, yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with Senate Bill No. 140, which

[fol. 61] I have just outlined to the Court?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. I will ask you if you had anything to do with the

preparation of the bill, and especially the part that the
University of Texas—as relates to the University of Texas?

Mr. Durham: We object to it unless he shows he is a
member of the Legislature.

The Court: I think that would be correct.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Were you acquainted with the terms embodied in that

bill before they were actually enacted by the Legislature?
A. I was.
Q. Have you studied the terms of this bill, when the bill

was pending in the Legislature, and before final passage
of it?

Mr. Durham: We object to that as being immaterial.
The Court: I think it is immaterial what he did about it.
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we are simply leading up to

show the University Board met in anticipation of the final
passage of this law, and began their actions a few days
before the law became effective.

The Court: He can tell what his Board did.
Mr. Durham: We don’t think that anything that a citi

zen did would be construed, or the Court could presume
it would influence the Legislature. I think that would be a
[fol. 62] reflection upon the Legislature.

The Court: I sustain the objection.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did that Board have a meeting prior to the time that

this bill was finally passed by the Legislature?
A. Yes, the Board met the 28th of February.
Q. 1947?
A. Yes.
Q. Had the Senate Bill 140 already passed one branch

of the Legislature?
A. Two branches, both.
Q. Both branches?

A. It had passed in the Senate on the 24th, the House
on the 27th, with certain amendments, and it was in that
state that the bill was laid before the Board at its meeting
on the 28th of February.

Q. Did you as Chairman lay the bill before the Board?
A. I did.
Q. Did the Board of Regents of the University of Texas

on the 28th of February study the requirements made of you
by the bill ?

A. Yes.
Q. What, if anything,—did you pass any resolutions at

that time?
A. We did.
Q. Do you have a copy of the resolutions?

[fol. 63] ' A. I have.
Q. Is this a true and correct copy of the resolution passed

by the Board of Regents on the 28th of February?
“A. It is.
Q. We wish to offer it.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond

ents’ Exhibit No. 3.)
Q. Now, Mr. Woodward, in accordance with that resolu

tion, I will ask you whether or not you proceeded to estab
lish the separate law school therein called for?

A. We did.
Q. Where was it established?
A. On East 13th Street, in the City of Austin, immediately

adjoining the Capitol grounds on the north. I think the
number is 104 East 13th.

Q. What kind of building do you have there, as far as
classrooms are concerned? How many classrooms do you
have in the building where the law school is located?

A. Presently available we have four buildings—four
rooms, three of moderate size, and a fourth small room for
a reception room, and the small toilet facilities.

Q. Did you, in accordance with that resolution, give
certain instructions to Dean McCormick, Dean of the Uni
versity School of Law?

A. I did.
[fol. 64] Q. Will you state to the Court what instructions
you gave him as to his part in this school?

A. I requested through the Dean of the entire person
nel of the Law School an expression as to their willingness

or not to teach in the proposed new law school. It was
reported to me that they were unanimous------

Mr. Durham: We object to that.
The Court: Yes. That would be hearsay. We will

sustain the objection to whatever was reported to him. He
can testify to what he knows.

A. All right. I had a conference—a number of confer
ences—with Dean McCormick concerning the establishment
of the law school and requested him to give us the, provide
the curriculum and the instructors called for in carrying
out the resolution.

Q. As to the location of the law school of the State Uni
versity for Negroes, the building that you have spoken of,
how far is that from the Capitol grounds?

A. It is about a hundred yards from the north door of the
Capitol.

Q. You are talking now about the Capitol Building?
A. Yes,—from the Capitol grounds?
Q. Yes.
A. I would say 20 feet. It is a very narrow street there,

East 13th Street.
[fol. 65] Q. Between the location of the law school and the
Capitol grounds?

A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned something about another distance, as

between the door of the separate law school and the State
Capitol Building. If you know, how far is that?

A. I would estimate it to be a hundred yards, 300 feet.
Q. Where is the law school located with reference to the

University of Texas ?
A. Well, the University of Texas lies north of 21st Street

in the City of Austin, covers a considerable area out there.
That would be eight blocks north of the new law school on
13th Street.

Q. Then your new law school is located between the
State Capitol Building and the University of Texas Campus ?

A. That would be right.
Q. Where is—state how the new law school is located

with reference to the business district of Austin; is it nearer
the business district than the University of Texas Law
School or not?

A. Yes, sir; eight blocks nearer.

Q. Is your new law school nearer the banks of Austin
and other business facilities than the University of Texas?

A. It is eight blocks nearer.
Q. Are you acquainted with the State Library called for

in this bill, in the Capitol Building?
[fol. 66] A. I am.

Q. Are you acquainted with the location of that library?
A. I am, the second floor of the Capitol Building, north

wing.
Q. Are you acquainted with the space therein, and desks,

as to availability of the space and working room in that
library for students?

A. I am, and have been for many, many years. I have fre
quented it myself.

Q. That is on the second floor of the Capitol Building?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you acquainted with the Texas University Library

and the facilities thereof?
A. No, I am not, not as closely as I should he. I know

in a general way what it is.
Q. Are you acquainted with the working room at the

University of Texas Law School Library, not the books?
A. I couldn’t say that I am with any degree of accuracy.

I know they are sorely pressed for space.
Mr. Durham: We object to that as not being responsive.
The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. This resolution calls for the establishment of the

same courses, a curriculum consisting of the same courses
in law as those offered at the University of Texas?

A. It does.
Q. Did you or not give instructions to the Dean of the

[fol. 67] University of Texas Law School to establish such
a curriculum?

A. I did.
Q. The resolution also calls for the use of the same faculty

members. I will ask you if you gave instructions in accord
ance with the resolution to the Dean of the University of
Texas Law School with reference to the use of the Uni
versity of Texas Law School faculty members?

A. I did.

Q. Was the new law school placed in readiness for opera
tions on March 10, as called for in the resolution?

Mr. Durham: We object to that as a conclusion and
opinion.

The Court: He can say what was done.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Will you just state to the Court what was done with

reference to having the school ready for registration, as
far as you know?

A. By March 10th?
Q. Yes.
A. The premises were put in order for it, cleaned up,

painted, and the desks and chairs and certain law books
placed in there, and an attendant placed in charge, and
notices were sent as directed in the resolution to all per
sons interested, and there was considerable newspaper
publicity given so that we did everything that— —

Mr. Durham: When he said he did everything------
[fol. 68] The Court: Yes. He can say what he did.

A. Yes. All of the actions called for in that resolution,
to the best of our ability------

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. They were accomplished by March 10th, were they?
A. That is correct.
Q. The resolution authorizes you to purchase a permanent

law library for the school which will meet the standards
set by the American Association of Law Schools?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you what you did in accordance with that

provision of the resolution?
A. I made requisition on the Board of Control of the

State of Texas on March 1st, I think it was, either February
28th, or March 1st. The document itself would show the
exact date, calling for bids at the earliest practicable date
for a list of books purporting to be a complete list as called
for by the American Association of Law Schools.

Q. Who did you have prepare that list to meet the stand
ards of the American Association of Law Schools?

A. The Dean of the Law School of the University of
Texas, Dean McCormick.

Q. The list that was prepared by him, or under his direc
tion, then, was turned over to you?

A. It was presented to me in the regular course for the
[fol. 69] execution and delivery of a requisition on the
State Board of Control, as required by law, for the pur
chase of public property.

Q. Did you execute that requisition?
A. I did, immediately on either the 28th of February

or the 1st of March; executed that and filed it with the
Board of Control.

Q. I believe that is all.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Judge Woodward, as long as you have been a member

of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas, has
it or has it not been the policy and custom of the University
of Texas not to admit Negroes to any branch thereof?

A. There has been no custom of that kind, within my
knowledge. The application of the relator in the spring of
1945 is the first application that I can recall, and I have
been connected wTith the University one way or another for
fifty years this coming fall.

Mr. Daniel: 1946, wasn’t it?
A. 1946, the fall or spring of the year, whenever it was

that he made his application, 1946,1 believe it was.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Do you know anything about the application of one

George Allen to take accounting, between the years 1938
to 1940?

A. I do not.

[fol. 70] Q. Well, why was the application of Heman
Marion Sweatt to attend the Law School of the University
of Texas refused?

A. Under the provisions of Section 7, Article 7 of the
Constitution of Texas, pursuant to the advice of the Attor
ney General of Texas.

Q. And on that basis his application was refused; is that
correct?

A. Correct.
Q. Is it or is it not the policy of the regents of the Uni

versity of Texas to follow that section of the Constitution?
A. It certainly is, as long as it remains in the Constitution.
Q. Have you been over to this new law school?
A. I have.
Q. How much—how was the building obtained, by lease?
A. Under lease from the—through the Board of Regents

of the University.
Q. And when was it leased?
A. It was leased around the end of February or the first

of March of this year.
Q. For how long was it leased?
A. For the period ending August 31, 1947, August 31st

of this year. I may say, if you are interested, that we are
negotiating now and have the refusal of the building for the
year ending August 31, 1948.

Q. When you say the building, as a matter of fact, you
[fol. 71] don’t have the whole building leased, do you?

A. We do not at the present time. We have a refusal of
the remainder of the building when need for it arises. We
have the first floor leased.

Q. The first floor is the ground floor, isn’t it?
A. That is right.
Q. And there are comparatively, for classroom purposes,

they are small rooms, are they not?
A. It depends on the size of the class.
Q. If you use the whole building that you do not now

have, but if you obtained the whole building, could you put
the library of the Law School of the University of Texas in
that whole building?

A. Certainly not.
Q. So, that brings us to the next question. Where are

you going to put your library ?
A. When the library is acquired, it will consist of ten

thousand volumes. The library of the Law School of the
University of Texas consists of approximately 65,000
volumes, of which about half of them are duplicates. No
body in his right mind would undertake to assemble 65,000
volumes in a law library in a building or law school just
started. There is ample space in the building on which
we have the refusal in which to store and provide the use
of ten thousand volumes we have under order. We can
put them there.

[fol. 72] Q. Then I understand you can put the 10,000
volumes in the present building?

A. That would be my judgment, yes.
Q. Well, now, as to these standards of the Association of

American Law Schools, do you have enough space to give
the amount of space required for library use of students?

A. As to that, I wouldn’t be qualified to say because I
don’t know what the requirements are. We have with the
—under the provisions of the statute, with the law library
we have under order and with the accessibility to the Su
preme Court Library of the State of Texas, we have abun
dantly sufficient library facilities and working space for
the relator’s pursuit of his course of law.

Q. Now, have you taught law?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. I would say it was about, must have been 20 or 25

years ago. I was for a short time a member of the law
faculty of the University of Texas.

Q. And since that time have you done any teaching?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with the modern methods of teaching

in law schools?
A. I believe I am, with what you term the modern

methods. I happen to be a graduate of the University of
[fol. 73] Chicago Law School in the class of 1907. I went
there at the time it was being organized. Joseph Henry
Beal, a great educator from Harvard, came out and estab
lished the case system, and it was because of the establish
ment of that system, in part, that I took my three years of
law work there.

Q. What I am getting at, Judge Woodward, is that when
you make the statement that he can get an adequate legal
education on the facilities that have been provided, I want
to know whether or not you are talking as an expert in the
field of education.

A. I am talking as a man familiar with what it takes to
provide a thorough training in law in the State of Texas,
and I stated the facts within my own personal knowledge,
that the facilities which the Board of Regents of the Uni
versity set up in accordance with Senate Bill 140 are such
as to provide for the relator in this case the opportunity
for the study of law unsurpassed any time elsewhere in the

State of Texas, and fully equal to the opportunity and in
struction we are offering at the University any day.

Q. Are the facilities in that school equal to those in the
Law School of the University of Texas?

A. Do you mean the physical facilities ?
Q. First, the physical facilities!
A. They are not identical.
Q. Are they equal?

[fol. 74] A. For the purpose they are, yes, sir.
Q. What is the value of the Law Building at the Univer

sity of Texas?
A. It is an old building. I would say it was constructed

40 years ago. I don’t know whether you are talking about
the replacement value or original cost, hut, of course, the
leasehold there has no relation to the physical value of the
University of Texas Law School proper.

Q. What I wanted to know was in dollars and cents, using
whichever method you want to use, original purchase price,
or price to reproduce. Is it not true that you can not even
compare the value of those two buildings?

A. Well, they don’t bear any relationship to each other.
One is a leasehold adequate for the purpose for which it was
obtained, and the other is a property in fee. You are correct
in this, that there is no fair comparison in monetary value.

Q. Next, as to the library that you have on requisition,
does that compare in value with the library facilities at the
University of Texas Law School?

A. The library on order, and the library made available
by law to the relator, had he entered the school, compare
very favorably with the library at the University of Texas.
You will understand that there may be a few more volumes
at the University of Texas, but an examination would reflect
that there are many, many duplicates, as there would have
[fol. 75] to be with a student body of eight hundred or so.

Q. Do you not also know that several of the sets of books
required under the rules of the American Association of
Law Schools are now out of print?

A. I wouldn’t know.
Q. You don’t know anything about those standards?
A. I don’t claim to be an expert on that. I don’t admit

complete ignorance about them.
Q. Didn’t you testify, or rather, I will ask you the ques

tion; will this law school set up over here for Negroes meet

the requirements of the American Association of Law
Schools ?

A. Well, it will do that, in my judgment, in the process
of its development. The facilities and instruction presently
provided in contemplation of the registration of the relator
were made in accordance with the requirements of the
American Association of Law Schools, as I understood it.
You will understand, of course, that I rely upon Dean Mc
Cormick, who is a very well known and eminent legal edu
cator, as to matters of that kind. I depended on him. for
that. I have no reason to question his ability as an advisor
in that regard.

Q. These 10,000 volumes; do you have a copy of that
requisition with you?

A. No, I don’t have it. It is available. It is at the Board
of Control, or may be in the court room. I filed the original
with the Board of Control.
[fol. 76] Q. What has happened to that requisition?

A. The notices were sent out in the regular way. I am
speaking now from recollection as to dates, and the bids
were to have been opened on some date in April, and for
some reason they were—of course, you understand, I have
got to tell you now what was reported to me about it. If
you object, I won’t tell you.

Q. That is all right, sir.,
A. It was reported to me that for some reason, in the

machinery of the purchase, they had to be delayed. You will
understand further that once the authorities of an educa
tional institution file a requisition as required by law, that
its execution then rests with another department, the Board
of Control. That is part of our Texas administrative
system. I have every reason to believe that those books
have been, or will be purchased in the immediate future. It
is quite possible that the Board of Control has already pur
chased them.

Q. Are they in the law school now?
A. No.
Q. They are not there as of today?
A. No, sir, neither is the relator.
Q. They were not there on March 10th, were they?
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact, how many books were there on

March 10th?

A. Oh, I would judge in that——
[fol. 77] Q. First of all, did you see the place March 10th?

A. Either that, or a day or two before.
Q. All right, sir. How many books were there?
A. I would estimate 150 or 200.
Q. And what volumes were they, generally?
A. I don’t know. I have a great many things to do, you

will understand, counsel; that we had taken the precaution
of making the entire library of the Law School of the Uni
versity of Texas, eight blocks away, available on a loan
basis, so that if the relator had come, as we hoped he would,
he could have had access through loan immediately to any
books in the Law Library of the University of Texas; the
Library of the Supreme Court of Texas, for any course he
wanted to pursue.

Q. Isn’t it true that the students of the University of
Texas Law School also have access to the Capitol Law
Library ?

A. I think that they, in common with every citizen in
Texas, have a right to go in there.

Q. So that there is nothing special about that, is there?
A. Yes, there is; for this reason------
Q. What is the special thing?
A. The Legislature of Texas, which is the policy making

body of the State of Texas, saw fit in setting up this general
plan for Negro education, to provide specifically that the
students there should have the use of that library for the
purpose of attending classes at the law school. Now, I, and
[fol. 78] every other citizen in the State have to have the
use of that library for general purposes, but I do not have
it for use as a student in that law school. So as to relieve
any question about it, that provision was put in the bill.

Q. But' as the situation now stands, the right granted by
that bill is the same right which every other citizen has?

A. Well, if you think that as a lawyer, that is all right.
It is not the case. If that is your judgment as a lawyer,
that may be good New York law, but it is not good Texas
law.

Q. For the record, may it be stated that I am not a mem
ber of the New York Bar.

A. Whatever bar you are a member of, that is not true
in Texas.

Q. Let’s get this straight. In Texas, Sweatt can go over

and use the library now, and he isn’t a student in any school;
isn’t that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can’t anybody in this court room go over and use that

library, regardless of what school he is in ; isn’t that correct?
A. He can go over and use it for the purposes as an ordi

nary citizen of the State.
Q. What peculiar purpose does a student use a law library

for that any other person does not?
A. Withdrawing hooks to study.
Q. Is there anything in the statute which gives him the

[fol. 79] right to withdraw books?
A. I think the Legislature wouldn’t have considered that

necessary when they gave them the right to use it as
students.

Q. Is there any provision in the statute which specifically
gives the students of that school the right to withdraw
books?

A. I think there is not.
Q. And the students of the University of Texas can use

that library?
A. Oh, yes, just as any other citizen can.
Q. And as I understand, the plan is proposed that if any

other books are wanted, they can be brought over from the
University of Texas Law Library on a loan basis?

A. At any time they are needed.
Q. How are they going to bring them over there?
A. Well, the University of Texas has facilities to do what

it is required by law to do. We brought the other books
down there. There is nothing difficult about that. We
transact a very large amount of practical business, and
that would be a very insignificant task.

Q. You brought down the 150 books when the school was
opened?

A. I think so.
Q. As a matter of fact, wasn’t it just five book shelves?
A. I think it was two of those racks of cases. I am not

sure about it.
[fol. 80] Q. Is there any office space in there for profes
sors in the present building?

A. You mean private offices?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I wouldn’t say there is any private office.

Q. Is there any private office for the Dean?
A. No.
Q. Are there any working rooms where students can

work and confer with library books?
A. You mean work with the library? There will be plenty

of room for that when the library is installed there, because
we will have the remainder of the building.

Q. You say there were four rooms, three moderate size,
and one small one?

A. As I recall, yes. I have a plan of it. I can tell you in
a minute how many there were, and what size, if you are
interested.

Q. I am quite interested.
A. All right. The building faces south. The entrance

hall with the administrative desk in it is immediately to the
west of a reading room and office, which is 15 feet, 7 inches,
by 19 feet, 10 inches. To the north of the entrance hall there
is a class room 11 feet, 6 inches, by 16 feet, 6 inches, and
on the northwest corner of the building is a class room
12 feet by 12 feet, 8 inches. There is, in addition, a toilet
[fol. 81] facility in the building. Those are the four rooms
currently under lease.

Q. Do you have any objection to us putting that in evi
dence?

A. None whatever.
Q. May we see it?
A. I didn’t make it myself. It was made under the—if

you are willing to accept it as accurate. It is accurate.
Q. May we look at it a minute?
Mr. Daniel: Yes.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You don’t propose to get 10,000 volumes in that space,

do you?
A. Certainly not.
Q. And whether or not you will have space for the 10,000

volumes depends on whether or not you renew your lease,
and whether or not you get the balance of the building;
isn’t that true?

A. Yes, we would have—the provision for that has al
ready been arranged. I have arranged to renew the lease,
the lease on the present quarters for the coming year end
ing August 31, 1948, and to secure the remaining portion

of the building when needed, for the period ending August
31, 1948.

Q. When did you say the Law School at the University
of Texas was built, about?

A. I think about 1906 or 1907.
Q. Approximately how many students were going to the

[fol. 82] law school the first year!
A. I could not tell you to save my life.
Q. It was a very small number, wasn’t it?
A. It was a relative number. You had better get some

body who knows. The Begistrar can tell you, because I
could not tell you at all what the registration in the law
school there was at that time. Of course, the records show
it for each year.

Q. Do I understand correctly that the law school as it
appeared on March 10th obviously did not meet the require
ments of the Association of American Law Schools?

A. Well, that would call for a conclusion, depending on a
great many things; the number of students, the work that
they undertook, and a good many other considerations.
You will see, after all, the regulations of the American As
sociation of Law Schools and the American Bar Association
have to be construed with some degree of regard for the
facts. What we set up there was a plant fully adequate to
give the very best of legal instruction for the only man of
the Negro race who had ever applied for instruction in law
at the University in about 63 years of the life of the school.
We are practical people. We made that provision fully
adequate for that purpose.

Q. What do you mean by “ practical” ? You mean within
the money you had available?

A. No, here is what we were trying to do, Counsel. We
[fol. 83] were trying very hard to, and are still trying to set
up for Negro population of the State of Texas a University
really of the first class, which down through the years will
develop and grow to what we hope to be the greatest Uni
versity for Negroes in the world. We have the assets with
which to do it, and the determination to do it, and that was
a part of the plan to provide here at the threshold of this
undertaking opportunity identical with that which was af
forded at the University, eight blocks away.

Q. Well, you didn’t get the idea and that plan until after
this lawsuit was filed, did you?

A. It happens yon are mistaken about that.
Q. I would like to know.
A. On the 13th of January, 1946, the Board of Directors

of the University of Texas, and the Board of Trustees,—
Board of Regents of the University of Texas, and A. & M.
College met in joint session at Ft. Worth, Texas. They are
the governing boards of the two principal State supported
schools. One of the questions on that agenda of that meet
ing was the consideration of the responsibility of those
two schools for providing a comprehensive plan of higher
education for members of the Negro race in Texas.

Q. Did that Board meeting discuss the very wide pub
licity, including the paper in your home town, the Dallas
Morning News, concerning a meeting of Negroes who were
[fol. 84] insisting on their equal right to an education!

A. When was that! What meeting do you have refer
ence to !

Q. The meting held in Dallas at the Y. M. C. A.
A. What date! Do you mean, held on the 8th of March

of this year!
Q. No, prior to January of 1946.
A. I do not—that meeting was not considered at all, and

it was not in any way the occasion for our holding the joint
session, or discussing that program. We knew, of course,-—
what we knew was this, that we have approximately 1,200,-
000 members of the Negro race in Texas. There has been
a very great change in the economic situation, and in the
educational opportunities or ambitions in the last 15 or 20
years of the Negro race. Members of those two boards felt
as officers and directors of the State’s leading educational
institutions that they owed it as a public duty to devise
some means of providing for what they thought was a real
need for members of the Negro race, and they implemented
that by appointing a committee of six, three from each
school, to make a study of that. That committee worked
diligently for about six months, made its report to the
Governor of Texas, the Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, who in turn
appointed the Bi-racial Committee, with which I am sure
you are familiar. It fded its report, and that report was
the basis of Senate Bill 140. So that the undertaking of
[fol. 85] those two boards ante-dated the filing of the suit
by the relator here, and was not actuated by any extent by

4—725

the meeting, whatever meeting' it was, one that I never heard
of, in Dallas, though I live there.

Q. Judge, how old is the University of Texas?
A. We think of it as having started in 1883.
Q. Is it not true it is one of the finest schools in the

country?
A. It continues to try to be.
Q. About how long do you think it would take to build for

Negroes a university equal to that?
A. It would depend to a greater extent on the response of

the members of the Negro race than anything else.
Q. Isn’t it true that when you set up new departments at

the University of Texas, you start off with a few students
and end up with a lot when they find out it is running ?

A. It depends on the course you set up.
Q. And it depends on the value of the course you have to

the students?
A. Will you repeat that, please?
Q. When you first offer or open up a new course in the

University of Texas, you usually have a small number of
students, and year by year the course usually gets more
students?

A. Normally that would be true. It varies with reference
to the course and the public interest in the course. It can
happen, and sometimes does happen, that what might be
[fol. 86] called a flash interest in some subject, and there
may be a very great registration, and they will find it wasn’t
what they wanted and it decreases, but ordinarily this is
true in the University and every other educational institu
tion, that it grows as the worth of the instruction is demon
strated. I think you may conclude that is true.

Q. Judge Woodward, the other point I wanted to ask is
that you are familiar, are you not, with the supposed law
school in Houston, Texas, for Negroes?

A. What do you have reference to, the Texas State Uni
versity?

Q. No, sir, the one that was, according to the minute
entry, was established in February?

A. You mean the one that was provided for by the Act
of the 49th, Senate Bill 228, they referred to?

Q. Isn ’t it true that they did set up facilities for Negro
training in law in Houston ?

A. I couldn’t say because I had nothing whatever to do
with it.

Q. Isn’t it true that this law school you are about to set
up can’t possibly run more than a year?

A. No, sir.
Q. What happens to it at the end of the year?
A. Well, at the end of the year from now, on the 13th of

next March, if the relator or any other good faith student
comes along, it will be operated.

Q. Isn’t it true that under the statute and resolution, it is
[fol. 87] supposed to be turned over within a year--------

A. No, it can run through August 31, 1948, and if you
will permit me to tell you, I will say that the Board of
Directors of Texas State University for Negroes at its first
meeting passed a resolution------

Q. I will have to object to that. The resolution is the
best evidence.

A. We will get it, if you want it. Under the provisions
of the statute which permits us to operate until August 31,
1948, and by arrangement with the Texas State University
for Negroes, the Law School will be in operation a year
from now if there are any students, if the relator or any
body else offers to use those facilities. You have reference
to the clause in there, I am sure, if I remember it correctly,
directing that at the end of any term we be required to turn
it over, if they are ready for it.

Q. At the end of the first term?
A. What clause do you have reference to !
Q. I think it is this one, at the end of the first term.
A. May I read it? (Reading) “ At the end of the first

term or semester of any law course offered in said school
after the organization and establishment of the Texas State
University for Negroes at Houston, and the equivalent or
ganization and establishment of a law course by such Uni
versity for Negroes, the direction, conduct, operation, loca-
[fol. 88] tion, the unexpended balance of this appropriation,
and all property purchased for the separate school out of
the appropriation hereunder, shall be transferred to the
Texas State University for Negroes at Houston, and its
Board of Directors shall thenceforth continue such law
courses as a part of the curriculum of such university, and
discharge all responsibility therefor.” Was that the clause
you had it mind?
1 Q. Yes. Do you intend to keep the law school here or
move it to Houston?

A. At the present time we intend to keep it here nntil
August 31, 1948.

Q. Does it go then!
A. It is assumed that by that time the Texas State Uni

versity for Negroes at Houston will have established the
equivalent work, and the establishment of a law course by
such University for Negroes at Houston. In other words,
it is contemplated that by the expiration of, roughly, an 18
months period from this date the University at Houston
will have had an opportunity to fully equip itself as a law
school, meeting all of the requirements of a first class law
school, and our duties will be over.

Q. What assurance would Sweatt have that the law
school would be here until he finished it three years from
now!

A. Until he finishes three years from now! There is no
assurance that it would be here three years, nor has he or
[fol. 89] any other citizen of the State of Texas the right to
require the State of Texas to provide education at any par
ticular place. The State has to provide for him or any
other citizen education in law fully equal to that provided
at the University of Texas. That, it is prepared to do.

Q. Do you consider it a good educational policy for stu
dents to have to shift from town to town in going through
a law course?

A. I think my opinion on that wouldn’t be very enlighten
ing to the Court. I don’t think it is contemplated at all by
the facts in the case.

Q. Do the students of the University of Texas have to go
from city to city, or isn’t it true that since 1907 the school
has been situated in the same spot?

A. The Law School has been in Austin for a great deal
longer than that. However, we maintain a Medical College
at Galveston, a part of the University of Texas. Pre-medi
cal training is given here, and the medical training is given
at the University branch in Galveston.

Q. How long has it been there?
A. Oh, it ante-dates the opening of the University here.

It is many, many years old.
Q. It has been in the one spot a long time?
A. Yes.
Q. What I am trying to get at is whether or not it is not

[fol. 90] true that it is poor educational policy for a student

not to know where he is going to get his education the next
year!

A. I would say as to that, that would depend on the cir
cumstances of each individual case. I can not think that it
would be the least hardship to a citizen of Houston, as the
relator styles himself to be, to have to return to Houston in
August of 1948 and complete the final year of Ms course
there.

Q. You don’t think so?
A. You asked my opinion. I certainly do not.
Q. The question I am trying to get at is, and I want to

ask it one more time, if you will permit it. Isn’t it a poor
educational policy, speaking from educational policy, you
have been on the Board of Regents for quite some time,
and you are familiar with good educational policies. Isn’t
it poor educational policy to have a student going to a school
when he doesn’t know where the school will be the next year ?

A. Well, if he hasn’t the acumen to find out where it is
going to be the next year, he hasn’t any business in the
school. It couldn’t possibly be any matter of inconveni
ence or uncertainty to a man of ordinary intelligence, where
the school will be conducted the following year. He knows
now it would be here until August 31, 1948. He knows that.

Q. Judge Woodward, can I ask you one question.
A. Any number.

[fol. 91] Q. Do you know where it will be in 1948?
A. With reasonable certainty, I do, based on the obliga

tions of the State officials to carry out their duties, and upon
the presumption that they will carry them out, it will be in
Houston, in Harris County, Texas, an integral part of the
State University for Negroes, on August 31, 1948.

Q. Depending on the establishment of that University
prior to that time?

A. The University is now established.
Q. Where is it established?
A. In Houston, Texas.
Q. And who is the dean of it?
A. You mean the Dean of the Law School?
Q. No, the dean of a university that has been established?
A. I can tell you the members of its governing board.

They were appointed last week. If they have selected the
officers of the University I haven’t been advised of it.

Q. Wasn’t that their first meeting last week?

A. It was. They were appointed and confirmed and met
the same day.

Q. But the school hasn’t been established yet, has it?
A. That is a conclusion. My conclusion is, as a matter of

law that the Texas State University for Negroes has now
been established.

A. Are there any buildings ?
ffol. 92] A. There is another statute which I think has
been finally passed which provides for the Texas State Uni
versity for Negroes acquiring 53 acres of land and the
buildings on it as a site for the Texas State University for
Negroes. That land is located within the City of Houston,
about mid-way between Rice Institute and the Houston Uni
versity, which is a very large university.

Q. What I am trying to get at------
Mr. Daniel: Let him finish.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. All right.
A. I have every reason to believe that that building, which

is the equivalent of any building on our campus at the Uni
versity of Texas, modern construction and very adaptable
for university purposes, will come into control of the Board
of the Texas State University for Negroes within the next
few days.

Q. What I am trying to get is,—you said a minute ago
that the school was in existence?

A. I said it was established. That is my judgment as a
lawyer.

Q. Was established?
A. Yes.
Q. As I understand your testimony, all of this you have

testified will happen; is that correct ?
A. That is right. That is my best judgment. I am not a

prophet. I am informed as to the facts, and that is my de-
[fol. 93] liberate judgment.

Q. Is that your judgment, that the Law School will be in
Houston in August, 1948, and that is based on your assump
tion that this University will be in existence at that time ?

A. Based on my knowledge of the whole situation and my
knowledge of the laws that provide for that, and my knowl
edge of the laws which require public officials to do their
duty.

Q. How many schools are there set up in this Negro Uni
versity.

Q. You mean separate schools of instruction!
Q. Like up at the University of Texas! As I understand,

it is to be equal.
A. Are you talking about its prospective curriculum!
Q. What is there now ?
A. The Texas State University for Negroes, you want to

know how many schools have been set up there now!
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I would say that I think it improbable that any one

has been set up.
Q. So that it is at the present time still on paper, is it!
A. Well, if you wish to put it that way. Every step in its

organization thus far contemplated by law has been taken,
and $2,350,000.00 in money is in the bank to pay for its
operation during the next two fiscal years. That is substan
tial paper.

Q. And, of course, the statute says two million, or what-
[fol. 94] ever it is, or as much thereof as might be needed!

A. That is the customary language in our appropriation
bills.

Q. That is the custom. As the Chairman of the Board of
Regents of the University of Texas, have you deemed it
your responsibility during the whole time you have been on
the Board of Regents to give equal educational facilities to
all citizens of the State of Texas!

A. My—as far as it is within my power, yes. It happens
to be that I actually believe in education, and I think one
of the very most forward-looking things the State of Texas
could do would be to provide a comprehensive plan of
higher education for members of the Negro race.

Q. But prior to this year the University of Texas has
done what to provide education for Negroes!

A. Well, you will understand that the University of
Texas is governed by the Constitution of the State, and
that we have done exactly what the Constitution authorizes
us to do in the conduct of the University of Texas, which is
the school set up for the education of children of the white
race, but we are, rightly or wrongly, the University is re
garded as the head of the educational system of Texas, and
as Chairman of the Board, I have conceived it to be my duty
to do what I could to promote within the provisions of the

law the best of educational facilities for all o f the citizens of
Texas.

Q. What provision have you made for Negroes prior to
1946?
[fol. 95] A. Prior to 1946. I came on the Board at the end
of 1944. The Legislature, the 49th Legislature, met in Jan-
uary following and there was no opportunity under condi
tions then existing at the University and elsewhere in the
State for me to take any part in the deliberations of the
49th Legislature, other than as related immediately to the
University of Texas. I attended to that. No member of the
University of Texas, so far as I know, and no member of
the governing board of officers of A. & M. College was con
sulted about the passage of Senate Bill 228, as far as I
know. That is the Act that undertook to make Prairie View
a university.

Q. A university?
A. When I got squared away, when the picture as a whole

began to take shape, it was rather obvious to me that Senate
Bill 228 had to be materially supplemented, if there was to
be created in Texas a comprehensive program of higher edu
cation for members of the Negro race, which I thought was
highly desirable.

Q. Isn’t it true that prior to that time, as a matter of fact,
the University of Texas had no facilities of any kind where
Negroes were in attendance.

A. It is true today, and it has been true every day since
the University of Texas was organized, that it could not
lawfully extend the use of its facilities to members of the
Negro race. That is a matter of constitutional limitation,
[fol. 96] We had nothing to do with bringing it about at this
time. It was passed in 1876. That is the reason, if you
want a reason, why we haven’t done anything of that kind;
it is because we are prohibited by law, and naturally we can
not conduct a public institution otherwise than in compli
ance with public law.

Q. You had no hesitancy in having the—first, are the
professors of law at the University of Texas white?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. There was no hesitancy in arranging for them to teach

Negro students, was there?
A. None at all, as a branch of the Texas State University

for Negroes. We had a legal right to do that, and I was
extremely proud of their cooperation in doing it.

Q. But although the teachers had no objection to teaching
Negroes, the Board of Regents couldn’t admit the Negroes
to the Law School?

A. You understand it perfectly, I am sure. You under
stand why we can’t. We are hound—as good a lawyer as
you are, you are bound to know that we operate under the
Constitution of the State of Texas. Your associate here
knows it.

Q. Is it not true, since we want to get straight what the
two of us know about it, that the Constitution of Texas is,
of course, dependent as to its validity on the interpretation
of the Constitution of the United States? We agree on that,
[fol. 97] don’t we?

A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. All right. When compared with the advantages of

fered the students of law at Texas University, is there any
measure of equality in a set-up which forces a Negro to
begin a law course which will be shifted to another institu
tion, the professorship has not been selected, the quality and
quantity of instruction, of which is not at the present time
known ?

A. What is your question ? Is there any measure of equal
ity?

Q1. Yes, sir.
A. Well, if the relator was in school it would be a little

easier to answer that. I will say this, that where the policy
of the State of Texas has been established by the adoption of
a statute by more than two-thirds of the vote of both
branches of the Legislature, with liberal appropriation made
for its support, that there is no discrimination whatever,
and no uncertainty, against a student who undertakes to
avail himself of instruction in the law under the provisions
of that statute. I don’t think he is discriminated against in
the least. I know as a practical matter that the opportuni
ties which would have been afforded the relator, had he seen
tit to enter the Law School, the opportunities for instruc
tion in law in the school we set up on East 13th Street
[fol. 98] would have been fully equal to that had he been
permitted to enter the University of Texas. That may or
may not answer your question.

Q. That doesn’t answer the question.
A. I would be glad to make another try at it.
Q. The question in sum and substance is, working on this

theory of equal facilities, separate but equal, do you consider

it equal for a Negro student to go to a school, knowing full-
well that on next year he doesn’t know where his school will
be, who the professors will be, or anything about the school?
Is that equal to the Law School that was established at the
beginning of the century.

A. Under the conditions existing, it affords him fully
equal opportunity. You have not stated the question cor
rectly, so that I will have to qualify it by “ under the con
ditions existing.’ ’ You have failed to state in your question
that the Law School is established by the University of
Texas, now established on 13th Street for the period ending
August 31, 1948. You have forgotten to state that Senate
Bill 140 provides for the establishment of this university,
not at any uncertain place, but at Houston in Harris County,
Texas, and directs that it be conducted as a University of
the first class in Houston. Those are the qualifications; my
knowledge of the facts which may control my judgment in
the case, my knowledge of the class of instructors he would
[fol. 99] have here, and the opportunity he would have if he
would avail himself of it, leads me to say that he is under
no discrimination, if he availed himself of the training the
State of Texas had made available for his legal education.

Q. He spends two or three hours a day in class ?
A. I wouldn’t know.
Q. What do you use as a basis for your statement?
A. I went to the University of Chicago Law School when

it was small, and had the benefit of association with men like
Mr. Meachem, and Mr. Hall and Mr. Bigelow, and relations
with them which a man going there today as a member of a
class of five or six hundred would not have. That is the
reason that I know that the relator or any other members of
his race, if they came to that school which we have estab
lished on 13th Street and in good faith undertook to com
plete their legal education, they would receive instruction
and conferences and experiences which they would not have
anywhere else today. I know that, because I know the men
who would be teaching. Those men are men who have de
voted their lives to teaching. They are all full time pro
fessors in the Law School.

Q. Which ones are you talking about now?
A. Because they would come down there,—I am talking

about all of the members of the faculty of the University of
Texas.

Q. All of them!
ffol. 100] A. We haven’t, as far as I know, unless it be
an emergency matter, have none other than full time in
structors.

Q. Do you consider it necessary to have full time instruc
tors !

A. Well, I think it is desirable to have them, where you
have an institution that can employ them all of the time.
There are certain fields in which part time instructors are
desirable, just as in my University of Chicago days we
had Julian W. Mack, whom you will remember was the
Professor of Federal Procedure, Horace Kent Penney, who
was a great lawyer and Professor of Pleading and Practice.

Q. Isn’t it generally accepted that law schools should
have full time professors?

A. I believe that is the current view, and I think it is a
sound one. That is the reason that we provide here that
the full time professors from the University of Texas
should be made available here.

Q. They can’t be full time at both places, can they?
A. We feel we can’t be prejudiced by having them full

time on 13th Street, and give them up at the University of
Texas.

Q. They are all part time at the 13th Street law school?
A. It isn’t a question of part time, in the sense that they

are people engaged in the practice. They are, every one of
them, State employees, engaged for their full time in the
instruction in the science of law. The fact that they spend
part of their time in one institution and part in another
[fol. 101] doesn’t make them part time, in the sense that a
practicing lawyer would be. At the time I foolishly under
took to part time lecture in the law school it didn’t work
out for me or the law school, because I was a part time man,
and that wasn’t good, but if I had been able to be a pro
fessor in the Law School at the University, and spent part
of my time on 13th Street, I would be none the less a full
time employee.

Q. I am talking about part time law professors within the
meaning of the standards of the American Association of
Law Schools.

A. How do you define it? »
Q. A teacher that isn’t in the school full time.
A. In that specific school. I wouldn’t say that made

any material difference, if he was in fact a trained pro
fessor and was in a school as much as the—as was re
quired for the number of students who were there.

Q. Isn’t it true that the reason for full time professors
is to have someone available at all times of the day, when
ever the students want to see them?

A. I really wouldn’t know whether that is the reason for
it.

Q. And the Dean of the school, Dean McCormick of the
University of Texas, who will be at this school part time?

A. Whenever he was needed he would be there.
Q. Where would his office be?
A. At the University of Texas, except when he came down

[fol. 102] there. There would be space there when he had
occasion to confer with anybody down there.

Q. Could these students go to see him at the University
of Texas?

A. Without doubt. If they had occasion to, I imagine
Dean McCormick would not object to conferring with a
student anywhere.

Q. I am reading to you from Senate Bill 140, sir, the
section of the statute which says:

“ The entire school shall be operated separately and
apart from the campus of the University of Texas.”

A. That is right.
Q. You say that despite that provision?
A. Yes, sir, certainly. With the school operating there,

the fact that a student may see Dean McCormick in this
court room or on the street or in his office at the University
of Texas wouldn’t militate against the operation of the
school apart from the campus of the University of Texas.

Q. So that if a student at the University of Texas wants
to see him at the University he walks across the hall and
there he is ?

A. Yes, sir, in accordance with the hours of appoint
ments.

Q. And the 13th Street student would have to go eight
blocks ?

A. Yes. It looks like to me you are magnifying things
[fol. 103] that any student in good faith in attempting to
get an education would not consider a hardship at all.

Q. I am basing mine on, not on what I think students

do. I am basing mine on the rules of the Association of
American Law Schools.

A. It looks like you are magnifying things of little mo
ment compared to the scheme as a whole.

Q. I am not obliged to argue with you at this time. The
final thing I want to get is that you are not familiar with
the standards of the American Association of Law Schools.

A. Not other than in a casual way.
Q. Can you name any of them?
A. Not without reference to them, I wouldn’t under

take it.
Q. You are not familiar with the standards of accredita

tion of the American Bar Association, are you?
A. Only in a general way.
Q. So that all of your testimony is based on your own

personal observations and your own personal beliefs, is
that correct?

A. It is based on my personal knowledge of the relevant
facts over many, many years, over my experience—on my
experience as a student in the University in its academic
department and in the Law School of the University of
Chicago, and upon the general information that I naturally
have to acquire in the discharge of my duties.

Q. Your primary livelihood is practicing law?
[fol. 104] A. That happens not to be the fact.

Q. It isn’t legal education, is it? That isn’t your field?
A. The position I occupy, of course, carries with it no

compensation whatever. It is—I serve as a matter of
public service without compensation at all, and naturally
what information I acquire about educational matters
comes merely from the discharge of my public duties, and
not at all as a paid agent, or function of the State.

Q. Bo you consider a school that is unapproved by either
the Association of American Law Schools or the A. B. A.
as equal to a school that is approved by both of them?

A. That, again, would depend on the circumstances under
winch the school was operated. You apparently are trying
to draw a comparison between the provisions which the
State of Texas has made upon the occasion of the first
application ever made to it by a member of the Negro race
for education in law. Now, we have laws on our books
that have been here for a great many years, within the terms
ol which we must operate, and do operate. The advisors

of the State of Texas have set up a plan here, which, when
carried out according to the provisions of the statute,
which it must be presumed will be complied with, will entitle
this law school to accreditation anywhere.

Q. Judge Woodward------
A. So that there is in my mind not the least discrimina-

[fol. 105] tion involved in providing the type of education
which we have provided, as compared to that which is pro
vided at the University of Texas, no discrimination^ I
don’t think that a student studying law here and graduating
from this school that we have set up would be prejudiced
at all by reason of the fact that the school in its initial
stages had not been accredited by these organizations.

Q. Are you familiar with the fact that in some states you
can not take the bar unless you came from an accredited
school?

A. No.
Q. Would you consider that a handicap?
A. The only handicap------
Mr. Daniel: We object to that question as to other states.

He has alleged only that he wishes to prepare himself to
practice here.

The Court: I think he has answered the question, anyway.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. The last question I asked, I am limiting him to the

present time, not the future, as of March 10, or as of today.
A. Which time, now?
Q. Take March 10th.
A. All right.
Q. With the facilities in the 13th Street school available

there, and without considering the books that are on order
[fol. 106] that are not there, do you say that that furnishes
facilities equal to the facilities offered all other students
at the University of Texas Law School?

A. An answer to that question would be wholly without
value, because it would not take into consideration the facts
as they existed at that time.

Q. I am talking about everything that was in that school
at that time?

A. I will say this. I will answer your question this way,
that the provisions which you relate, plus those definitely

and certainly available, provided for the relator, if he had
applied, facilities fully equal to those then provided at
the University of Texas Law School.

Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor pleases, I hate to insist on
this, but I think the question is material and we are entitled
to an answer to the question alone.

The Court: Wasn’t the last part an answer to it?
Mr. Marshall: No, he said taking that into consideration.
The Court: That may be the best he can answer it. I

don’t know.
Mr. Marshall: He has testified all along, if Your Honor

please, that this set-up furnishes equal facilities. I think
I have a right to test him as to what he means by it.

The Court: You can ask him.
[fol. 107] Mr. Marshall: And I want to find out what is
in this law school they are talking about. I am not in
terested in what is outside. We have gone into that. I am
talking about what is in existence.

The Court: Perhaps you can limit it to the first of March.
Mr. Marshall: The 10th, sir.
Q. Judge Woodward, the question is that on March 10th,

as to that date, which is the date the school was to open,
considering all of the facilities that are available, in exist
ence in the law school building at 13th Street, do you say
that that furnishes educational facilities equal to the facili
ties offered at the University of Texas to all other students ?

A. Beyond any question, it does. I will call your atten
tion to that------

Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please------
The Court: He has answered it.
Mr. Daniel: I believe he has a right to explain his answer.
The Court: He can. He has answered it, however.
A. My answer is, beyond any question, it does.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Go ahead.
A. I wanted to tell you why I am so firmly of that opinion.

The third from the last paragraph of the resolution of the
Board of Regents of the University, then in effect, reads as
[fol. 108] follows:

“ Be it further resolved that pending receipt and in
stallation of such library the Dean of the Law School

of the University of Texas be, and he is hereby author
ized to supply on a loan basis books from the law library
of the University of Texas which may be needed in the
efficient conduct of the School of Law of the Texas State
University for Negroes.”

That provision, together with the library of the State of
Texas within 100 yards of that school would meet the most
exacting of requirements of any good faith student in the
University.

Q. My question was, was it equal!
A. Yes, sir, fully equal.
Q. Do you mean equal, or do you mean if you use both of

them you can get the same thing! Isn’t that what you
really mean!

A. I mean this, that the educational opportunity offered
relator by those facilities at that date was fully equal to
those offered on the same day in the Law School of the
University of Texas eight blocks away. That is exactly
what I mean, because that is a fact.

Q. Do you know the curriculum of the law school of the
University of Texas!
[fol. 109] A. In a general way. It is identical in both
schools.

Q. Do they have the Law Club set up in this school!
A. A Law Club is set up by the students. Perhaps if the

relator came and other representatives of his race came,
you could form one.

Q. You can’t form it with one student, and you can’t have
moot court with one student, can you!

A. No, you couldn’t do it.
Q. And you couldn’t have any of the interchange common

in law schools with one student!
A. I presume if there is a good faith desire on the part

of the Negro youth of the State of Texas to attend law
school, all of those facilities will be developed in a short
time, just as I presume they are at Lincoln and Howard.
You have to start somewhere.

Q. While this is going on it is true, is it not, that the
students are not getting the same things they are getting
at the University of Texas! Isn’t that true!

A. Are you talking about social contacts, or educational!
Q. Sweatt isn’t interested in social contact. He is in

terested in getting the best legal education he can get.

A. Why didn’t lie come on the 10th of March?
Q. Your lawyers will have the opportunity to ask Sweatt

about that.
A. If that is his only interest he is sitting there within

[fol. 110] one hundred yards of the Supreme Court of Texas,
the Court of Civil Appeals, and the Attorney General’s
Office, and the Legislature, where the public legal business
of the State of Texas is centered. He has an opportunity
unsurpassed to acquaint himself with those facts.

Q. He is in the middle of everything but the Law School
of the University of Texas?

A. He is in the middle of the Law School provided by law
for him.

Q. That is right, but I mean the University of Texas.
The other question is as of today. Is there any material
change in the existing facilities in being in the 13th Street
school of law from what it was on March 10th?

A. Compared to March 10th?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. None that I observe.
Q. Practically the same, is it not?
A. As far as I know. That is the way it appeared to me

when I was over there the other day, practically the same.
Q. That is all.

(Court was recessed at 10:45 a. m., May 13, 1947, until
11:00 a. m., May 13, 1947, at which time proceedings were
resumed as follows:)

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Counsel for relator has gone into the establishment or

[fol. 111] future establishment of the Texas State Univer
sity for negroes in Houston, and you stated that 53 acres
of land were available there between Rice Institute and the
University of Houston, in the City of Houston, for this
University. I will ask you, have you inspected that 53 acres
of land?

A. I have.
Q. Is that the tract of land on which the buildings are

located that you have testified the State University for
Negroes has available?

5—725

A. Yes, that is the tract on the west end of which this new
modern building has been completed.

Q. Are there any other buildings on that tract of land
already?

A. Not of a permanent nature. There is one planned,
and there was some preliminary work going on when I was
there 60 days ago.

Q. Is a college or university being operated there now?
A. I don’t know whether they are occupying the new

building or not. It was just being completed. It was
almost ready for occupancy when I was there, a beautiful
building.

Q. What is the name of the school that has that 53 acres
of land at this time?

A. It is called Houston College. It is a branch of the
University of Houston, which, in turn, is a body corporate
and politic created by the Legislature and operating within
the Houston Independent School District.
[fol. 112] Q. Is it operated as a branch of the University
of Houston?

A. The Houston College?
Q. Yes.
A. Such is my information, yes, sir.
Q. What is the approximate enrollment?
A. 1,800, as I now recall.
Q. Now, is that the school, the campus and so forth, that

you have testified about that has been made available for
transfer to the Texas State University for Negroes?

A. That is my interpretation of the statute which has been
passed.

Q. The statute that you refer to is House Bill 780, is it
not?

A. I couldn’t recall the number, General.
Q. I will ask you to look over House Bill 780 and see if

that is the act of the Legislature to which you refer.
A. The caption indicates that it is the statute. I can

examine the whole bill if you like, but I am quite certain
from examining the caption that it is the bill to which I have
referred.

Q. I just simply call attention of the Court to House Bill
No. 780 which has been enacted, which provides for transfer
of such facilities as have been testified about to the Texas
State University for Negroes by any school district within

which said facilities are set up. Now, I will ask you, do you
of your own knowledge know whether or not the University
[fol. 113] of Houston Board has proposed to donate this
property and the entire school to the Texas State University
for Negroes?

Mr. Marshall: We object to it. In the first place, the
minutes would be the best evidence, and second, there is
no duty for him to have received that at all.

The Court: Of course, the resolution would be the best
evidence.

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Daniel: By agreement we will offer this plat as the

next exhibit.

(Said instrument wTas admitted in evidence as Respond
ents’ Exhibit No. 4.)

Q. Referring to that plat which has been introduced in
evidence as respondents Exhibit No. 4, showing the floor
space in that first floor of the building which you now have
leased, I will ask you now to state to the Court how the
second floor of that building which you say you have ar
ranged for, for the State, will compare with the amount of
space on the first floor ?

A. It will be equal to it.
Q. The arrangement of the rooms and number of rooms?
A. Substantially the same.
Q. Now, will you answer the same question with reference

to the third floor of the building; how much space, and the
arrangement, as compared with the first floor?
[fol. 114] A. Substantially the same on each floor.

Q. How many rooms on the fourth floor?
A. My recollection is that that is a large room there.

I don’t recall the partitions in it, but substantially the same
floor space.

Q. Substantially the same floor space?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, counsel for relator has asked you the question

of whether or not this school as it now stands will meet the
American Association of Law School standards and require
ments. I will ask you whether or not you have plans if
sufficient students enroll, to operate that school in such a
way that it will meet those standards and requirements at
the very earliest possible date?

A. We have.
Q. Do you have—have you considered whether or not

your appropriation of a hundred thousand dollars is suffi
cient to meet those standards, or as many of them as can be
met with students between now and September 1, 1948?

A. We have.
Q. Have you itemized the necessary expenses to meet

those standards between now and September 1, 1948, pro
vided you had students ?

A. We have, as far as we could predict the use of the
facilities.

Q. Do you have your estimated cost of operating such a
school?
[fol. 115] A. I have.

Q. Does your estimated cost for the operation of such
a school provide for full time professors?

A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please, may we find out

what the witness is reading from?
A. I will hand it to you, if you like; a proposed budget

which I requested my associates to help me prepare for the
operation of the school through August 31, 1948, assuming
that the relator and other qualified students apply for
admission.

Mr. Marshall: May we ask a preliminary question for
an objection?

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Marshall: Did you prepare it?
A. I helped prepare it.
Mr. Marshall: Are these your figures or somebody else’s?
A. Part mine, and somebody else’s also.
Mr. Marshall: Partly somebody else’s?
A. You understand that in an organization such as I

represent it is rare that one man does all of the thing. That
budget has been prepared by Dean McCormick and myself,
as we prepared many other budgets of a similar nature in
the operation of the University. You understand the aca
demic matters are provided by the men skilled in that, and
[fol. 116] the administrative matters by those skilled in
that, and the cooperation results.

Mr. Marshall: It is part yours and part somebody else’s.

A. Part both. I am familiar with the matters outlined
here.

Mr. Durham: I want to ask a preliminary question. You
prepared those figures, in part, in what capacity?

A. In what capacity?
Mr. Durham: Yes, in what capacity?
A. In my capacity as Chairman of the Board of Regents

of the University, and carrying out the duties imposed by
that resolution.

Mr. Durham: Have those figures been approved by the
Board as a whole?

A. The Board of Regents?
Mr. Durham: Yes.
A. No.
Mr. Durham: We object to it as not being official.
The Court: I think he has not offered them. He is simply

using it to question him from.
Mr. Durham: If they are not admissible in evidence I

don’t think they are admissible to use them as a memo
randa.

Mr. Daniel: You haven’t given me a chance to prove them
up yet.

Mr. Durham: We object, until you do prove them up.

[fol. 117] By Mr. Daniel:
Q. As I understand, what you have is an estimated budget

through August 31, 1948 of what amounts it would take
to meet the requirements of the American Association^ of
Law Schools, as far as they can be met within that period
of time?

A. That is right.
Q. And you have prepared that for the purpose of deter

mining whether or not you have sufficient money to meet
such requirements?

A. Yes.
Q. How much do you take into consideration for rent that

will be required for rent on the building until August 31,
1948?

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we want to make this objec
tion ; that that isn’t an official act of the Board of Regents.
It is an individual opinion of two members of the Board

of Regents, and would not be binding on tbe Board of
Regents. It is wholly inadmissible and speculative.

Tbe Court: If be knows what the rental is, I think he
could testify.

Mr. Durham: I think so, too, but not what the Board of
Regents estimate.

Mr. Daniel: I would like to call the Court’s attention to
the fact that the Board gave, in this resolution, the Chair
man, all of the powers to go ahead with this plan.

Q. How much have you allowed in this estimate for rent
on the building?

A. On the portion of it now occupied $1,875.00. That
[fol. 118] is the contract rental of $125.00 a month. We
have estimated it would require $3,000.00 to acquire the
additional floors, in the event they are needed, and negotia
tions that I have made under authority of the Board are
carried out. You understand this is just an estimate.

Q. I understand.
A. Made in the usual course of the discharge of my duties.
Q. Have you allowed anything in your estimate for re

pairs and improvements?
A. We thought $2,000.00 would be reasonably needed to

make provision for rearranging the space to take care of the
library, and we hope for students who might come.

Q. Do you know how much of that has been spent?
A. I don’t know. Some considerable sum, but the Comp

troller could tell you that.
Q- How much have you allowed for the books you have

testified about having ordered?
A. $32,000.00 was estimated to be the cost of those vol

umes.
. Q- Do y°u have any allowance in your estimate there for

library upkeep?
A. $2,000.00, we thought would cover that.
Q. What estimate have you made as to salaries?
A. We have_ in there four professors at $6,000.00 per

annum, which is the base pay for professors of law in the
University, and figuring the time they would be employed,
[fol. 119] that is on a nine months basis, we estimated it
would take $30,000.00 to employ them, if we are fortunate
enough to secure students.

Q. Have you made any allowance for summer school this
year?

A. Yes, four full time professors at $2,000.00 for tlie sum
mer term each, whj.ch is the amount we would pay the same
men at the University.

Q. When does the summer semester begin at the Uni
versity1?

A. Right around the first of June; I would have to look
at the calendar to see. I would say around June 3d, I think.

Q. Will the new law school be ready to open another
semester around the first of June?

A. Yes.
Q. Have you allowed anything for a full time librarian?
A. Yes', sir, $4,500.00. That is at the rate of $3,600.00

per annum.
Q. Have you allowed anything for other employees?
A. Well, custodian and janitor, $100.00 a month, $1,600.00.

Secretary, at $1,800.00 a year, $2,250.00; stationery and
supplies, $500.00; contingent and miscellaneous expense,
$1,000.00. Those figures total $88,725.00, and leave an
unexpended balance of $11,275.00, from the appropria
tion of $100,000.00 which is today available.

Q. The attorney for relator asked you about the time that
would be given by University of Texas professors in the
[fol. 120] new law school before you have full time pro
fessors employed there for the new law school. I will ask
you, what is your opinion if—the same kind of question
he asked you—as to the amount of time that could be given
to the students in the new school individually as compared
with the amount of time the same professors could give to
the same students if allowed to attend the University of
Texas Law School.

Mr. Durham: We object to that for the reason this is
one of the officials. We are not to assume that he knows his
duty. I think he is entitled to testify what time was re
quired. This is not a witness who is presumed to state what
his duties are upon presumption. He knows his duties.

. The Court: If he knows that,—what time they could
give to it, it would be all right. I just don’t know.

A . Iam not entirely certain that I understood the ques
tion. If you are asking me to approximate it as a matter of
hours per student per instructor, is that what you have in
mind ?

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. No, what I had in mind; following up the point that

counsel made as to the fact that your professors from the
University of Texas would be in the new law school part
time, I am asking you whether or not, if you know, they
would be able to give the students in the new law school
as much of their total time as they would give if the students
were out at the University of Texas taking law under them
in those classes out there.
[fol. 121] A. They would be required to give------

Mr. Durham: We object to that as being a presumption.
We have no objection to what the professors were hired
to do, but his opinion as to what they could do would be
a presumption and conclusion. If they hired the professors
the contract of employment is the best evidence of the
terms of it, whether it is verbal or written.

The Court: I think perhaps, counsel, he is asking the
opinions. You can have your bill.

Mr. Durham: Note our exception.
A. They are required, whenever the relator or any other

student offers himself, to give to him all of the time and
attention necessary to carry the provisions of that resolu
tion into effect.

The Court: I believe that isn’t an answer to your ques
tion.

Mr. Daniel: I withdraw the question for the time being.
Mr. Durham: We ask that that answer be stricken.
The Court: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Do you know how many applicants, or inquiries you

had about the school prior to March 8, 1947 ?
A. Only by report. I didn’t receive them personally. I

know from the records, and the reports at the University.
Q. Do you know that there were some inquiries for

registration?
[fol. 122] A. There were.

Q. Do you know of any meetings held by an organization
of the Negro race and attended by any persons on this
court room on March 8,1947, in Dallas ?

A. Through public reports.

Mr. Durham: If Your Honor please, may we have that
stricken?

The Court: Only of his knowledge.

By Mr. Daniel :
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge?
A. Only through public reports and conversation.
Mr. Durham: We object to that as not being responsive

and hearsay.
Mr. Daniel: That is all.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall :
Q. Judge Woodward, 53 acres, you say, are available in

Houston. Is that not at the present time the property
of this, the Houston Junior College, a Negro school now in
existence ?

A. It is known as the Houston College Branch of the
University of Houston; and it is the identical property
contemplated by this statute that was read here.

Q. Is it not true that that property is property that was
purchased for the most part from private donations, includ
ing donations of Negroes?

A. There were substantial donations, I know, according
[fol. 123] to the press reports, by members of both races, in
part. ̂ I don’t know whether that was so wholly. The title
to it is jested in the body corporate, politic—it is known as
the University of Houston.

Q. What arrangement in salaries was made with the pro
fessors at the 13th Street law school?

A. They would draw the same salary as they draw at the
University of Texas.

Q. Was that part of their salary to be paid out of this
$100,000.00?

A. Yes, for the services rendered at the law school, they
would be paid.

Q. I understood you, when you were going through this
proposed budget, they were going to pay them the same
they were paid at the University of Texas Law School?

A. Yes.
Q. But they didn t get two salaries; the proposal wasn’t

to give them two salaries?

A. No, what we are hoping, in making up the budget,
hoping very much that—these are outside figures based
on the hope that the relator and other students of the Negro
race qualify, and in sufficient numbers to permit us to con
duct a law school, come in, and happily give us the oppor
tunity to employ four full time professors.

Q. Do you mean you need a certain number before you can
[fol. 124] run a law school?

A. Naturally, you would one kind of arrangement for
one kind of student body, and another arrangement for
another student body.

Q. Wouldn’t the library be the same, with the exception
of duplicate volumes, whether you had one or one hun
dred students?

A. The library has already been provided, adequate for
any number of students who might reasonably be expected
to apply, and it will be completely available.

Q. You testified under examination by the Attorney Gen
eral that that budget was prepared in order to meet the
standards of the American Association of Law Schools?

A. I testified it was prepared to enable the school of law
of this State University—the Texas State University for
negroes—to comply with those standards under any rea
sonable set of circumstances that might arise. These are
outside figures, or expenditures which the State of Texas
has provided for. We can spend only so much of that as
the circumstances, as they arise, may require.

Q. Who was the full time librarian?
A. We will appoint a full time librarian when the relator

or some other qualified students apply for instruction there.
Q. Did you have a full time librarian when the school

opened March 10th?
[fol. 125] A. No, we didn’t have any students, either.

Q. Did you have any at that time at the University of
Texas Law School?

A. Yes.
Q. You do, do you not?
A. Certainly.
Q. And you have assistant librarians, too, don’t you?
A. Where we need them, yes.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Mr. Woodward, from your experience as Chairman of

the Board, and on the law faculty, I will ask you your opin
ion, that if there were as many as 14 inquiries for this law
school before March 8, 1947, would you, in your opinion,
expect in the normal course of school operations that there
would be at least some students report for admission on
March 10th, if something had not happened to keep them
from doing so?

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to that.
The Court: I think it is rather speculative.
Mr. Daniel: That is all.
(Witness excused.)

[fol. 126] C h arles T. M cC o r m ic k , a witness produced by
the Respondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn,
testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. State your name, please, sir.
A. Charles T. McCormick.
Q. Where do you live, Dean McCormick?
A. I live in Austin.
Q. What position do you hold with the University of

Texas Law School?
A. I am the Dean of the school.
Q. How long have you been Dean of the Texas University

Law School?
A. Seven years.
Q. Prior to that time what experience had you had in law

school work?
A. Well, I became a professor of law at the University of

Texas in 1922. From there, in 1925, after serving during
the intervening period, I went to the University of North
Carolina Law School as Dean of the Law School; and in
1930 I Went to Northwestern University Law School as pro
fessor of law, and served there until 1940, when I returned
to the University of Texas Law School as Dean.

[fol. 127] Q. What degrees do you hold, Dean McCormick?
A. The A. B. Degree from the University of Texas, and

L.L.B. Degree from Harvard Law School.
Q. Are you one of the authors of McCormick and Ray on

Evidence ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you state to the Court what, if any positions,

you have held in the American Association of Law Schools?
A. I have served as a member of the Executive Commit

tee, and as President of the Association.
Q. When were you President of the Association of Amer

ican Law Schools?
A. In 1942.
Q. On what groups within the Association have you

served ?
A. Well, I have served on the Executive Committee, as

I mentioned, and upon various committees, such as the Com
mittee on Cooperation of the Bench and Bar, and several
other committees, the entire list of which I do not remember.

Q. Are you familiar with the terms of Senate Bill 140
that has been reviewed here to the Court this morning?

A. Reasonably so.
Q. Are you familiar with the terms of the resolution of

the University of Texas Board of Regents, dated February
28, which was read in evidence this morning?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you if under that resolution you assumed the

[fol. 128] position of Dean of the Law School for the State
University for Negroes?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you under the provisions of that resolution and

the instructions of the Chairman of the Board of Regents
establish, or help establish, such new law school?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with the physical facilities of the

Law School for the State University for Negroes?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How many class rooms do you have at the University

of Texas?
A. We have three class rooms.
Q. How many students do you have at the University of

Texas Law School? Of course, I am talking about------
A. Approximately 850 at this time.

Q. How many class rooms do you have in the law school
for Negroes'?

A. Well, there are two class rooms.
Q. How do the physical facilities of the new law school

compare with the University of Texas Law School, as far
as lighting, ventilation and other such matters are con
cerned?

A. Well, I would say they were approximately the same,
or similar.

Q. About how many inquiries or applications did you re
ceive for admittance in the new Negro law school!
[fol. 129] A. Personally, I believe by letter or in person,
I received five inquiries, but the inquiries would normally
come either to me or to the Dean of Admissions, and the
Registrar, Dean Matthews, of the University, and he re
ceived some of the inquiries.

Q. He received others, did he?
A. Yes, he so informs me.
Q. About what maximum load did you figure for students

for the first year in the new law school, based upon the maxi
mum load,—based on inquiries received?

A. Well, I hoped and expected there would be at least
five or six at the beginning of the school, and that as the
years went on and subsequent terms were opened, that per
haps ten or twelve would register. I say that in the light of
the Negro population of the State, and my observation of
some similar schools that have been established for Negroes
in other states.

Q. Based upon the maximum load that you could reason
ably expect for the first year of the school there, and
compared with the maximum load of students at the Uni
versity of Texas Law School, I will ask you to compare the
physical facilities offered by the Negro Law School with
those offered at the University of Texas Law School.

A. Well, with respect to the adaptability for use, for the
expected number, the ones who would attend the Negro Law
[fol. 130] School, as compared with the actual conditions of
attendance at the University of Texas Law School, why, I
would say that the physical facilities were roomier and more
convenient than those at the University of Texas Law
School.

Q. You mean the facilities------
A. Floor space per student would be substantially greater

if an estimate of 10 students were made.

Q. Do yon have the figures on floor space per student at
the University of Texas Law School at the present time?

A. Yes, I do. These figures were furnished me by the
Comptroller, and from my observation of the situation, I
would say they were correct.

Q. Approximately how many square feet of floor space do
you have at the University of Texas Law School?

A. We have 46,518 square feet.
Q. How many students do you have at the University of

Texas Law School!
A. Well, there were 886 at the beginning of the year.
Q. Have you figured the approximate number of square

feet of floor space there at the University of Texas?
A. Well, the figures as made by the Comptroller are 53

square feet per student. I haven’t actually divided that
number into the other. I assume that is correct.

Q. Approximately 53 square feet. Have you examined
this floor plan of present space available in the new law
school?
[fol. 131] A. Yes, I have.

Q. Approximately how many square feet of floor space
are available there, total?

A. That, again, is a measurement by someone else, but
it accords with my general observation; and it is reported
to me as 1,060 square feet.

Q. Have you examined the space?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that appear approximately correct to you?
A. It does.
Q. Based on a maximum load of ten students, then, that

would give you how many square feet per student in the
new law school ?

A. 106,
Q. 106 square feet?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that take into consideration any of the library

space available in the State Capitol Building, the figures that
you have given?

A. No, it does not.
Q. Now, on that basis of comparison, I will ask you to

state whether or not in your opinion the physical facilities
offered by the Negro Law School are substantially equal to
those offered at the University of Texas Law School?

A. Yes, having in mind, as I said before, the respective
[fol. 132] use by the respective number of students in each
of the two institutions.

Q. Do you know about how many students were contem
plated, or how many were figured in the needs for the Uni
versity of Texas Law School Building, how many students
it was built for, whether or not you are crowded or not!

A. Well, it was planned for four hundred students. It
now has, as I said before, about 850.

Q. It now has about twice as many as the building was
actually built for?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as to library facilities in the new school, are you

acquainted with the Texas State Library over at the Su
preme Court Library on the second floor of the Capitol
Building ?

A. Only in the most general way. I have visited it and
looked at it.

Q. Are you acquainted with the space and the desks and
the places available for study?

A. I have such acquaintance as you would get from cas
ual observation.

Q. Would such facilities there in the library offer as much
room as the Texas University Library offers for its stu
dents ?

A. Well, I couldn’t give an exact comparison as to that.
I would be disposed to say, at a guess, that the University of
[fol. 133] Texas Library area was perhaps larger than the
State Library------

Q. Based, again, on the number of students that we have
been talking about, which of the two libraries would offer
more space and convenience for study?

A. Well, assuming that the State Library is not other
wise crowded by public users, and I think it is not, I would
think that the facilities of the State Library would be more
spacious for the use of a student body of, say 10 students
in the near by school, than would be the facilities at the State
University Law Library, which are now exceedingly
crowded.

Q. That is, the University of Texas Law Library is now
exceedingly crowded?

A. That is correct.
Q. Are you acquainted with the approximate distance

from the Negro Law School over to the State Law Library?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Approximately how far?
A. Well, I would say it was 100 yards to the door of the

Capitol, and then perhaps 25 yards the rest of the distance.
Q. If the evidence in this case should show that the books

in the Texas State Library, the number of books, type of
books, are substantially equal to those in the University of
Texas Law Library, I will ask you if, in your opinion, the
[fol. 134] library facilities for the Negro Law School are
substantially equivalent to those at the University of Texas.

Mr. Durham: That is a hypothetical question, and we ob
ject on this ground; that if it isn’t shown, we can renew our
motion to strike this testimony.

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, that is all right.

Q. Based upon a showing, or substantial showing of the
equality in the two libraries, in your opinion, will the library
facilities offered the Negro Law School be substantially
equivalent to those offered by the University to the Uni
versity of Texas Law School students?

A. I f you would add to that hypothesis that a selected
group of books for immediate reference in connection with
the class work is available in the quarters of the Negro Law
School, and that other books that might be referred to and
called for would be available for immediate loan, from the
Law Library of the University of Texas, I would answer
yes.

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we ask that that answer be
stricken for the reason that the witness asked himself, and
he predicated it upon facts not stated by counsel.

The Court: Well, he probably would just turn around
and ask him the identical hypothesis.

Mr. Durham: We object again, unless he puts it in there,
[fol. 135] Mr. Daniel: I will not bring it up until I com
pare the books.
Q. Do you have a librarian on the staff at the University of
Texas Law School?

A. Yes, we do.
Q. State her name.
A. Miss Helen Hargrave.

Q. Have you asked her to check the books in the State
Law Library and make a comparison with the University of
Texas Law Library for you?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Now, I will ask you if you did anything in accordance

with this resolution about arranging a list, or having one
arranged, of 10,000 books to meet the standards set by the
American Association of Law Schools, to be placed in the
building that now houses the Negro Law School?

A. Yes, sir, I requested Miss Hargrave to prepare a list
of 10,000 volumes meeting the standards of the American
Association of Law Schools. She did prepare such a list,
and on the basis of that list, as I understand it, an order
was made for the purchase of a certain number of the books
on that list.

Q. Now then, in accordance with the resolution passed by
the Board of Regents, and your instructions from the Chair
man of the Board, I will ask you if you did adopt a curricu
lum for this new law school?
[fol. 136] A. Yes, we did.

Q. Is it, or is it not, the same as the curriculum and
courses offered at the University of Texas Law School?

A. That is correct.
Q. Hid you adopt the University of Texas courses as

stated in your Bulletin of the University of Texas Law
School?

A. We did.
Q. Do you have a copy of the bulletin?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you state to the Court on what pages you will

find the courses of instruction that were adopted for the
new school?

A. Pages 23 to 29.
Q. And you are referring now to the University of Texas

Law School Bulletin?
A. Dated August 1, 1945.
Q. Dated August 1, 1945?
A. Yes, sir, that is the last printed bulletin that we have

issued.
Q. So your curriculum— —
A. I may say that that is the same curriculum which we

adopted. We likewise made special provisions for an in
terim class to enter in March, 1947, in the Negro Law School.

6—725

Q. Your general curriculum as compared with that of the
University of Texas Law School is the same, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 137] Q. What about your faculty for the Negro Law
School? Compare that with the faculty for the University
of Texas Law School. Is that the same faculty?

A. Yes. Mr. Woodward, the Chairman of the Board of
Regents of the University of Texas, requested me to con
sult the law faculty and ascertain their willingness to co
operate in the steps contemplated by the resolution in the
founding and carrying forward of the Negro Law School,
and the faculty assured me of their willingness to cooperate,
and that contemplated, of course, the offering of all neces
sary courses in our curriculum as the school should develop.

Q. Will you state how the entrance requirements for the
Negro Law School as set up by you compared with the
entrance requirements for the University of Texas Law
School ?

A. Well, we adopted and announced that the entrance
requirements and the other requirements for admission in
the Negro Law School would be the same as in the Uni
versity of Texas Law School.

Q. What about class room requirements, grades and ex
amination requirements for the new school? Are they the
same as for the University of Texas Law School?

A. All of the catalogue regulations for the University of
Texas Law School were adopted, and were to govern the
Law School of the State University for Negroes.

Q. All of the regulations here in the catalogue for the
[fol. 138] University of Texas were adopted by the Texas
State University for Negroes; is that correct?

A. Yes.
Mr. Durham: I didn’t want to disturb the Attorney Gen

eral. I want to ask a question for the purpose of an objec
tion. You say the curriculum was adopted. How was it
adopted?

A. As I understand, the resolution gave to the Chairman
of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas the
power to make all necessary arrangements for the estab
lishment of the Negro Law School, and he, consulting with
me, directed that the Negro Law School should adopt------

Mr. Durham: You had a resolution adopting the cur
riculum ?

A. No, an announcement was made in writing by myself
and the Dean of Admissions of the.. University, under the
instructions of the Chairman of the Board of Regents of the
University of Texas.

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, I don’t think I made myself
clear. Did I understand you to say------

A. Which announces the adoption------
Mr. Durham: Is that in writing!
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Daniel: We will prove it up. I would like to offer the

catalogue referred to.
[fol. 139] (Said instrument was admitted in evidence as
Respondents’ Exhibit No. 5.)

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, do you have the list of law
professors on the faculty of the University of Texas who
were made available to teach courses in this law school,
this new law school?

A. Do you mean the particular ones who were assigned
to teach classes!

Q. First, I would like to have your complete list of the
faculty.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have the qualifications there of those faculty

members!
A. Well, simply briefly summarized, not stated in full,

giving their degrees and teaching experience.
Q. To save time, I would like to offer that. We just offer

it in evidence without reading it. We offer the list of fac
ulty members with the brief statement as to qualifications.

(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond
ents’ Exhibit No. 6.)

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, we have talked about the gen
eral curriculum and the faculty members available. I will
ask you what particular courses you had already application
for at the time you set up the new law school!

A. Well, we had not had application by any student for
[fol. 140] admission, if that is what you mean. We con
templated and made ready for an entering class in March.

Q. First year class!
A, An entering class. We have during the war and post

war emergency period provided for students, in order to
accelerate their course, to enter in the middle of the school
year, in March; in previous years, and in February of this
year, and that was the class that we contemplated and pro
vided for this spring by the immediate assignment of
courses and professors for the teaching of such beginning
classes.

Q. Then, you specifically provided before the opening of
the school on March 10th for instruction in what courses!

A. Contracts, torts and legal bibliography.
Q. Are they the same courses that you offer first year

law students at the University of Texas Law School!
A. They are the same courses.
Q. What instructors did you assign to teach those three

courses!
A. Associate Professor Leo W. Leary, Assistant Pro

fessor S. T. Morris, and Assistant Professor Chalmers M.
Hudspeth.

Q. Are those the same instructors that teach those same
identical courses in the University of Texas to first year
law students!

A. That is right.
Q. Now, you mentioned a minute ago having prepared a

written announcement of courses and the opening of this
[fol. 141] law school. Do you have a copy of that announce
ment !

A. Yes, sir, I do.

The Court: We, then, will recess at this period and will
take that up at two o ’clock.

(Thereupon Court was recessed at 12 o ’clock noon May
13, 1947, until 2 o ’clock p.m., May 13, 1947.)

Afternoon Session

May 13, 1947, 2 P.M.

Charles T. McCormick, having resumed the witness
stand, testified further as follows:

Direct examination (Continued).

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dean McCormick, is this the copy of your announce

ment of courses for the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. We wish to introduce the announcement.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond

ents’ Exhibit No. 7.)
Mr. Daniel: May it please the Court, I will read a few

paragraphs of this announcement, and review some of - — -
[fol. 142] (Mr. Daniel read to the Court certain portions
of said announcement, and summarized other portions of
same.)

Q. I will ask you if your announcement contains, the facts
stated therein are correctly—are correct representations
as to what you were offering there on March 10th?

A. They are.
Q. Now, Dean McCormick, I would like to ask, if in your

opinion, the facilities set up at the new law school for
Negroes furnishes to Negro citizens the equal opportunity
for study in law and procedure as that offered in the Uni
versity of Texas Law School?

A. Yes, I believe they do.
Q. In your opinion, do you believe that the facilities set

up in the Negro Law School furnished to the relator in
this case, and would give to him, if he entered, equal oppor
tunities to study law and procedure as he would have if he
was admitted to the University of Texas Law School?

A. Yes, they would do so.
Q. Was the school opening—was it opened on March 10th,

as announced in your written bulletin?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Were you down there?
A. Well, I was down there from time to time.

Q. During that day?
A. I don’t believe I was there on the first day. There

[fol. 143] was no necessity for me being there.
Q. Were you there during the week of March 10th?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know------
A. I was there previous to that time also.
Q. And previous to that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, by

sight ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he register there at the school?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Is the school still being maintained, ready for instruc

tion of^the relator in this case, if he should see fit to enter?
A. Yes, sir, the facilities are held available.
Q. When will your next semester begin?
A. That depends on whether we have any applications.
Q. What about your semester at the University of Texas ?
A. It begins on the 3d of June, the summer session.
Q. The summer session begins on the 3d of June?
A. Yes.
Q- Are you equipped to begin a summer session, a similar

session for the Negro Law School on June 3d also?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe that is all.

[fol. 144] Cross examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q- Dean McCormick, have you at any time examined the

qualifications of Heman Marion Sweatt, the relator in this
case, for admission to a law school?

A. No, I have not.
Q. Do you know whether he is qualified to enter the law

school at the University of Texas?
A. I am so informed by the admissions office, Mr.

Mathews.
Q. Did the Registrar so notify him?
A. That is my understanding. Of course, I have no first

hand knowledge.
Q. Now, Dean McCormick, in speaking of the faculty of

this supposed Negro Law School, I believe you stated that
three professors or teachers at the University of Texas
School of Law had been assigned to teach interim courses;
is that correct?

A. That is correct. That is, for the first semester.
Q. Leo W. Leroy, is that one of them?
A. Leary.
Q. Oh, Leary. Would you tell us what Mr. Leary taught

at the University School of Law the first semester of the
current school year?

A. Well, one of the courses that he taught was a course in
Federal Regulations, substantive Federal Regulations.
[fob 145] Q. That is clear. What else did he teach?

A. I don’t remember what else he taught. You see, we
have seventeen members of the faculty, and I don’t remem
ber offhand each of the subjects they teach each semester.
I can readily look it up, however, and let you know.

Q. Would it take you—do you have the material here
available that you could look it up?

A. No, I don’t have it here, but I can get it by telephone.
Q. All right; just before you get it by telephone, and I

think we want it, Mr. Chalmers Hudspeth; that is another
teacher assigned to that school?

A. That is correct.
Q. What did he teach the first semester at the University

of Texas Law School this current school year?
A. During the course of the year he has taught the course

in domestic relations, and the course in legal bibliography,
but there, again, I don’t have at my finger tips what each
of these teachers has taught because we have many sections
of the courses.

Q. That is all right.
The Court: Would you like to take a minute and find out

what you want and let him phone and get it?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir; I think it would be very good.
The Court: Tell him what you want, then.
Mr. Nabrit: I want to know what each of these teachers

[fol. 146] taught at the first semester at the University of
Texas during the current school year, how many hours
each taught, and the second semester, this current semester,
I want to know what each of these teachers is now doing, the
course by name, hours and what classes. By classes, I mean,
first, second or third year classes; those classes normally as

signed by you for the faculty of the School of Law of the
University of Texas.

Mr. Daniel: May I suggest that he get that this after
noon and bring it in the morning?

Mr. Nabrit: I would like to get it now, if he can get it
over the phone.

The Court: We can recess a few minutes, and he can go
into the Reporter’s room.

Further discussion was had off the record, and the wit
ness requested Mr. Mathews to obtain the information
outlined above.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, moving from the faculty for the

moment to the building for this proposed law school which
is located, as I understand it, on 13th Street, approximately
a hundred yards from the State Capitol, in which there
is a law library that is available, according to your state
ment, to the students in this school of law, how many stories
are there to this—first, I will ask you, have you visited this
building?

A. I have.
[fob 147] Q. How many stories are there?

A. Three.
Q. The floor on which the proposed law school is located,

is that the basement floor?
A. Well, I would call it the ground floor. It is perhaps

two or three depressed feet under the ground, but there
are ample windows and lights. It is not an artificially
lighted space.

Q. So that actually it is a basement floor in that building?
A. It isn’t what I understand by a typical basement,

which is what is underground.
Q. But it is at least half underground, isn’t it?
A. Well, I wouldn’t be sure. I wouldn’t have thought

so, no.
Q. It is a considerable distance depressed from the level

of the sidewalk, so that it is necessary to go down several
steps?

A. Yes, sir; four or five steps.
Q. In your judgment, does it have adequate windows for

a law building, that is, enough daylight, irrespective of

internal illumination? In your opinion, is that a satis
factory arrangement, purely from the standpoint of win
dows %

A. Yes, it impressed me so. Of course, most law build
ings, so far as I know, need in many of the rooms artificial
light in the daytime. I know ours does at the University of
Texas.
[fol. 148] Q. Probably if you were securing one today,
you would look at that as one of the things that you would
insist upon in the building, would you not?

A. No, I wouldn’t insist on a building that didn’t need
artificial light in the daytime in all of its rooms.

Q. I mean, in looking for a law building for the University
of Texas, that would be one of the things you would take
into account?

A. The adequacy of light, yes.
Q. All right. In the second place, in respect to that

building, is it in your opinion adequate in size, this base
ment floor, which is, as I understand it, the only part of that
building now under your control. Is there in the basement
adequate space to place library stacks sufficient to hold
these 10,000 books which are supposed to have been ordered?

A. No, there is not.
Q. Do you, of your own knowledge have at this moment

information as to where those books will come, if they
should arrive, where would they be placed?

A. Well, my information comes from Mr. Woorward, who
is the Chairman of the Board and has the responsibility
for the providing of physical facilities, and I understand
from him that he has arrangements perfected whereby
the University has an option on the remainder of the build
ing, and when the entire building is put into use it would
[fol. 149] be, of course, considered as a whole as to how
the space would be utilized, and just which room or rooms
it would be decided to put the library in, I couldn’t say.

Q. Who would decide that? Not the Board of Regents,
you don’t mean that?

A. Yes, they would decide upon------
Q. They would decide in what room you would have

your classes and what rooms you would have your offices
and your library?

A. Well, they would ultimately. The advice of the Dean

would, no doubt, be taken, and that of the business agents
of the University.

Q. And no doubt the Dean’s advice would be decisive in
regard to arrangements in the building ?

A. Probably so. That is if it didn’t cost more than the
University could command in the way of money.

Q. That is, if it didn’t exceed that $100,000.00 which we
are supposed to have?

A. That is right—I wouldn’t say “ supposed to have” .
I believe it has been appropriated.

Q. I don’t know how much of it has been expended,
therefore, I supply that phrase. You may be able to tell
me later how much we have left. This question, Dean Mc
Cormick, in considering the .announcement for the opening
of school on March 10th, I take it from your testimony
[fol. 150] that no library was available in the school at that
date, nor at that date did the school possess any place in
which it could have placed these 10,000 books; is that true?

A. Well, there was a small selection of reference books
immediately accessible for these three courses in the build
ing.

Q. That is right, but I am speaking of the 10,000.
A. No, there was no adequate space immediately pro

vided, for the simple reason that getting the books is a mat
ter of some time, and------

Q. Your Honor, I wish you would just strike—have the
last part of that stricken.

The Court: That is right. It is by way of explanation,
but probably wasn’t responsive.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, you are former President of the

Association of American Law Schools?
A. Yes.
Q. And as I understand it from articles which you have

written, one of the proponents of increased standards for
law schools, is that true?

A. Yes, sir; I believe in raising the standards of legal
education generally.

_ Q. The University of Texas is a member of that Associa
tion, is it not?

A. That is right.

[fol. 151] Q. Are you familiar with the handbook of that
association?

A. Well, it is a large volume.
Q. I mean by that you know that------
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Do you know John P. Dawson, who is Secretary of the

Association?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I would like to show you a copy of that. Do you have

any objection to this?
Mr. Daniel: No.
Mr. Nabrit: No objection. I would like to enter this.

Now, I would like to call the attention------
A. Would you tell me what year?
Q. I am going to call your attention to this------
A. Will you tell me what year that was?
Q. I want you to read the published letter of. the Secre

tary-Treasurer certifying it.
A. 1945 Handbook?
Q. Yes. Are these the rules now in force in the associ

ation, to your knowledge ?
A. Yes, they are.
Mr. Daniel: No objection.
Mr. Nabrit: We would like to introduce, Your Honor,

pages 259 to page 269, inclusive, which carry the articles
of the association, and the names of the members of the
[fol. 152] Association of American Schools of Law.

A.. I believe you want to confine that to Article 6. I
believe that is the one that contains the standards.

Mr. Nabrit: Article 6 on page 260, 261, all of it from
Article 6 on.

(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator’s
Exhibit No. 1.)

By Mr. Nabrit :
Q. Now, Dean McCormick, are you familiar with the rule

of the Association of American Law Schools which states
in substance that in order to be accredited by this Associa
tion a law school must have a minimum of four full time
professors or teachers of law?

A. I am familiar with that.

Q. In your opinion, is the arrangement which you have
made for the faculty at this Negro Law School, which was
to be effective March 10, in keeping with that requirement?

A. No, I don’t believe that it complies with that require
ment, but I believe that the faculty, the facilities which we
have furnished to the Negro Law School, is equal to those
that------

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would like to ask that all of
the witness’ answer from “ but” be stricken.

The Court: I don’t think it was by way of explanation
either, so I believe he could have stopped there. It may be
pertinent on cross examination.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, we will stop it right there, please.
[fol. 153] Q. Dean McCormick, in assigning that faculty
to the law school, or the Negro School of Law, were they to
teach courses at the University of Texas at the same time?
I don’t mean the same hour, but I mean during the same
semester that they were to -each in the Negro Law School?

A. That is true as to Mr. Leary and Mr. Morris, but not
as to Mr. Hudspeth, I believe. He had taught the course
in legal bibliography the previous semester, but my recol
lection is that he is not teaching it this semester. I am not
quite certain about that, but that information will be
verified.

Q. Do you recall what the usual number of hours a teacher
at the University of Texas School of Law is required to
teach?

A. Well, it varies from time to time with the necessities
of the curriculum, and it runs usually from five to eight
hours of teaching per week in a given semester, and I would
say on an average of about six.

Q. It seems that information is here. If it is I would like
to ask him those questions right here.

The Court: Yes.
(Thereupon Mr. Daniel delivered an instrument to the

witness.)
A. Do you want me to give this information to you now?

Mr. Nabrit:
Q. I would like for you to tell me what the three teachers

assigned to the Negro Law School taught at the University

of Texas the first semester of this year, and what those
[fol. 154] teachers are teaching at the University of Texas
Law School the second semester.

A. Mr. Leary during the first semester was teaching
Equity I, a three semester hour course, and the seminar in
Federal Regulations, a two semester hour course, and he
is teaching now in the second semester Contracts, which is
a six semester hour course. Mr. Hudspeth during the first
semester was teaching Procedure I, a four semester hour
course, Legal Bibliography, two sections, each of one
semester hour. During the second semester he is teaching
Agency in two sections, of two semester hours each, and
Domestic Relations, three semester hours. Starling P.
Morris during the first term was teaching Personal Prop
erty, a three semester hour course, and Legal Writing and
Argument, a two semester hour course. During the present
semester he is teaching Torts, a six semester hour course.

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, how long has Mr. Leary been
teaching at a t the University of Texas School of Law!

A. He began his teaching last fall.
Q. This year is his first year!
A. That is correct.
Q. How long has Mr. Hudspeth been teaching at the Uni

versity of Texas!
A. The same length of time.
Q. He began last fall!

[fol. 155] A. Well, now, I may be mistaken. He may have
begun last summer.

Q. Let’s say last summer, but this is his first year, and,
Dean McCormick, how long has Mr. Morris been teaching
at the University of Texas!

A. I think he probably began last summer, and has been
teaching since that time.

Q. Do you recall, Dean McCormick, whether or not the
teachers of the first year law students at the University of
Texas, and I am not asking you to try to remember which
sections they have or anything of that sort; just whether
out of the total number of teachers at the University of
Texas Law School who are engaged in teaching first year
law students, whether there is a single teacher who has been
teaching law longer than one year!

A. Well, I would have to go over the list.
Q. Here you are.

(Mr. Nabrit banded the instrument to the witness.)
A. Yes, there are some.
Q. Do you know by looking at the list of the faculty which

ones they are, and how long they have.been teaching at the
University of Texas, or teaching law at other universities?

A. Yes.
Q. Could you state those, please?
A. Mr. Davis has taught since 1940 in the University of

[fol. 156] Texas, and from 1935 to 1940 at the University of
West Virginia. Mr. Huey has taught, except for war serv
ice, at the University of Texas since 1936. Mr. Morris,
Clarence Morris, taught at the University of Wyoming,
1926 to 1940, and the University of Texas since 1940, and
Mr. Jerry 8. Williams came to the University in 1946, and
I believe he had had two years of previous teaching.

Q. Thank you.
A. I think I should explain that by qualification, however,

to this effect; that the first year class which entered in
February, beginning class, which corresponds most nearly
to the beginning class in the Negro Law School, was taught
only by teachers of this same experience, that they entered
law teaching last fall, or. last summer, with the exception
of the one of the course in Legal Bibliography, which was
taught by Miss Hargrave, to that group, and she has had
several years of teaching experience in the field of Legal
Bibliography.

Q. Let me ask you this, Dean McCormick. In the assign
ment of this faculty to the School of Law, to the Negro
School of Law, how was that assignment made, by lot, by
designation, or by volunteering, just what method produced
these three individuals as the faculty?

A. Well, it was done by myself, after consult-tion with
other members of the faculty.
[fol. 157] Q. Were these teachers------

A. Including the teachers themselves.
Q. Yes. Were these teachers to receive under the ar

rangements which you had in mind at that date, March 10th,
were they to receive their salary from the Negro Law School
or from the Law School of the University of Texas?

A. Why, I would assume from the Negro Law School.
As I understand the legal element, the Board of Regents
of the University of Texas were to administer the financial

affairs of the Negro Law School until the time of the perma
nent organization of the University for Negroes.

Q. Maybe we can get it another way and bring it within
your knowledge. Had you made plans for adding three
other members to your faculty in place of these three who
were going on the pay roll of the Negro Law School on
March 10th?

A. No, these men were to continue their teaching at the
University of Texas School of Law.

Q. Were you to continue them on the pay roll?
A. That is correct. They would get their same salaries,

but—I mean they would get the same salaries they had
previously gotten at the University of Texas Law School
and would be paid extra compensation for the work in the
Negro Law School.

Q. Under that arrangement that existed in the University
of Texas Law School for these three persons for the second
semester, each of them had a load of from five to six hours,
[fol. 158] If they taught in the Negro Law School first year
subject, Torts and Contracts, four and six hour courses,
would that not have been in excess of the hours which you
use as your standard at the University of Texas? You said
it varied from five to seven or eight?

A. It would have been an addition to their usual load,
rather larger than usual, but I may explain this, that in the
case of the two larger courses, Contracts and Torts, they
would simply be teaching additional sections of the same
subject with the same books, and the custom in law schools
is to count that as only one-half of the corresponding num
ber of hours of non-repeated course; so it would amount,
under the custom of law schools, to a nine hour weekly load,
which is heavy, but not excessive.

Q. But it is heavier than what you have as your usual load
at the University of Texas?

A. Yes.
Q. Because the American Association thinks when you

pass eight, you are watering down your instruction?
Mr. Daniel: Well, we object.
Mr. Nabrit: I withdraw the question.
A. I don’t believe that is a fact.
Q. Yes. Is it your opinion, Dean McCormick, that law

school students get the full use of a law library, assuming
it is an adequate one for books, from that standpoint for the

[fol. 159] moment, is it your opinion that they get the best
use out of this library without a librarian who is there to
serve students and teachers, people who are engaged in
study and research ?

A. I think a librarian is, of course, necessary for the
operation of a library for the benefit of students or anyone
else.

Q. Who was the librarian for the Negro Law School on
March 10th of this year!

A. Well, we had not formally appointed a librarian, but
Miss Hargrave, for a considerable period of time gave a
great deal of service to the planning and provision of the
library arrangement.

Q. Under the standards of the American Association of
Law Schools, it is stated that in order for a school to qualify
it shall have been in operation for a period, usually, for
approximately two years, and then upon inspection by the
Association, if it meets their standards, it will be accredited?

A. Two years is the minimum time, as I understand it.
Q. Yes, that is what I say. Now, is it your opinion that

a law school that is not accredited is for the purposes of
accreditment equal to the law school of the—to the Univer
sity of Texas Law School?

A. I don’t understand that question.
[fol. 160] Q. Well, let’s put it another way. The Associ
ation of American Law Schools accredits certain law schools
based upon those schools having reached certain accepted
standards which are known to all people in the field of law
in rating law schools on that basis. If I look in this book
and see the University is listed as a member, I know it
meets these minimum standards. Now, for the purpose of
accreditment, that is, for that purpose, is a law school which
is not accredited as a member of this Association equal to
the University of Texas School of Law?

A. For the purposes of accreditment, why, obviously, a
law school that is not accredited does not equal one that is
accredited, but I still don’t catch the significance of the
question.

Q. It will follow. Is this Negro Law School which was
open on March 10th a member of the Association of Ameri
can Law Schools?

A. No, it is not.
Q. Is it accredited?

A. Not in that sense, no.
Q. In what sense is it accredited?
A. Well, yon mean by accredited, the opinion of people

familiar with the situation and with the law school, their
opinion as to the value of the facilities and instruction,
why, then, it is accredited in that sense, by those who hold
the favorable estimate of it. If you mean accredited by
the Association of American Law Schools, why, it is is not.
[fol. 161] Q. I mean, is it accredited in the sense in which
educators in the field of law speak of accreditment of law
schools ?

A. Well, they usually speak of it in the sense of being
a member of the Association of American Law Schools, and
of being an approved school on that list of the American
Bar Association.

Q. Is a student at the University of Texas School of
Law permitted under the regulations of the University of
Texas and the School of Law at the time he is engaged in
the study of law at the Law School, to also take courses in
the University of Texas, for example, Political Science,
Economic Theory, or some other course, Philosophy?

A. Yes, he is, provided the total amount of hours does not
exceed fourteen.

Q. Now, where were—are these students of this Negro
Law School to study courses like those, Economics and
Political Science, under the set-up which you have stated
has been adopted under your faculty?

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object to that question
because it is going into a field wholly irrelevant and im
material to any issue in this case. Relator has sued for
entrance into the Law School, says he has been denied the
right to study law and procedure, and hasn’t alleged that
he cares to study anything else, and going into these other
fields would certainly be beyond the issues of this case.
[fol. 162] Mr. Nabrit: If Your Honor please, one of the
things alleged by the relator is that in not being admitted to
the University of Texas he is being denied equal oppor
tunity with the students who do enter it. One of these
opportunities is this opportunity to study, and the Dean has
testified that the students in the law school do have that
right, and I think it is quite------

7—725

The Court: I will let him answer it, if he can.
A. You say where is he to study!

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Yes, sir. Where is he to get these courses in Economic

Theory and Philosophy and other courses offered by the
University of Texas which are available to the students
in the University of Texas School of Law!

A. I could not answer that question. There are—in so
far as it assumes any common practice or any encourage
ment by us of that practice in the University of Texas
School of Law, it is unfounded.

Mr. Daniel: I would like to preserve our bill of exception
on this testimony as to other courses not mentioned in
relator’s petition.

The Court: Yes, sir.
A. If I might add to the question, I would say that it is

customary that law students do come prepared in the fields
of economics and government and similar courses, and
[fol. 163] that we do not encourage them to take courses
outside the School of Law when they are in the School of
Law, because it tends to disrupt the regular progress of
their law studies.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. I agree with that, but you also do not forbid it!
A. No, we do not.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, you do have students at the

Law School who not only take these courses, but take
graduate courses, is that not true!

A. Well, if there are, they are very few. I don’t keep
close enough check on the actual registration to know
whether there are actually in the law school now students
who are taking academic courses, but it is a very nominal
element, if any.

Q. So far as you know, the students at the Negro School
of Law have no place where they could take those courses
under your plans and arrangements!

A. I have no information about that.
Q. As a former President of the American Association

of Law Schools, and as the Dean of several law schools,
and as an outstanding authority in several fields of law,

Dean McCormick, do you—are you of the opinion that one
of the basic elements in a great law school is the history
and traditions which have been built up over years of time,
including the graduates who have become famous in the
[fol. 164] State of Texas! Is that your opinion—that is an
element in a great law school!

A. Yes, that is a source of pride to a law school that has
that background.

Q. One other question on that along that same line. Is it,
in your opinion, a good thing for a law school to be unstable
as to its location, and to its faculty, sort of a roving school
of law! Is that, in your opinion, an unsatisfactory condi
tion in which to operate a law school!

A. I would think that a roving law school would cer
tainly not be an ideal school.

Q. Now, taking this hypothetical question, and assuming
that the evidence will bear out the assumptions, if they
have not already been proved, if a law school such as this
Negro Law School, in its proposed location, with a faculty
carrying a heavier schedule than the usual number of
hours carried by the faculty of the University of Texas
School of Law, without access to any University facilities
other than the School of Law, with no accreditment, with
an uncertainty as to its permanence in its present loca
tion, with library—with no library whatsoever in the build
ing—and with inadequate space for housing a library, if
the books were available, and with a faculty of instructors
who are beginners in teaching law, a law school equal to the
[fol. 165] Law School, of the University of Texas!

A. Well, wouldn’t you have to add some other elements
in your description! That doesn’t describe a law school.
It doesn’t tell the expected numbers of students or tbe
actual numbers of students in attendance, and the facilities
for small, as compared with large classes.

Q. Suppose, Dean McCormick, you answer mine that
way, and then we will take the other. Take my hypotheti
cal question. Is that law school which I have described
equal to the Law School of the University of Texas!

A. I will say that I can’t answer the question because
your description is not complete, and you would have to
give the expected number of students, and you would have
to suppose a certain ratio of students to faculty, and a cer
tain size of the classes.

100

Q. If we are going to assume that, I would have to assume
a certain number of graduates and a certain number of
authorities on the faculty in the field of damages and other
fields, and I would have to assume a certain number of
judges. You see what I am trying to get from you, as one
of the outstanding men in the field of legal education, is an
answer on that type of school. It might not have some other
elements that some other school might have, or that some
other hypothetical question might give it, but I would like
that opinion on that type of law school.
[fol. 166] A. You are contrasting what to me seems to be
an incompletely described school with a school I know all
about, and I can’t take a fragmentary school and compare it
with a school that I know about.

Q. Let’s put it that way. Would that “ fragmentary”
described school in my hypothetical question equal the Law
School at the University of Texas'?

Mr. Daniel: We object to that question because the frag
mentary school in the question leaves out matters which
have been proved so far without any dispute in this case;
leaving out elements that make the hypothetical question
absolutely irrelevant and immaterial, and inadmissible in
this case for any purpose.

The Court: I think he would have a right to make up his
hypothetical case anyway he wanted to. It is purely imagi
nary.

A. If he is going to imagine; I can’t make a comparison
unless he imagines the numbers of students.

The Court: A hypothetical question presupposes a lot
of things that may or may not be true.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Is that school, Dean McCormick, equal to the law

school of the University of Texas'?
A. Well, I would say that if you presuppose a class, a

small class, of not to exceed 10 entering students there,
[fol. 167] that then the facilities there and the law school
in that situation, as it is now, would compare favorably.

Q. That isn’t the hypothetical question.
A. With the University of Texas as it is now.
Q. That isn’t the hypothetical question, Dean McCormick.

101

What this question is, is the school which I described equal
to the Law School of the University of Texas?

A. Well, I would say yes, if you will presuppose a small
number of students to which those facilities are adapted.
If you are presupposing a larger number of students, to
which those facilities are not adapted, I would say no; but
I can’t compare a law school with no student population
presupposed with a law school where I know the student
population, and I know the ratio of faculty to students,
which is a very material factor in comparing law schools.

Q. My law school doesn’t have all of those factors in it.
My law school is the one in this hypothetical question. If
it doesn’t have something you think a law school should
have you just answer it, because mine doesn’t have that.
Is my hypothetical question, the law school in that, equal
to the Law School of the University of Texas without
anything------

A. Without any students?
Q. Without anything other than my hypothetically stated

question.
A. Which would presuppose that there were no students,

[fol. 168] Q. Is that equal to the Law School of the Uni
versity of Texas ?

A. Without any students, it is not.
Q. My question—I have stated all of the factors in my

question that I want. Is that school equal to the Law School
of the University of Texas?

A. As I said before, I am unable to make the comparison
in my mind between the school having only the elements that
you describe, without any description of the student body.
I am unable to make that comparison.

Q. In other words, you want to fix my school. You see,
I want to fix it. That is the best answer I can get. I will
ask you another question, Dean McCormick. You stated
in your direct testimony that as a result of studies made
by you or some member of your staff on the University of
Texas, that they had ascertained that there were 53 square
feet of floor space per student at the University of Texas
School of Law?

A. That is correct.
Q. And then on some basis you arrived at this figure, if

I am quoting you correctly, that there are 106 square feet
per student at the Negro School of Law?

A. I said that was on the assumption of 10 students.

102

Q. Where did you get those ten students from?
A. We haven’t gotten them.

[fol. 169] Q. Why did you pick ten?
A. Well, I picked ten as just an arbitrary figure of what

I thought would be about the maximum of the student body
of the beginning Negro Law School in Texas under normal
conditions where no, where there was no influence that dis
couraged them from coming.

Q. What about where there was an influence to encourage
them to come? Could we take 150 students and assume the
influence is discouraging them? Divide that by that. We
will only get 10 square feet per student.

A. It is a matter of which is the more reasonable assump
tion.

Q. Let’s take the hypothetical question, and let’s com
pare 150 students, and then ask you is it equal to the Uni
versity of Texas School of Law?

A. Presupposing those other factors included, including
the present quarters assigned to the law school, they are in
adequate for 150 students. Consequently, my answer would
have to be accordingly.

Q. Thank you. Dean McCormick, did I understand you
to state that the Negro Law School had adopted these an
nouncements and courses and other things as a part of that
law school for Negroes?

A. That is correct.
Q. Now, where is the moot court in this Negro Law

School? I see here the moot court. That is where—what
[fol. 170] arrangements under the faculty for the Negro
Law School are there for this law group competition and
the moot court?

A. Well, that, of course, has not been instituted. It can’t
be instituted until you get some students.

Q. But when you have got the place and—a place for it?
A. There would be no trouble about the place for it.
Q. Where is the place in this building across from the

Capitol?
A. Well, any one of the class rooms could be used for

that purpose.
Q. So one of those class rooms is for moot court?
A. It is certainly susceptible to that use. Of course, we

don’t have that in the beginning semester of the first year.

103

Q. Where does the first year student—I will ask you
this first—I withdraw that. In the University of Texas
School of Law is the first year law student permitted to
visit the moot court?

A. Well, the moot course is now given in the course in
Legal Argument, and it consists of competition in cases
between groups of students. As I say, that isn’t given
in the first year.

Q. Your answer wasn’t responsive to the question. The
question was, are the first year students of the University
of Texas permitted to visit the moot court, sit in and hear
the cases?

A. I presume so.
[fol. 171] Q. I mean, do you know?

A. Well, the preliminary arguments, nobody visits them,
they are not worth visiting. The last argument, it is cus
tomary for some visitors to attend, including, of course, the
first year students.

Q. Do the students of this proposed Negro Law School in
the first year class, or did they on March 10th, 1947, have
access to such a final competition?

A. No, they did not.
Q. What scholarships are available to the students at

the Negro Law School? Are these that I find in here that
have been adopted? This has been adopted. Are these
available to the students, on page 10, law scholarships and
loan funds, of Bespondents’ Exhibit No. 5; are these law
scholarships and loan funds available to students, were
they available to students in the Negro Law School on
March 10, 1947?

A. No, they were not. I may say that those are mostly, in
fact, all of them are contributed from private sources, and
not contributed by the public funds.

Q. They are available to the students in the law school
of the University of Texas?

A. Yes.
Q. And they are not available to students in the Negro

Law School? On page 8 of this same exhibit under “ Hon
ors and Aids” , I notice the Order of the Coif. That is, as I
[fol. 172] think you will agree is one of, if not the highest,
legal honorary societies, and honor students in the upper
tenth or upper number of the graduating classes at the Uni
versity of Texas School of Law are eligible for that, is that
not so?

104

A. That is correct.
Q. And their grades are taken from their first year right

on up to the time that they are chosen, together with char
acter and other qualifications?

A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Were those honors, or that particular honor avail

able to a student at the Negro Law School on March 10th?
Could his grades then begin to accumulate so as to give
him an opportunity for the Order of the Coif?

A. Not unless that Order of the Coif should later author
ize that school to confer that award. The Order of the
Coif, again, is a privately constituted, rather than a public
organization.

Q. Yes, but it is operated by the faculty in the Law
School in the University of Texas?

A. That is right.
Q. So that to all intents and purposes it is a faculty,

locally guided and directed organization?
A. That is right.
Q. Now then, it is obvious—I won’t say it is obvious. We

will strike that out. The Order of the Coif is only found
[fol. 173] at accredited law schools; is that not true?

A. I believe that is right.
Q. The minimum period in which this law school could

be accredited would be two years, a minimum of two years
after it had been in operation?

A. That is right.
Q. So that we would know thereafter the applications

would go to the Order of the Coif for a Chapter, so that
any student who entered on March 10th would have fin
ished school before an application for the Order of the Coif
would have been proper and in a position to have been
acted on? That is just a mere matter of time, and assum
ing everything else went exactly as it should go, and we had
a fine school, and it was accredited, the time wouldn’t per
mit the establishment of an Order of the Coif so that you
could get the student elected prior to his graduation?

A. I think it would be unlikely.
Q. On page 12 of this same exhibit, Dean McCormick,

there is a paragraph, two paragraphs under the heading
“ Legal Aid Clinic.’ ’ How does that clinic operate?

A. Well, it is operated by a part time director, Mr.
Woodrow Patterson, an Austin lawyer, who in conjunction

105

with students in the University of Texas Law School, carries
on legal aid for persons unable to pay a lawyer, and the
cases come to the Legal Aid Bureau, and they ate handled
[fol. 174] by the students under the direction of Mr. Pat
terson.

Q. Are the students who assist in this work at any time
first year law students!

A. They are not.
Q. They are second and third year students !
A. Practically all third year students.
Q. Third year students. Now, on page 9 of Respondents’

Exhibit No. 5 there is a paragraph headed “ The Texas Law
Review” . Would you describe the classification of students
who are eligible to work on The Texas Law Review?

A. The second year students, or rather students begin
ning in the second year, if they have a grade of approxi
mately 80 or above, are invited to compete for the Texas
Law Review, and at the middle or the end of their second
year they may be elected to the Board of Editors.

Q. Now, in connection with these scholarships, keeping
those in mind, the Order of the Coif and The Texas Law
Review, all of which in a school of law go to the better stu
dents, or the students with the better records, better ability
or more ability; in your opinion, Dean McCormick, are these,
the scholarships, The Texas Law Review, and the Order of
the Coif, incentives for a higher scholastic activity on the
part of the students of the Law School of the University of
Texas?

A. Yes, I think they are.
[fol. 175] Q. So, that any student who enters the Univer
sity of Texas School of Law as a freshman and who reads
this or who hears it discussed or finds out who won these
honors, if he has it in him, he wants to qualify at some time,
and that has a bearing on his work?

A. Yes, it does.
Q. What, on March 10th, was there over at the Negro

Law School to stimulate this scholastic activity of a nature
similar to these three?

A. You mean what was there?
Q. Comparable. What did you offer? What was offered

a first year law student on March 10th at the Negro Law
School which was of the same incentive value as a scholar
ship?

106

A. Why, the influence which Was comparable, and which
I think would have served as an equal if not greater stimu
lus, was the increased contact with the faculty, due to the
probable smallness of the student body.

Q. And you think that that would take the place of the
value and effect of competition?

A. Well, there is always competition in every class, as
you know, for grades, and that is a much more important
competition than these extraneous matters of Coif and Law
Review, the natural instinct of every able student to cope
with his fellows, and it is fine in the training for his pro
fession. That is the most important influence, that natural
[fol. 176] intellectual impassion, which is stimulated by
contact with good teachers.

Q. So that you consider the University of Texas Law
Review an extraneous matter?

A. Yes; it was founded by the lawyers of Texas, not by
the State of Texas, and is financed by their contributions.

Q. And you consider honors at the University of Texas
School of Law as extraneous ?

A. Well, you mean the honors, the Order of the Coif and
Texas Law Review?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes, they are minor and extraneous.
Q. How about these cash scholarship awards; are they

extraneous ?
A. They are in the sense that I have been speaking about.

They are very microscopic influences. They are not large
elements in the picture at all.

Q. So that so far as the University of Texas is concerned,
it might as well get rid of all of those?

A. No, certainly not.
Q. Then they are of sufficient importance for us to ask

again why, what was offered on March 10th to the law
school student at the Negro Law School comparable to
these? You say they are adopted. I want to know if------

A. Do you mean, do we have any system of awards be
yond the natural competition in the classes themselves?
[fol. 177] Q. No.

A. And the incentive of grades, or success in the courses?
None are provided for, if you mean were there any scholar
ships or prizes or Law Review.

Q. Then, you don’t mean that this was adopted?

107

A. I don’t mean that, because none were provided for in
the first semester, that that would not follow as a course of
the natural evolution of a well-conducted school.

Q. Then, Dean McCormick, you don’t mean that this was
adopted for the Negro Law School?

A. Well, so far as applicable to a school just starting
with an anticipation of one entering a beginning class.

Q. The first year student at the University of Texas Law
School, everything in here is applicable to him unless it
is specifically stated that it is not applicable; is that true ?

A. Well, that is a large order. I am not prepared to say
offhand without scrutinizing all of the regulations.

Q. As you stated a moment ago, one of the important
elements in the School of Law is competition, in your opin
ion, one of the most important. A law student who entered
the University of Texas on March 10th, 1947, would have
the competition of several hundred law students from all
over the State of Texas, including the opportunity for hear
ing legal discussions by upper classmen, and engaging in
[fol. 178] them with them. What about the law school for
Negroes on March 10, 1947, did that law school offer to
relator in this case that type of competition?

A. Well, I really think if you have a small class that the—
where everyone knows each other, and his capacities, that
the competition is, if the level of the class is fairly high, is
apt, perhaps to be more intense than in an eight or nine
hundred student group, where a given student knows only
a small number of the total student body.

Q. Of course, that isn’t responsive for the reason that
you injected the question of the level of attainment of the
class being high, which you, of course, agree is an assump
tion that we would not be able to validate, in the absence of
the presence of students and a review of their I. Q. and
their preparation; is that not true?

A. Well, our entrance requirements are at least three
years of college for non-veterans, and at least two years of
college for veterans, with a grade requirement of C or
better, and I believe that that makes fairly sure the attain
ment of high level of intellectual quality. Of course, it is
all relative.

Q. You assume that—you have no way of demonstrating
that if your numbers become smaller?

A. No, it is a matter of observation and experience. I

108

have taught small classes and large ones, and I am inclined
[fol. 179] to think that the competition in a small class may
well he at as high a level as it is in a. class of 150.

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, are the facilities which have
been set up for this law school for Negroes, are the facilities
equal to the facilities at the Law School of the University
of Texas, and I will explain then so that you will know what
I mean. I mean the library, I mean the building. In the
building I mean the offices, class rooms, lavatories, locker
rooms, lounge room, librarian’s office, the professors’ offices,
the recreation room. I mean all of those facilities in the
building; are they, in your opinion, equal to those at the
University of Texas School of Law?

A. Well, facilities are things that are to be used. Their
quality is relative to how many and what kind of people
are going to use them. Now, if you ask me, for the pur
poses of the relator, or of a small group of applying stu
dents, as compared with the adaptability of the University
of Texas Law School facilities for its present student body
of 850, I wrnuld say yes, they are equal.

Q. What I would like to know, just two points; (a) and
(b), one a Negro boy and one a white boy, and one going
to the University of Texas and one going to this Negro Law
School, isolated from other students. Will the facilities
which the white boy finds at the University of Texas, or
[fol. 180] are the facilities which the Negro boy finds at the
Negro Law School equal to the facilities the white boy finds
at the University of Texas Law School?

A. I would say yes, with this explanation; that if that
young Negro student goes to the Texas State University
for Negroes School of Law, either alone or with a small
group of fellow students, and enters the class there with
the three faculty members assigned, compared with the
University of Texas Law Schools entering on February 1st
with a group of 175 other students in a law school already
overcrowded twice its capacity, why, I would say, yes; the
Negro student has at least equal and probably superior
facilities for the study of law.

Q. So that you think that the Law School for Negroes has
superior facilities to those at the University of Texas?

A. I said at least equal, and probably superior.
Q. Now, irrespective of numbers, point out the superiori

ties in this, in the facilities in this Negro Law School?

109

A. I can not answer irrespective of numbers, because you
are talking about facilities for human beings to be taught
law by other human beings. To say irrespective of num
bers, are your facilities equal or superior, or what not, is
meaningless to me. I can’t attach any meaning to that.

Q. I can agree with that. The only thing, you wish to
take ten, and I would like for you to take 150, so that we
[fol. 181] would have one-sixth of the population of it.
We have about 850 at the University. Take about 150.
Based on the population, at least, we have a basic reason for
taking that number.

A. We have this basic reason for taking 10, that the Uni
versity had received inquiries, I am informed by the Regis
trar, of approximately, did receive about 14, and so with
that number of inquiries it is reasonable to assume that
something less than that would be the practical number
to anticipate as entering the law school, if there were no
influences preventing them from entering.

Q. Do you think that as valid a basis for that conclusion
which you came to might just as well be that the law school
had moved from two cities inside of a month, and that that,
in itself, would create that type of thing, without determin
ing the number of persons who wanted to study law?
Wouldn’t that be valid?

A. I didn’t undertake to say what the influences were that
kept them from coming. I undertook to say what the indi
cation of the maximum apparent immediate demand under
the circumstances was.

Q. Let me ask you this, Dean McCormick. What, in your
judgment is the maximum capacity of the proposed Negro
Law School in its present location, based upon the same sort
of overcrowded condition which exists at the University of
[fol. 182] Texas School of Law?

A. Well, are you assuming the acquisition of the entire
building, or assuming the present lease upon the ground
floor?

Q. I am taking only what they have, that is the ground
floor.

A. Well, I would say that it could accommodate 12 to 15.
Q. I would then ask you if the present facilities for the

Negro Law School, which in your opinion would accommo
date a maximum of 12 to 15 students, are equal to the facili
ties at the University of Texas Law School which—from

110

those figures we take 886 as the maximum—accomodate 886
students as a maximum?

A. They are not equal in size, no.
Q. Are they equal in quality?
A. Yes, for that number of students, I believe that they

are.
Q. Well, we have the maximum of each, you see. We have

the maximum student body. Are they equal in quality to
the maximum student body in each?

A. I am afraid I was—I thought you asked me the maxi
mum appropriate student body for that size quarters, and
you are—I think I misunderstood your question. You in
tended to presuppose an overcrowded condition commensu
rate with that at the University of Texas. Well, I think
you would have, in that case, you would have to double the
estimate that I have made of from 12 to 15, to 24 to 30.

Q. All right. Let’s double it. Then, at the maximum ca-
[fol. 183] pacity, are those facilities equal to the facilities in
the law school in the University of Texas to their maximum
capacity ?

A. To their present overcrowded condition, you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. You see, we are assuming both overcrowded?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say they are equal in quality?
A. They provide for 25 or 30 students about like the

University of Texas premises provide for 850 students.
Q. Dean McCormick, are you familiar with some of the

early history of the Law School of the University of Texas?
A. Generally so.
Q. Do you recall the early enrollment at the Law School of

the University of Texas, about the time that building was
erected that is now there, roughly; not any exact figure?

A. No, I do not, but I would say it was somewhere be
tween two and three hundred, hut it is just a guess.

Q. Do you know how many students, or do you recall how
many students there were at the University of Texas Law
School the last year before the war?

A. Approximately 750.
Q. Approximately 750; and roughly,------
A. At least that was true in 1939, before the draft went

into effect.

I l l

[fol. 184] Q. At least, you consider that your last normal
year?

A. Yes, I believe I do.
Q. In your opinion, was the present law school building

for the University of Texas erected for a small number of
students ?

A. Yes, that is my understanding, is that it was contem
plated that the maximum would be about 400.

Q. About 400?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, in your judgment, is the contemplation

and the plan for this Law School for Negroes equal to that
type of planning?

A. Would it be likely to have a similar development?
Q. Yes.
A. That is corresponding to a growth from 250 to 750 in

the course of 30 years?
Q. Several years, or whatever number------
A. That would he about 30 years.
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I would suppose that it would be something

of a similar growth.
Q. That is all.

The Court: We will take a few minutes.

Court was recessed at 3:30 p. m., until 3:50 p. m., May
13, 1947, at which time proceedings were resumed as fol
lows:

[fol. 185] Eedirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Now Dean McCormick, I believe you have already testi

fied that the basis of 10 students and your planning on that
basis was arrived at by reason of the number of inquiries
made. I will ask you if you had ever before establishing
this school received more than the one application for atten
dance at the Law School at the University of Texas from a
Negro?

A. No, I have not.
Q. Going hack to the matter of legal aid, is that a private

set-up that is run there at the school to give legal aid to
outsiders?

112

A. No, that is part of the Law School.
Q. Are any first year students entitled to participate in

that legal aid program ?
A. No, they are not.
Q. The Order of the Coif, is that a private organization

operated there at the University Law School, Texas Uni
versity?

A. Yes.
Q. Are first year students entitled to admission?
A. No, that is awarded only at the time of graduation.
Q. Are first year students entitled or required to partici

pate in moot court ?
A. No, they are not.

[fol. 186] Q. Are first year students entitled to places on
The Texas Law Review?

A. No, sir.
Q. Is The Texas Law Review a private organization?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I believe you said that the scholarships and loan funds

were private set-ups, not furnished by the State?
A. The money came from private donors.
Q. Are all other things provided at the University of

Texas Law School by State funds such things provided for
first year law students by State funds, provided for Negro
law students in the Negro Law School from State funds?

A. That is right.
Q. Now, it was mentioned several times on cross exami

nation that you could not he accredited by the Association
of American Law Schools without some students, and that
you could not organize these various honor societies with
out students. Have you done anything whatever toward
discouraging students from enrolling in the Negro Law
School?

A. Quite the contrary. We hoped very much for an
enrollment of a reasonable number of students after we had
made the provision for training them.

Q. In view of these inquiries and applications received
prior to March 10, 1947 did you anticipate having at least
some students on the morning of March 10, 1947?
[fol. 187] A. Yes, I felt very confident that we would have
at least five or six students. You said in view of applica
tions. We didn’t have applications, but inquiries.

Q. Inquiries. Now, if the relator had been admitted to

the University of Texas Law School for the spring semester,
who would have instructed him in Contracts?

A. Mr. Leary.
Q. Mr. Leary?
A. That is right.
Q. The same professor that you provided to instruct him

in Contracts in the Negro Law School?
A. That is right.
Q. Who would have instructed him in the University of

Texas Law School in Legal Bibliography?
A. Why, I believe that Miss Hargrave had charge of the

sections of Legal Bibliography of the group entering in
February.

Q. If he had entered the previous semester, who would
have taught him Legal Bibliography?

Mr. Durham: We object to that. There is no claim of any
negro school in existence at that time.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I say, at the University of Texas, had he been ad

mitted to the University of Texas the previous semester,
last fall, who would have taught him Legal Bibliography?

A. He might have been taught by Mr. Hudspeth, or by
one or two others who were teaching various sections of
[fol. 188] Legal Bibliography.

Q. If he had entered the Negro Law School on March
10th who would have taught him Legal Bibliography?

A. Mr. Hudspeth.
Q. If he had entered the University of Texas Law School

for the spring semester who would have taught him Torts?
A. Mr. S. T. Morris.
Q. The same Mr. Morris who would have taught him

Torts if he had entered the Negro Law School?
A. That is correct.
Q. Had you assigned these professors to teach first year

law students in the University of Texas prior to the estab
lishment of the Negro Law School?

A. Yes.
Q. Had you assigned the professors to teach first year law

students at the University of Texas prior to the resolution
of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas author
izing you to give courses to the Negro Law School?

8—725

113

114

A. Yes, sir.
Q. The classes were already in session, were they notf
A. Yes.
Q. What I am getting at; did you assign these professors

to teach first year law in the University of Texas Law
School, having anything in mind that they might also teach
in the Negro Law School, at the time they were assigned,
[fol. 189] A. No, not at the time they were assigned.

Q. Now, on page 260 of Association of American Law
Schools Handbook, in addition to the two year requirement
for admission to the Association, I would like to take up
with you each of the requirements, for the purpose of your
opinion as to whether the separate Negro Law School
financed in accordance with the plans already made and indi
cated by Senate Bill 140 could ever meet those requirements,
after a two year period.

Let’s take up the first one there, listed on page 260:
(Reading)

“ It shall be a school not operated as a commercial
enterprise, and the compensation of any officer or mem
ber of its teaching staff shall not depend on the num
ber of students, nor on the fees received.”

Does your Negro Law School meet that requirement?
A. Yes, sir, it does.
Q. At this time?
A. Yes.
Q. Number two, the second requirement. I will ask you

to state it briefly, rather than me read the whole require
ment. It has to do with entrance requirements, the entire
requirements, is that correct?

A. That is right.
[fol. 190] Q. Do you have the same entrance requirements
for the Negro Law School that you have for the University
of Texas Law School?

A. Yes, that was so provided in our amendment.
Q. Then your entrance requirements meet the standards

of the American Association now?
A. They do.
Q. Number three. It must be a school which occupies

substantially the full working time of the students, required
for work in the school, “ shall be considered a full-time
school. ’ ’ Does the Negro Law School meet that requirement ?

115

A. Yes, sir, it does. That standard differentiates between
full-time and part-time schools, and sets up requirements
for each, and the Negro Law School, under the provisions
made therefor, met the standard here in regard to full-time
schools.

Q. Number four. (Reading)
“ The conferring of its degree shall be conditioned

upon the attainment of a grade of scholarship ascer
tained by examination.”

Do you have that same requirement for your Negro Law
School at this time?

A. We do.
Q. Number five. That has to do with special students,

that no such shall be admitted except under certain eondi-
ffol. 191] tions listed there. I will ask you if you have that
same requirement for the Negro Law School?

A. Well, our requirements at the University of Texas
Law School are more stringent, in that they do not admit
special students, and they would not be admitted to the
Negro Law School.

Q. They would not be admitted to the Negro Law School?
A. That is correct.
Q. They meet that standard; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. In the Negro Law School?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, the sixth requirement, own a law library of not

less than 10,000 volumes with certain specifications as to
those volumes. I will ask you if you have ordered 10,000
volumes for a permanent library for the Negro Law School,
to meet those requirements?

A. We have ordered a sufficient number and kind of books
to meet those requirements.

Q. In addition to that, at this time do you have a library
available for this law school in the State Capitol Building
within excess of 40,000 volumes of law books?

A. We do.
Q. Number eight provides that a complete individual

record of each student must be kept. Do you have the
[fol. 192] same requirement as far as the Negro Law School
is concerned on the individual record of students?

A. Yes. Did you mean to pass over number seven?

116

Q. I didn’t mean to, but let’s pass number seven for the
time being, to number eight, individual record of students.

A. Yes, that would be satisfied by the regulations now in
effect in the University of Texas Law School and which are
adopted by the Negro Law School.

Q. Are those—number nine. (Reading)
“ It shall be a school which possesses reasonably ade

quate facilities and which is conducted in accordance
with those standards and practices generally recog
nized by member schools as essential to the main
tenance of a sound educational policy.”

I will ask you if, in your opinion, the Negro Law School
meets the requirement laid down here by the American
Association for reasonably adequate facilities?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, those are all of the requirements, as I under

stand them, except number seven, which we have passed.
Is that correct, sir?

A. That is correct.
Q. Then, we at this time in the Negro Law School meet

the requirements of the American Association of Law
Schools except as to two years ’ running, and number seven,
which I will read, as (Reading)

[fol. 193] “ Commencing September 1, 1932, its fac
ulty shall consist of at least four instructors who de
vote substantially all of their time to the work of the
school; and in no case shall the number of full-time in
structors be fewer than one for each one hundred
students or major fraction thereof.”

I will ask you to state whether or not the present Negro
Law School, as planned for your first semester, meets those
requirements ?

A. Well, I believe that technically it does not.
Q. Technically, it does not, because your professors as

signed are giving part of their time to another school, the
University of Texas, it that right?

A. That is correct.
Q. Does it meet that part of the requirement which is

intended to have only full-time professors teaching the
students, instead of having lawyers who are practicing
part time ?

117

A. I think it certainly does, in substance, and I may add
that it is quite frequent in law schools in the east which
are near together, for instructors to be instructing at the
same time in two schools. That is, instructors from Har
vard, Yale or Columbia occasionally spend part of their
time in instructing in one of the other schools, and, of
course, technically, they would as to any particular school
[fob 194] be part-time, but in substance, of course, they are
devoting all of their time to law teaching.

Q. Technically, you do not meet the requirements of four
full-time professors, but as a practical matter for the first
semester students that attended, as a practical matter, do
you furnish them that which the full-time professors would
have furnished them?

A. Yes, I believe we do.
Q. As a matter of fact, if the relator had been in the

University of Texas Law School classes with a hundred or
more in your first class for that spring semester------

A. There were nearly two hundred.
Q. Out at the University of Texas—and these same three

instructors at the University teaching them, with the 200
students, in your opinion, or within your knowledge, would
the relator have had as much personal attention from the
professors and as much time from them as he would from
those same three professors teaching in the Negro Law
School ?

A. Assuming a school of no more than a small number
of students?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. In the Negro Law School he would have gotten a

great deal more personal attention from the faculty than
he would have had he been in the large entering classes in
the University of Texas.
[fol. 195] Q. Isn’t it a fact that the requirements of full
time professors, at least one to every 100 students, isn’t
the idea behind that to have the professors available to give
care and attention to the individual students ?

A. Yes.
Q. And more care and time and attention could have been

given to the Negro students, based on not more than 10
students, than in the University of Texas Law School?

A. Yes, that is right. They would have had not only their
classes, but office hours in the Negro Law School, and

118

would have been available much more conveniently than
to the students at the University of Texas Law School.

Q. Can you think of any reason why, if a student enters
out there, and this school grows, as you testified on cross
examination that it might be possible to grow, and with the
Legislature furnishing the money Mr. Woodward itemized
here today, can you think of any reason why that Negro
Law School can not within a period of two years, before any
one can graduate from it, why, that school can not meet
all of the requirements of the Association of American Law
Schools?

A. No, I see no reason why it should not comply with those
requirements very rapidly, since the Legislature has an
nounced that it was providing for a University of the first
class, and a law school equivalent to that of the University
of Texas, as exactly the same expectation and reliance on
[fol. 196] the Legislative assurances are the only things we
have to rely on for the continue development and sta
bility of the University of Texas Law School.

Q. Are you acquainted with Lincoln University, and the
separate law school operated for Negroes in Lincoln Univer
sity, in Missouri?

A. I am somewhat acquainted with it. I haven’t been
there, but when I was on the Executive Committee of the
Association of American Law Schools, the Committee had
a conference, I believe, with one of the faculty of that school
there.

Mr. Durham: We object to that as hearsay.
The Court: He shouldn’t testify to hearsay.
A. I am just stating the extent of my acquaintance with

it.
The Court: Don’t recite anything he said.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Lincoln University Law School has met the require

ments of the Association, has it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is it a member of the Association?
A. That is correct.
Q. That is all.

119

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, at the University of Texas School of

Law, do you use the case method of teaching and study?
A. Yes.

ffol. 197] Q. Will you state briefly just what that is?
A. Well, it is the method most widely prevailing in Ameri

can law schools today, where the books used as the basis for
study in most courses is a collection of cases designed to
illustrate and develop the principles of law in the particular
subject.

Q. Now, you testified that the,—in your opinion, the
library—-Section 6 of Respondents’ Exhibit No. 5—that the
library at the Negro Law School met those requirements.
I would like to read it to you.

A. Did I testify that the library met those requirements?
Q. No, the question was asked you by the Attorney Gen

eral, does this law school meet the requirements and stand
ards of Section 6, and you answered yes.

A. My recollection of our colloquy is that he asked me
if we had ordered the books necessary to meet the require
ments.

Q. Yes, but your answer was yes. I am going to read
Section 6, and let you answer this way. (Reading)

“ Commencing September 1, 1932, it shall own a law
library of not less than 10,000 volumes, which shall be so
housed and administered as to be readily available for
use by students and faculty. Commencing September
1, 1940, it shall have, in addition to the four instructors
specified in Section 7 of this article, a qualified
[fol. 198] librarian, whose principal activities are de
voted to the development and maintenance of an effec
tive library service.”

I would like to ask you, Dean McCormick, did the Negro
Law School meet the requirements of Section 6 as read to
you on March 10, 1947?

A. Did it then meet the requirements? No, clearly not,
and I didn’t say it did.

Q. Does it meet the requirements today?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Assuming that in all other respects this Negro Law

120

School is the equal of the Law School of the University of
Texas, for the sake of this question only, would the Negro
Law School lose that equality by reason of the fact that it
did not have a library as set forth in Section 6.

A. No, I think by no means would it lose the equality.
In other words, you might have library facilities equal to
that of the University of Texas, but not meeting that stand
ard of ownership. This standard requires that the books
be owned and the library of the Negro Law School is not
owned by the Negro Law School, but I think that in respect
to substantial equality, that matter of ownership is imma
terial. The library facilities which are furnished to and
are owned as the law school is owned, by the State of Texas,
and if they are available to the students, and are equal in
[fol. 199] range and quality to the library facilities of the
University of Texas Law School, they would be equal, but
would not meet this standard.

Q. Then, in your judgment, and as a former President
of the Association of American Law Schools, you do not
consider that Section 6 of the Association are necessary or
are valid ?

A. No, I wouldn’t say that.
Q. All right, then. Assuming that all of these other

factors are equal, is this requirement with respect to a
library, if it isn’t met, does that not make the Negro Law
School less—unequal to that of the University of Texas
Law School?

A. No, sir. I think that the compliance with the stand
ards is merely evidence of a qualification, evidence of qual
ity, I would say, but I think you can have substantial
equality of facilities quite regardless of the complete com
pliance with the Association of American Law School regu
lations, if the substance of the educational facilities are
provided. That form of ownership, I think, is not a pre
requisite to the equality.

Q. As a former President of the American Association of
Law Schools, on what basis did you require law schools
being considered by your Association, and as a former mem
ber of the Executive Committee and passing on it, what was
your reason for requiring the law schools that applied dur-
[fol. 200] ing that time for admission to the association, and
for accreditment by the Association of American Law
Schools to comply with this as a minimum standard, if, in

121

your opinion, it is not necessary in order to have equality
with the University of Texas Law School!

A. Normally, in order to have the books available, you
would need to own them, but you may well have a special
situation, as I think you do here, where they are fully and
completely available, though ownership is not in the school.

Q. Departing from that for just a moment, I understood
you to say with respect to Section 7 of Respondents’ Ex
hibit No. 5, where it stated that the faculty shall consist
of at least four instructors who devote substantially all of
their time, that technically it did not meet it, but it met it,
you thought, substantially, by reason of the fact that these
men taught at the University of Texas and taught in this
law school, and, therefore, were giving all of their time to
instruction, and you illustrated it by stating that in the
East that goes on frequently.

A. I would say occasionally.
Q. Do you know of any institution in the East where that

goes on, and where, outside of the men who do visit from
school to school, there are not in each of those schools four
other full-time law school teachers!

A. No, there isn’t any such.
ffol. 201] Q. Also, the Negro Law School where they have
three, I think we probably forgot to point out to you that
only three teachers have been assigned. There are not four,
if they could he denominated full-time.

A. Of course, the three teachers is limited to the first
semester, and the instructions from the Chairman of the
Board of Regents were to plan to use all of our faculty, so
far as necessary, to maintain a full curriculum for the stu
dents who did come during this interim period until four or
more full-time professors could be employed for the Negro
Law School.

Q. One other question, Dean McCormick. As a Dean of a
law school, is it your opinion that three teachers who are
teaching a full schedule at the University of Texas, where
they are resident instructors, and who are visiting pro
fessors, or who teach over at the Negro Law School—I
won’t use the word “ visiting” —who teach those same
courses over at the Negro Law School, is it your opinion
that they are as available for consultation and for work
ing with the students in the school where they are not resi
dents, as they are at the University of Texas!

A. Well, I think under the plan that we had adopted they

122

would be more available for a group of the size indicated of
Negro students than they would be available to the large
sections of 150 or 175 students at the University of Texas,
[fol. 202] Q. Where were their offices to be, as you had
arranged them ?

A. Well, we had planned for them to spend a reasonable
time in meeting office hours at the Negro Law School in
this reading room and office room, and then they would
also have offices at the University of Texas.

Q. Are the offices for the teachers at the University of
Texas in the reading room?

A. Well, my office is in part of the library, and I am sub
ject to constant interruptions by people coming in and get
ting books in my office.

Q. I understand your office, but the teachers; are their
offices in the reading room?

A. Well, there is a tier of offices on the first floor that
opens up into the reading room on the lower level. Some of
them open up—one of them is in part of the library, and the
others are divorced from the reading room.

Q. And you have in this law school for Negroes offices
equal to those?

A. Well, we don’t have separate offices for the three
instructors, but there are ample facilities for them to meet
office hours in the room called the reading room where the
desks are.

Q. But the offices are not equal?
A. No, I would not say they were.
Q. I think you stated, Dean McCormick, that these 10,000

[fol. 203] books have been ordered; is that correct?
A. Well, there are a certain number of that 10,000 that

is on hand now, and the balance have been ordered.
Q. How many are on hand?
A. Well, Miss Hargrave can give you the details of that.

She is the librarian who compiled the list. I think there
are some 1,300 or 1,400 on hand, and about 8,700 for which
she has placed an order through the Comptroller to the
Board of Control.

Q. Which Comptroller is that, of the University of Texas,
or the State?

A. The University of Texas.
Q. That is all—Dean McCormick, what is the name of the

Comptroller to whom you refer ?
A. Mr. Simmons.

123

Q. Mr. Simmons!
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know his initials!
A. C. D. Simmons, I believe.
Q. Mr. C. D. Simmons!
A. Yes.
Q. On page 261 of Respondents ’ Exhibit No. 5, there is

this paragraph which 1 will read, Dean McCormick.
A. I have it before me.
Q. You have it before you!

[fol. 204] A. Yes.
Q. Does this school meet the requirement of that pro

vision, that is, the Negro Law School!
A. Which one, which provision!
Q. The last paragraph on page 261, beginning “ No school

shall be or remain * *
A. Well, that is my understanding, yes.
Q. Here is why I asked you that, Dean McCormick, so

that you will know before you answer. If a student enters
the Negro Law School which has been set up here, it isn’t
accredited under the rules of the Association of American
Law Schools, if after one year or a semester, or two years,
or any period short of graduation, if for any reason he
desires to transfer to another school—maybe this one goes
out of existence, or maybe he prefers another one, or he
may get a scholarship—or if for any reason he wishes to
transfer to another school, no school that is a member of the
Association of American Law Schools can admit him and
give him credit for the work done here. Is that equality
with the students of the University of Texas Law School!
As a former President of the Association, in your opinion,
is that equality!

A. Certainly that privilege of transferring credit would
not be available to the students of the Negro Law School
until that school had become accredited.
[fol. 205] Q. Don’t you consider that a lack of equality,
in that he has to remain there or lose all that he has done!

A. No, not in the larger outlines of substantial equality.
The transferrence of credits from one school to another is
a matter of not very frequent concern to students. I don’t
suppose we have five percent of our students that have
transferred any credits, not to my knowledge.

Q. You would say that the fact that of that five percent,
in that five percent, any student in the University of Texas

124

who wanted to transfer,, had the privilege and that right,
and under those regulations, since the University of Texas
is a member of the Association, could transfer those credits
to any other school; whereas, a Negro in this Negro Law
School would lose all of the work that he has done.

A. Yes, I would call that a minor and temporary inequal
ity or deviation.

Q. At least, you call it an inequality?
A. One which would disappear as soon as the school had

carried out for two years the plan that the Legislature has
made for its development.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would ask that you strike out
the last, about what the Legislature intends to do.

The Court: I think that probably was not germane to
the answer.
[fol. 206] A. He asked me about equality and how that
bore upon equality, and I thought that was an explanation of
what bearing I thought it had upon equality.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, I wish to show you some pictures

purporting to be pictures of the law school for Negroes, of
which you are the Dean. I wish you would look at them
and see if these are pictures of the building of that law
school.

A. I am the Dean of both of them.
Q. Yes. I just want you to now be Dean of this one.

(Counsel for relator handed the witness two photographs.)
Dean McCormick, do you recognize these as being pictures
of the law school for Negroes?

A. I recognize one of them, the small picture of part of
the entrance, I wouldn’t recognize.

Q. But you do recognize this one?
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nabrit: We would like to offer this in evidence.
Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Belator’s

Exhibit No. 2.

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, would you state so that the
Court might see it, and point out where the law school is
in that area? (Referring to Relator’s Exhibit No. 2.)

A. This doesn’t picture any of the interior of the law

125

school. Just from this view, I don’t know where the en-
[fol. 207] trance to the------

Q. It is right here.
A. Where is the step-down?
Q. (Indicating on photograph to the witness).
A. Well, the law school occupies the entire ground floor

of which a part of the outer wall is shown here.
Q. And this is a sign of some occupant of some other

part ?
A. Of the second floor, yes.
Q. The consulting petroleum gas engineer that occupies

the second floor or some part of it, is that correct?
A. That is correct, as far as I know.
The Court: I believe, if you will permit, I will ask you to

indulge me, and we will resume in the morning. We will
resume at 9 o ’clock in the morning.

Court was recessed at 4 :35 p. m., May 13, 1947, until 9
o ’clock a. m., May 14, 1947.

[fol. 208] Morning Session. May 14, 1947. 9 :00 A. M.

Charles T. McCormick, having resumed the witness stand,
testified further as follows:

Recross-examination. (Continued).
Questions by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Dean McCormick, I wish to show you two pictures,
purporting to be scenes of the building housing the Law
School of the University of Texas. I wish you would look
at them and see if you can identify them as that building,
as the building housing the school?

A. Yes, these are different views of the same building,
the law school building on the campus of the University of
Texas.

Q. Thank you. We wish to offer those in evidence.
Said instruments were admitted in evidence as Relator’s

Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, respectively.
Mr. Nabrit: That is all.

126

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dean McCormick, do you at this time have any picture

available of the Negro Law School that shows as much of
the housing facilities, as broad a view of the building as
the picture that has just been introduced here showing the
[fol. 209] University of Texas Law School?

A. No, I do not.
Q. The picture that was introduced yesterday, would you

state to the Court whether or not that shows the entire
building from the outside, of the Negro Law School, like
these pictures do of the University of Texas Law School
Building?

A. No, the view of the building in which the law school is
situated is incomplete.

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, yesterday counsel for relator
asked about the credits that would be earned by the relator
in the Negro Law School, and whether or not they would
be recognized upon a transfer to some other school. I will
ask you to—I believe you started to explain your answer
there. I will ask you to explain whether or not the credits
earned in the Negro Law School in the two years preceding-
recognition by the American Bar Association, if they would
then be subject to transfer to a school recognized by the
Association of American Law Schools ?

A. Yes, that is provided in the last clause of the rule
which appears in the last two lines on page 261, and the
top of page 262.

Q. Will you read that for the information of the Court?
It has been introduced in evidence here.

A. (Reading)
“ Provided, however, that credit may be given for

work taken in another American law school within the
[fol. 210] two year period immediately preceding its
admission to this Association.”

Q. Now, yesterday in showing wherein the Negro Law
School had already met all of the requirements except the
full-time professors and the two years’ time, on the library
requirement, I believe you testified that you had or
dered the necessary number of books to meet the library re

quirement of the Association of American Law Schools, is
that correct?

A. Well, I had given directions for their ordering. I
didn’t myself order them.

Q. What about the feature of a full-time librarian. Do
you have any arrangements or any plan for the appointment
of a full-time librarian at any date in the future?

A. Well------
Mr. Durham: We object to that, Your Honor. It is too

speculative, about any date in the future. It wouldn’t
have any probative force on any issues.

The Court: I believe I will let him answer it, Counselor,
for the present. It may not be material. I will let him
answer at this time.

Mr. Durham: Note our exception, if Your Honor please.
A. We have the funds available, and have been instructed

to secure a full-time librarian, and the necessary additional
full-time faculty at such time as the student demand makes
[fol. 211] the need for their services apparent, and at such
time as the librarian and faculty of the highest caliber,
which is what we need, can be secured. That is always a
matter of search and negotiation.

Q. I will ask you, have you examined the second and
third floors of the building, the Negro Law School Building?

A. Well, I went over yesterday evening after court and
tried to get in, but I was unable to do so because the build
ing, the tenants of the two upper floors had left, and those
floors were locked.

Q. I will ask you if those floors contain the same floor
space, at least as much floor space, as the first floor that
you now have rented? I am talking now about the remainder
of the building, the second and third floors that Mr. Wood
ward, the Chairman of the Board, testified he had made ar
rangements, or had refusal on, for the Negro Law School.
I will ask you if those floors each contain at least the same
amount of space, if they would furnish suitable space for
your permanent library of ten thousand volumes.

Mr. Nabrit: We object your Honor.
Mr. Durham: We object to that because the witness has

testified he hasn’t seen it.
The Court: I hardly see how he could testify to the space,

not having examined it.

127

128

Mr. Daniel: I based it on if it bad tbe same floor space,
[fol. 212] tbe same space as tbe first floor.

Tbe Court: Tliat is an assumption that I expect we bad
better have verified.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I will ask you, Dean McCormick, if you will look it over

during tbe noon hour so that we can talk with you about it.
A. Yes.
Q. That is all.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, you stated, I believe, that tbe law

school was open on March 10th?
A. That is correct.
Q. And I presume that according to your annoucement

the facilities and personnel necessary were available; is
that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. You stated just a moment ago that you would get a

librarian when a demand was made?
A. No.
Q. I would like to ask you------
A. I didn’t—I don’t believe that I said that.
Q. You didn’t say that?
A. I said that we had instructions to get one as soon as

the student demand became apparent and we were able to
[fol. 213] secure one of the high quality that we would in
sist on.

Q. Now, Dean McCormick, on March 10th did you have a
librarian for the Negro Law School?

A. Well, we didn’t have a separate librarian, but Miss
Hargrave, the Librarian of the University of Texas Law
School, under my instructions, did the work that was needed
to be done by a librarian for a beginning school, in prepar
ing the list of books to be secured, and in preparing the
orders for books, and all of the other work that would be
necessary to be done by a law librarian at that juncture.

Q. Had you on March 10th secured a full-time librarian
for the Negro Law School?

A. No, we had not.

129

Q. Have you today secured, as of this date, secured a full
time librarian for the Negro Law School?

A. No, we have not.
Q. The section of the standards Association of American

Law Schools to which you referred, and from — you read
a moment ago about transfer of credits, the acceptance of
those credits depends itself upon a prior accreditation by
the American Bar Association, does it not?

A. I am not quite certain about that. It—I would think
it may well be that if a school makes its compliance so ap
parent that it is, that the officers of the Association would
predict that it would be admitted, I would be inclined to
[fol. 214] suppose that this rule would permit the credit to
be given before the actual admission into the Association,
but I don’t know of any ruling on that.

Q. No, and you don’t------
A. There is nothing in the wording of the rule to rebut

that conclusion.
Q. Thank you. That is all.
Mr. Daniel: That is all, Dean McCormick.
The Court: All right. You may have your seat.

(Witness excused.)

Miss H e l e n H a r g r a v e , a witness produced by the Be-
spondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn as a
witness, testified as follows :

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. You are Miss Helen Hargrave?
A. Yes.
Q. You are the Librarian at the Law School of the Uni

versity of Texas?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been connected with the library at

the Law School?
A. Since 1929.
Q. Do you have any other library connections other than

[fol. 215] that at the University proper?
9—725

130

A. I am a member of the Association, American Associ
ation of Law Schools—of Law Librarians, and as a member
of that association I am a member of the joint committee
on cooperation between the Association of American Law
Schools and the American Association of Law Librarians.

Q. The—what is the function of that committee ?
A. That committee has as part of its duties the obligation

to make out the requirements for law school libraries and
then to recommend those requirements to the executive
board of the Association of American Law Schools.

Q. What degrees, what college degrees do you have?
A. I have an L. L. B. degree, and I have had a course in

Law Library Administration at the University of Columbia.
Q. I will ask you if you have had any duties assigned, or

any connection with the Negro Law School?
A. Dean McCormick asked me to make out a list of 10,000

volumes that would make an adequate library for that law
school.

Q. And you—did you prepare that list?
A. Yes, I prepared the list.
Q. Was your list prepared upon the basis of the require

ments of the Association of American Law Schools?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Do you have a copy of that list with you?
A. Yes, I do.

[fol. 216] Mr. Littleton: We would like to introduce this.
Mr. Durham: We object to the introduction of it as self

serving. It serves no purpose. Your Honor, we go right
back to our exception. We haven’t been apprised of it.

Mr. Littleton: She has been qualified as an expert, Your
Honor, has prepared the list on the basis of the require
ments, and is a member of the committee that sets those
requirements.

The Court: I believe I will give you your bill.
Mr. Durham: Note our exception.

(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond
ents’ Exhibit No. 8.)

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Have you ever had any other duties assigned to you in

connection with this school, or any other instructions?
A. Yes, I made out the list from the original list that was

131

set, containing the books to be ordered, and that list was
sent to Mr. Simmons, the Comptroller of the University.

Q. You prepared another list in addition to this one I
A. Yes.
Q. What was the difference between the two lists?
A. We eliminated all gifts and any duplicates that had

gotten into the first list.
Q. And you say that list was sent to Mr. Simmons, the

Comptroller of the University?
[fol. 217] A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a copy of that list with you?
A. Yes.
Mr. Littleton: I would like to introduce that as the list

that she prepared.
The Court: What is the difference between them ?
Mr. Durham: We want to make this additional objection.

We object to this as a copy. It isn’t the original. Second,
it is self-serving.

Mr. Littleton: She has testified, Your Honor, that this is
the list prepared for the purpose of requisitioning the books.

The Court: Of course, the very requisition itself, or the
one attached to it would be the best evidence.

Mr. Littleton: The requisition will be introduced later.
The Court: I believe we had better wait until that is done.
Mr. Durham: We object to the duplication.
Mr. Littleton: We can introduce it later. That will be all

right.
Q. Miss Hargrave, have you had any other duties in con

nection with the Negro Law School assigned to you?
A. I selected some books that are customarily used by the

first—the students in the first year class, and some other
[fol. 218] books that I thought might be of some use, and
sent them to the Negro Law School.

Q. Have you made any comparison, or have you investi
gated the make-up of the State, or Supreme Court Library ?

A. Yes, I have. The Supreme Court Library has, in ac
cordance with the requirements laid down by the Association
of American Law Schools, with few exceptions, all books
that meet those requirements.

Q. What exceptions did you find? What difference did
you find in comparison of the two libraries?

A. The State Library is not as—doesn’t have as many
law text books as the law library at the University. It does

132

not have as many legal periodicals, and the English Law
Reports go only to 1932. In those respects it is not as strong
—it does not—of course, you can’t say it doesn’t comply,
but in text it is not as strong, and in the latter two it does
not entirely comply with the requirements.

Q. Is that the only phase in which the Supreme Court
Library of the State Library fails to meet the standards of
the Association of American Law Schools ?

A. As for as I know, those are the only things that------
Q. You have said that it was short on periodicals. Did

you find periodicals in the Supreme Court Library or in the
State Library?

A. Yes, there are legal periodicals in that library, but the
[fol. 219] requirements of the Association of American Law
Schools is for ten sets of legal periodicals with current num
bers. I found only half of that many that were kept with
current numbers.

Q. You found five sets?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall what periodicals those were?
A. Yes, the American Bar Association Journal, the Har

vard Law Review, Columbia Law Review, the Texas Law
Review, and a long run from Volume 21 on of Yale Law
Review, and in the—that is accepted by the Association as
a long run in current numbers, and the early numbers are
impossible to secure. That is considered a complete law
review.

Q. Did you find anything in the Supreme Court or the
State Library which you do not have in the Texas Univer
sity Law Library?

A. Yes, sir; there are some things in that library that we
do not have. That is, things in which they are very much
stronger than the Law School library.

Q. Can you give us some example of what you found there
that they have?

A. Well, the State Law Library is a depository, Govern
ment Depository, and, therefore, they automatically receive
the reports of all of the administrative bodies of the United
States Government, and also, all—and also receive the other
[fol. 220] publications that are sent to the superintendents
of documents, to the depository library. It is the strongest
library in the south on State Session Laws. It has a great
many books in other fields that we have very, very few of,
and that is the reports of administrative bodies of the State

133

of Texas. As, for instance, the Attorney General’s opin
ions, and Tax Board opinions of other states, and some of
the states have Workmen’s Compensation Boards, or their
equivalent, and they have those reports, and others of that
type.

Q. Now, in the list that you made up pursuant to Dean
McCormick’s instructions as to the requirements for a requi
sition of the books needed for the new Negro Law School,
did you include the text books and periodicals that are
needed to meet the requirements of the Association of
American Law Schools?

Mr. Durham: We object to that, Your Honor. The report
itself would be the best evidence of what is included.

The Court: I think that would be true.
Mr. Littleton: All right. We will fix it later then.
Q. How many—I will put it this way, Miss Hargrave.

Excluding the duplicate sets of books in the Library of the
Law School of the University of Texas, how many volumes,
approximately, do you have in that library?

A. Approximately between thirty and thirty-five thou
sand volumes.

Q. All told, you have 65,000?
[fol. 221] A. Approximately 65,000.

Q. How many volumes did you find in the State and
Supreme Court Library?

A. With my inspection and the information that I re
ceived, there was approximately 42,000.

Q. In making your comparison of the Library of the Law
School of the University of Texas, and the State Library
down at the Supreme Court, did you make any observations
as to the space, between the two libraries, the floor space?

A. The library at the Law School at the University of
Texas has a larger floor space, I believe. Yes, a larger floor
space than the one at the capitol.

Q. Are the facilities at the State Library equal to the
facilities offered at the Library at the University of Texas,
that is, from the standpoint of desks and room to study?

A. We have more tables and chairs at the Law Library
at the University. We have a great many more people using
them.

Q. You have a great many more people using them at the
University then from the standpoint------

134

A. From what I have observed at the State Library, the
times I have been there.

Q. Now, as a member of the Library Committee of the
American Association of Law Schools, that makes up the
requirements, in your opinion, would you say that the
library, the State and Supreme Court Library is substan-
[fol. 222] tially equivalent to the Law Library at the Uni
versity of Texas ?

A. Speaking of the two in just that way, they are sub
stantially equivalent. Now, if it is spoken of the two as
meeting the requirements of the Association of American
Law Schools for the students, the State Law Library is,
as I pointed out earlier, it does not have as many texts
and it does not have as many legal periodicals, and the Eng
lish Reports end in 1932.

Q. You have pointed out certain things that the State and
Supreme Court Library did have that the Law Library at
the University did not have; is that right?

A. Yes.
Q. And on a substantial basis, with these differences that

we have mentioned, the library as a whole is substantially
equal to that at the University of Texas?

Mr. Durham: We object to that as leading and suggestive.
The Court: It is quite leading.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. In your opinion, Miss Hargrave, for law school pur

poses, leaving out—having in mind the differences that we
have mentioned, are the two libraries substantially equal?

A. In my opinion, they are substantially equal, with the
differences that I have twice pointed out.

Q. Miss Hargrave, in ordering the books for the perma-
[fol. 223] nent library for the Negro Law School, did you
order enough of the periodicals, legal periodicals, to meet
the requirements of the Association of American Law
Schools?

Mr. Durham: We object to that, first, as an opinion and
conclusion of the witness as to whether or not it was enough.
We submit the further objection that there was a list filed
in writing with the Comptroller.

The Court: The list would be the best evidence.

135

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I will ask you to refer to the list

you made up of the books------
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, I want to ask one question for

the purpose of an objection.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Durham: Miss Hargrave, is that the original you

filed with the Comptroller, the one that Mr. Littleton has?
A. The reports that were filed with the Comptroller were

all mimeographed.
Mr. Durham: Thank you. We object to it.
The Court: That would, of course, be the list that we

should have.
A. The mimeographed list?
The Court: Yes.
A. That is the one that was------
Mr. Littleton: Your Honor, we were putting in the two

lists. You ruled out the list that she filed with the Comp-
[fol. 224] troller.

The Court: I simply said the one you actually filed was
the one that was admissible. We ruled on a copy of some
thing.

Mr. Littleton: This list that she has prepared showing the
requirements of the Association of American Law Schools
is the one that she showed the overall picture of the library,
and we have accounted for the difference in the two lists
by the fact that she has some gifts available.

The Court: The only objection is that you are not offering
the one she submitted. I think that is correct, the one that
the Comptroller has.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Is this list that you handed me here, Miss Hargrave,

the list that you presented to the Comptroller of the Uni
versity of Texas for the purchase of the books being ordered
for the Negro Law School?

A. This list was sent to the Comptroller, and a list with
out the price was sent to the Comptroller—a duplicate list
run off on the same stencils, but with the price off, was also
sent to the Comptroller.

136

Q. But this list was the one that you prepared for the
purpose of making the order?

A. That was originally sent to Mr. Simmons to make the
order.

Q. And the difference between the third list you mentioned
is the fact that it doesn’t have the price or the estimated
[fol. 225] price as listed there?

A. The estimated price.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we are entitled to our objec

tion. They say they bought ten thousand dollars worth.
Now they say they have got three different lists.

The Court: I think the list actually submitted to the Comp
troller is the one we should go on.

Mr. Durham: That is our contention.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Did you say that list was actually submitted to the

Comptroller?
A. Yes.
Mr. Littleton: I might state, Your Honor, that later on it

will be shown that this is the list that went with the requisi
tion all the way through.

The Court: I think we had better wait and get that. We
had better offer the one that is admissible.

Mr. Littleton: She testified this is the one that was pre
pared for the purpose of the requisition.

The Court: With certain changes.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, why was the third list prepared that

you mentioned?
A. The third list was prepared to send to dealers, with

out the price being put on, the estimated prices.
Q. Is the only difference—what is the difference between

this list and the third list you mentioned?
[fol. 226] Mr. Durham: We object to that. It is immaterial
what the difference was.

The Court: I think that the list that was actually ordered
was the one we should inquire about.

Mr. Littleton: I am afraid I don’t—-—
The Court: A list was sent to the Comptroller.
Mr. Littleton: This is it.

The Court: Apparently it is isn’t, because you have it.
That, at best, is a copy of it, is it not?

Mr. Littleton: No, sir; this is not a copy.
The Court: That is the one ?

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, did you testify a while ago that all of

the lists that you made up for the purpose of making a requi
sition were mimeographed lists ?

A. They were.
Q. And you sent a mimeographed copy to the Comp

troller?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is a mimeographed copy?
The Court: Is that the one you sent to the Comptroller?

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Is this the list that you sent to the Comptroller?
A. Yes, I sent about 30 of them, and that is one of the

ones that I sent.
Q. Miss Hargrave, this morning when you were in the

court room, where did you get this list?
[fol. 227] A. I had it.

Q. You had this list------
A. No, you gave it to me. After you gave it to me, I had

it.
Mr. Littleton: Later on, Your Honor, I will bring out

the fact that I secured this from the Comptroller, and we
will qualify it right on from there. It is a minor differ
ence? Do you still object?

Mr. Durham: We still object.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. One more question, Miss Hargrave. On the two lists

that—on the second list that you prepared for the purpose
of making the requisition, how many books------

Mr. Durham: Just a minute, Mr. Littleton, please. Your
Honor, we object. The Coiirt has sustained that.

The Court: Yes. I think we should offer the list.
Mr. Durham: The list itself is the best evidence of what

it contains.

137

138

The Court: I think that is right.
Mr. Littleton: All right. Pass the witness.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Miss Hargrave, will you give to the Court the essen

tial difference between a teaching law school library and the
type of library that we usually find in State Capitols and
court buildings !

A. In a teaching law school library, I think the principal
[fol. 228] difference, and I think, probably in addition to
what is found in the court library is a larger selection of text
books and more legal periodicals.

Q. Is it not also true that in a teaching law school library
emphasis is made on the exclusive use of that library by
students and faculty as contrasted to a public library!

A. Well, we do not.
Q. Is your—are the majority of the users of your library

law school students and faculty, or other people ?
A. The majority are law school students.
Q. And faculty!
A. Yes.
Q. And people from other—doing graduate work in the

University, do they use it at times!
A. Yes.
Q. Aren’t the other people that use it the exception

rather than the rule !
A. We have lawyers, as what I might term, fairly frequent

visitors. I don’t think that we would have more than one
or two a day, sometimes not that.

Q. They are usually graduates, aren’t they, of the law
school!

A. Not always.
Q. Not always!
A. No, sir.
Q. They are people who come to you from Austin! The

[fol. 229] University Law School is in Austin!
A. Yes.
Q. It is the same city where the Capitol Library is, is it

not!
A. Yes.

139

Q. Now and then you have visitors who come in for the
purpose of looking up law books?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you have sight-seers walking around?
A. Occasionally people come in to look at the class pic

tures.
Q. Occasionally?
A. Yes, but it isn’t a regular thing.
Q. And you do insist that order is kept in that library;

it is your duty, is it not?
A. Yes, we have order in the library.
Q. And that it is quiet, is that not correct?
A. Well, as far as we can.
Q. I am trying to get at what you try to do. You try to

make it as conducive to study and concentration as possi
ble, do you not?

A. As far as possible, considering the great number of
students that we have.

Q. But you do try to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. The American Association of Law Librarians is re

stricted, is it not, to law librarians in accredited law schools;
is that--------- '
[fol. 230] A. Oh, no.

Q. Do you have any law librarians who are not in ac
credited schools?

A. Well, I take that back. I am not sure about that.
I know we have librarians other than in law schools who are
members, and there are non-librarians who are members.

Q. And it is the job of your Association to raise the stand
ard of law librarians, or the law libraries?

A. The Association has done some work in both lines.
Q. And Miss Hargrave, you have assistants at the Uni

versity of Texas?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Are they qualified law librarians ?
A. One of them is, and the other one, yes, I think would

meet the standards.
Q. You have two, and what are the duties of your two

assistants ? What are the duties of yourself and your assist
ants in connection with the Law Library at the University
of Texas? What duties do you perform? Specifically, I
will ask it this way; is a part of your duty the duty of help
ing the students while they are in the library?

140

A. Yes, part of the duty is to help the students. We or
der the books. We see that the work is done to get the
books on the shelves, and we see that, as far as possible, the
students get the material that they need.
[fol. 231] Q. And when students are in difficulty as to
where to find a particular point they need for their class
room work, is it not true that either you or your assistants
will give them aid in that task?

A. Yes, we try to locate what they need.
Q. And the three of you are trained in just that job, are

you not?
A. No, I wouldn’t say that. One of the assistants is a

graduate of the law school, and so she knows the work.
The other assistant is not a law—did not graduate from
law school, but she has been working in the library for a
few years, and can do that work to some extent.

Q. I guess you know more about yourself. As a matter
of fact, you teach Legal Bibliography, don’t you?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. So you are in a perfect position to assist any student

in how to find the law in books ?
A. I can help them to find the law.
Q. And you do that, do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as a librarian of the school over here on 13th

Street, you made provision to be there to help the students
to find cases when they wanted to find them?

A. My instructions about that school were to gather to
gether and send out the materials.
[fol. 232] Q. Were you instructed to do anything else
concerning that school?

A. No.
Q. As to this State Library here in the State Capitol, is

it not true that that library is available to the students
at the University of Texas Law School?

A. I believe it is.
Q. For example, have you had any occasion to send them

there to find these administrative reports of the U. S.
Government that you do not have? Have you ever had
occasion to do that, if you remember?

A. I can not recall at this time.

141

Q. Is it not true that many of the books necessary to
comply with the standards of the Association of American
Law Schools are now out of print?

A. Oh, I wouldn’t say many, no.
Q. Aren’t there—aren’t most of the top-flight—the law

review early numbers now out of print?
A. The early number- of the Yale are out of print.
Q. Aren’t the early numbers of Harvard also out of

print ?
A. No, because complete sets of Harvard can be bought

from the very beginning.
Q. From the plates. They have the plates still?
A. You can buy them from Harvard University Law

Library Association, I believe it is called.
[fol. 233] Q. And aren’t some of the English Reports un
available ?

A. I don’t know about unavailable. Some of them are out
of print, as you call it, but I don’t think they are unavail
able.

Q. As a matter of fact, Miss Hargrave,------
A. Let me explain that.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Merely to say that a book is out of print in no wise

means it is unavailable.
Q. I was ready to get to that. Is it not true that within

your Association of Law Librarians that you are—even
the finest library in the country—they are constantly writ
ing to each other trying to get books that they don’t have,
and they are unavailable any place else; isn’t that a con-
stant procedure?

A. If the libraries can locate duplicate volumes in some
other library for which they can make an adequate ex
change, that is sometimes done.

Q. Sometimes done. Now, taking the Law Library at
the University of Texas as it now exists, with all of its books,
can it be duplicated today?

A. As far as I can recall now, we have nothing in that
library that can’t be duplicated today.

Q. Nothing at all?
A. So far as I can recall now.

[fol. 234] Q. For example, bearing in mind the recent diffi
culties we have had with the war and so forth, about how

142

long would it take you to get your English Reports, as of
today?

A. I don’t know. It would take a little while until a set
came on the market.

Q. Quite a while, could be quite a while?
A. It is unlikely that it would be quite a while, I think,

because there are a good many sets in this country, I am
sure. So,—even a large set of books like that comes on the
market with more or less reasonable frequency.

Q. Well, about how long would it take you to set up a
library to equal the one you have at the University of
Texas?

A. You mean, if I had enough money?
Q. If you had enough money?
A. Uh------
Q. Just a minute. That is all we are asking.
A. I think I could do it in less than a year.
Q. Less than a year. Now, we get to the other point

which you anticipated, approximately how much?
A. How much------
Q. Approximately how much money?
A. Oh, I don’t know.
Q. Could you do it for a hundred thousand dollars?
A. It would take me a little while to figure on that. I

wouldn’t like to give an estimate.
[fol. 235] Q. With 65,000 law hooks of any description,
it would cost more than a hundred thousand dollars,
wouldn’t it?

A. If you didn’t—many of those books in that library we
have had as gifts.

Q. We are assuming that we are going to get no gifts,
without the gifts, to purchase the library that you have at
the University of Texas, of 65,000 volumes of law books, I
will ask you this; offhand, there are a few law books that are
two and a half, but most of them are around five and six,
just in range?

A. That is right.
Q. So that 65,000 books would cost more than------
A. I was mistaken about that. They don’t average five

dollars.
Q. About what do they average?
A. They average, I would say, about four dollars.
Q. About four. So that if we use that round figure,

143

65,000 at four, we would go way over a hundred thousand,
wouldn’t we? Isn’t that true, isn’t that true, Miss Har
grave?

A. If all of those books were acquired brand new, which
would make the newly acquired library—we don’t have all
of those books new. We never did have all of them new.

Q. I understand that. Where else in this section of the
country do we find microfilm reports of the records and
briefs in the United States Supreme Court other than at the
University of Texas Law School?
[fol. 236] A. I don’t know what other law libraries in this
section of the country have those.

Q. There are none in the State Capitol Library, are
there ?

A. Not that I know of.
Q. Now, as to these administrative reports of the United

States Government and other publications of the United
States Government and the State of Texas, the Session
Laws of the several states, is it not true that all State Capi
tol Libraries usually have those?

A. I would think so. I don’t know. That is only an
opinion.

Q. Do you need those to teach law?
A. We have a good many of them that make up our

library.
Q. You have some, too?
A. Yes.
Q. Those that you don’t have, do you need?
A. If we can buy them, we will add them to our present

number.
Q. And in the meantime, if you need them, they are

available in the State Capitol Library, is that correct?
A. Yes, they are down here in this library.
Q. And are they not just as available to the students

at the University of Texas Law School as they would be to
the students at the proposed Negro Law School on 13tli
Street.

A. So far as I know, but I am not------
Q. That is all you can testify. So, that in comparing the

two, as a matter of fact, isn’t it true that it isn’t fair to use
[fol. 237] those books that are available to both groups,
isn’t that true?

144

Mr. Daniel: Yonr Honor, that calls for a conclusion of
the witness on what is fair.

The Court: I think so.
Mr. Marshall: I withdraw it, sir.
Q. In your estimate of 42,000 volumes at the State Li

brary, it is based on the estimate of the librarian there;
you said you obtained it on information?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not that 42,000 volumes in

cluded these Government reports and administrative board
reports and session laws?

A. No, those were not included, I believe. I think they are
in addition.

Q. But you are not sure, are you?
A. No, but that is my belief, that they are in addition.
Q. Now, with your testimony that in your library you

have between thirty and thirty-five thousand volumes,
without duplicates, is it not true that in order to have a
library to equal that, you would have to have at least
30,000 volumes of the same caliber?

A. It seems to me that in judging the substantial equal
ity of any library, that you can have a considerable differ
ence—I know you can have a considerable difference in the
[fol. 238] various types of books, so long as they comply
with the standards of the Association of American Law
Schools.

Q. Well, Miss Hargrave, first; may I ask you—those
standards are minimum standards, are they not?

A. That is true.
Q. If we forget the standards, then what is used as the

basis of comparing equality of law libraries, if we remove
the standards of the Association of American Law Schools?

A. I think that it is having available the books that are
generally used by anyone connected with the law.

Q. And do you mean by that both faculty and students?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the poundage, weight, that is required

for the floor of a law school library?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Have you seen this building over here on 13th Street

where the law school is to be?
A. I have not been in it, but I have seen the building.

Q. Would you venture to say that second floor could
hold 10,000 volumes of law books?

A. I don’t know anything about that.
Q. The last two questions, if I understand you—under

stood your direct examination, there is no question that as
to legal periodicals and English Law Reports-------

A. From 1932 on------
[fol. 239] Q. I was getting your conclusion. Did you not
say as to those two items the State Library did not meet
the requirements of the Association of American Law
Schools? No question about those two?

A. That is true.
Q. And as to textbooks, to your mind, they needed a few,

but you wouldn’t pass on that, as such?
A. No, I would have to compare------
Q. So, now, I ask you as of March 10th of this year, and

as of the present time, with all of the law books available for
the 13th Street school for Negroes in that building, and in
the State Capitol Building, all of those books, is it not
true that with all of that we do not comply with the mini
mum standards of the Association of American Law Schools;
is that correct?

A. I f you assume that that is all the books that there are
available,------

Q. I am not—I am merely assuming everything,------
A. — for that school.
Q. Miss Hargrave, I am only assuming what is in the

question. I will get to the next one. My question is, limit
ing your testimony, and limiting your answer to this ques
tion as of March 10th and as of today, is it not true that if
you use all of the books in the 13th Street school for
Negroes, plus all of the books in the State Library in the
[fol. 240] State Capitol, that those two groups of books,
taken all together, do not meet the standards of the Asso
ciation of American Law Schools, is that correct?

A. That is true.
Q. Now, I understand that under the resolution books

in your library are to be made available to these students’
use, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q. Now, what I want to know is this. Have you done

any accrediting for your Association of Law Librarians?
10—725

145

146

A. No, I have not.
Q. Do you know of any accrediting agency, recognized

in the legal field, that uses as the basis for accrediting one
school, the law library of another school! Have you ever
heard of that!

A. As far as I can remember, that has never come to my
attention.

Q. Well, isn’t it true that in evaluating law libraries
and law schools, you evaluate the law library that is in that
school; isn’t that correct!

A. Some law school libraries—I would think in general
that that is the method that is used.

Q. That is all. Thank you, Miss Hargrave.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, the books that you sent to the Negro

[fol. 241] Law School, what kind of books were they!
A. They were, in the main, books that customarily are

used by students in the taking of the first year courses in
law.

Q. Did they include the textbooks ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they supply the deficiency in textbooks that you

have stated existed in the State or Supreme Court Library!
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Do the practicing lawyers of Austin frequently use

the library of the University of Texas!
A. Yes, quite a number.
Q. On your trips, on your visits to the State or Supreme

Court Library, what conditions have you observed there as
to there being a suitable condition for study, the quiet in the
place, and the order of its operation!

A. The times that I have been down there, it has seemed
to me that there was no more confusion and, in most in
stances, less confusion, than in the Law Library at the Uni
versity of Texas, because of the large number of persons
using it.

Q. Do you understand that a librarian for a law library
is required by the standards of the Association of Ameri
can Law Schools to have a law degree!

A. That is not necessary.

147

Q. In your helping the students at the library, does that
help and assistance include help and assistance in briefing
[fol. 242] the law, or just finding the books?

A. We just find the books and get them for them. If a
student has difficulty in determining what book it might
be well to use, we occasionally lend a helping hand.

Q. Are you, yourself, constantly present in the library,
and available to the students?

A. Not all of the time. I have my teaching duties, and
so there are times when I am not available.

Q. Do you have administrative duties ?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you understand that the books included in the list

which you prepared, those books included on that list which
are out of print—I will withdraw it. Do you understand
that the books required to meet the standards of the Associa
tion of American Law Schools which are out of print are
available from dealers and publishers ?

A. That is right, yes, they are.
Q. We have mentioned that the Supreme Court Library

did not include the English Reports since 1932. Do the law
students or do first year law students make any use of those
reports ?

A. No, they do not, as far as I know.
Q. Have you had any instructions as to supplying any

other books for the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, I have. The Law Library at the University of

Texas has more than 500, between 500 and 600 surplus
[fol. 243] books in good condition that meet the require
ments of the Association of American Law Schools that are
available for transfer to the new law librai’y, and there have
been offered to this school through me, three gifts of be
tween 900 and 950 books.

Q. Are the English Reports since 1932 available to the
Negro Law School from the University Law School Library?

A. At any time.
Q. In your library approximately how many students

does your library of 65,000 books accom-odate?
A. At the present about 850 students.
Q. How many books would you estimate would be re

quired to accom-odate 15 students, excluding the duplica
tions ?

A. I don’t see why, excluding duplications, if the books
are well selected for the purpose, that it should take many

148

more than the minimum requirements set down by the As
sociation of American Law Schools.

Q. You have testified that of this 65,000 law books that
approximately 30,000 of them are duplications'?

A. Yes.
Q. In regard to the microfilm reports you say you have

in your library, do you have a ‘ Header” or projector for
the use of those reports there?

A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know whether the State Library has a micro

film projector?
[fol. 244] A. I have been told that it has.

Mr. Durham: We object to that, Your Honor, and ask
that it be excluded.

The Court: Only what she knows of her own knowledge.
Mr. Littleton. I think that is all.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. But is it not true, in the bulletin put out by the Law

School you mention the fact that the microfilms are avail
able?

A. Yes, they are available to anyone, but we do not have
a reader.

Q. Now, Miss Hargrave, you testified that you—first of
all, let me ask you this. Why do you have duplicate vol
umes? Is it not because of the large number of students;
isn’t that the reason?

A. Yes, we use duplicates to take care of the students.
Q. Now, you testified that with the exception of dupli

cates, you would need only approximately 10,000 books to
teach 15 students; is that correct?

A. I said well selected books for the purpose.
Q. Then may I ask, you as Librarian of the University of

Texas, why is it, with your duty to economize under Texas
laws, that with the exception of and excluding the duplicates
you have between thirty and thirty-five thousand volumes at
the University of Texas Law School?
[fol. 245] A. We have 850 students.

Q. As I understood you to say that the duplicates were
for the purpose of taking care of additional students; isn’t
that correct?

149

A. We have some duplicates, many duplicates to take
care of our additional students.

Q. As a matter of fact, Miss Hargrave, isn’t it true that—
excuse me, did you want to say something else?

A. No.
Q. Isn’t it true that excluding the question of duplicates

that it would take as many law books in a law library to
service one student as it would to service one hundred;
isn’t that true, excluding duplicates?

A. I do not think so. That is my opinion. Your range
of interest might------

Q. For example, you testified that you do not use the Eng
lish Reports in the first year?

A. No.
Q. Didn’t you testify------
A. That wasn’t the answer.
Q. What was it, Miss Hargrave?
A. I said that it was very infrequent that first year law

students had any use of the English Law Reports from
1932 to date.

Q. Oh, from 1932 to date?
[fol. 246] A. Yes.

Q. Aren’t they included in the Legal Bibliography course,
for example?

A. As I remember the questions, on that Legal Bibliog
raphy course, I don’t think that any books in the Eng
lish Lhw Reports from 1932 to date were necessary to
answer those questions. That is a little time back that I am
thinking over, but as I remember------

Q. I will ask you this question. In the course on Con
tracts, and the course on Torts, aren’t there frequent
references in footnotes to British Reports and Canadian
Reports, frequent?

A. As I remember, those footnotes,—there are references
to English Reports.

Q. Isn’t it true that they also have references to legal
periodicals ?

A. Yes, they have references to legal periodicals.
Q. So that in the first year you need both English Reports

and Legal periodicals, don’t you?
A. I think it might be well to explain------
Q. Go ahead.
A. — that at our law school it is a very rare case when a

first year student is ever—is allowed to read an assigned

150

article in a bound volume of the legal periodicals. We
don’t have a sufficient number of those legal periodicals
[fol. 247] and if an article is assigned the professor notifies
me, permission is gotten from the publisher of the law
review, and the article is mimeographed in anywhere from
25 to 50 copies in order to make them readily available to
the students.

The same process is followed in almost every course in
the second year. We don’t have quite as many students in
that year, and at times we buy the unbound issues of the
periodical containing the article so that we will have copies,
but we don’t think that 350 or 400 students could use one
bound periodical.

Q. One more question, Miss Hargrave. In your associa
tion with other law school librarians and experience in your
organization, the American Association of Law Librarians,
do you ever in comparing law libraries of one school with
another, as to its worth as a law library, take into con
sideration the number of students the school has ?

A. Have I ever done so.
Q. Have you ever heard that discussed, the number, in

comparing it ?
A. I have been at a good many, and done work in a good

many of these law libraries around the country, and I
think that libraries of recognized law schools, that there
are certain groups that have—there are a good many who
have books that will well take care of the student bodies
[fol. 248] that they have in those schools.

Q. I mean, isn’t it a fact that in considering the value of a
law school library as such in comparison, isn’t it true that
you consider the books that are in the library as to caliber,
time, and being up to date, rather than that we have forty
thousand volumes for four people1? What I mean is this;
isn’t it true that the number of students is no measuring
rod as to the efficiency of a law school library, isn’t that
true ?

A. Well, I think that that is in connection with my earlier
statement that a well selected library is the best criterion.

Q. In other words, the type of books that you have in i t ;
isn’t that correct, and not the number of students?

A. I don’t see——•
Q. Can I get specific? For example, in comparing Har

vard’s library with the library at the Library of Congress,
or Association of the Bar of the City of New York, which

151

are constantly compared as to which one is the best, isn’t
the discussion as to what is in those libraries, and not the
number of people that use them? Isn’t that the criterion
that is used?

A. Yes, as far as I know.
Q. So, that on that basis, if we were to compare the

library at the University of Texas Law School with the
[fob 249] library to be established, including 10,000 volumes,
and forget about the students, isn’t it true that the library
at the University of Texas is a better library than the one to
be established in this law school, isn’t that true?

A. At the present time, considering only the books and
not considering the use to be made of the books in the two
libraries, yes, I think that is true.

Q. Thank you, Miss Hargrave.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I want to read to you a paragraph

from the resolution of the Board of Regents. (Reading)
“ Be it further resolved: That pending receipt and

installation of such library, the Dean of the Law
School of the University of Texas be, and he is hereby,
authorized to supply on a loan basis books from the
Law Library of the University of Texas which may be
needed in the efficient conduct of the School of Law
of the Texas State University for Negroes.”

Do you understand that to include the loan of the micro
film reports to the Negro school?

A. Yes, sir, certainly.
Q. Do you understand it to include all other books that

may be necessary?
A. I understand it to include all books that may be neces-

[fol. 250] sary, or are in any way needed at that school.
Q. You mentioned a moment ago that articles of legal

periodicals which were assigned to the first and second year
students were mimeographed. Have you sent any of those
mimeographed copies to the Negro Law School?

A. Copies of those articles were included in the group of
books that were sent to the Negro Law School.

Q. Now, you have said that the Library of Texas includes
65,000 volumes overall, but that excluding duplicates, it

152

is comprised of approximately thirty to thirty-five thou
sand. What is the reason for the additional 30,000 of the
duplicates? Will you explain that fully, and how it oper
ates?

A. We have two reasons for duplicates. In the text-
hook field we have to have duplicates so that we figure if
20—from 15 to 25 students will have the use of one copy.
In the reports we have duplicate copies so that the reports
will be more available for the large number of persons
using them. We have acquired a considerable number of
duplicates by gift.

Q. Thank you.
The Court: All right. We will recess for a few minutes,

please.
(Witness excused.)
(Court was recessed at 10:45 a. m., May 14, 1947, until

11:05 a. m., May 14, 1947, at which time proceedings were
resumed as follows:)

[fol. 2 5 1 ] H a l l L o g a n , a witness produced by the Re
spondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn as a
witness, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. You are Mr. Hall Logan?
A. That is correct.
Q. You are Chairman of the Board of Control of the

State of Texas?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been with the Board of Control?
A. Since the first of January, 1946.
Q. Have you received any request to purchase any law

books, request from the University of Texas to purchase any
law books for the Negro Law School?

A. Yes, we have. The request No. U N I , dated March 3,
1947.

Q. Do you have a copy of that requisition with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there a list of law books attached? Does it describe

the law hooks that are to be purchased?

153

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Itemize them?
A. Yes, sir, there is a 54—I believe it is 54—page

description, yes.
Q. Mr. Logan, is that the list that you loaned to me—did

[fol. 252] you loan that list to me this morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the list that was attached to the requisition

when you received it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you refer to the list and state whether it includes

a requisition to purchase legal periodicals?
A. Yes, there are periodicals here on page 11.
Q. Will you read from the list the names of the periodi

cals?
A. American Bar Association Journal.
California Law Review.
Columbia Law Review.
Cornell Law Review.
Harvard Law Review.
Illinois Law Review.
Iowa Law Review.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern

University.
Law and Contemporary Problems, Duke University.
Law Library Journal.
Law Library, Indiana University.
Law Quarterly Review, The Carswell Company.
Michigan Law Review.
Minnesota Law Review.
National Bar Journal.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review7.

[fol. 253] Texas Bar Journal.
Texas Law Review.
Virginia Law Review.
Yale Law Journal.
Index to Legal Periodicals.
Jones and Chipman, Index to Legal Periodicals.
Digest of Legal Periodicals.
Commerce Clearing House.

I believe that covers the periodicals, at least the way they
are headed here.

154

Q. Now, for the purpose of help to the Reporter, will you
state what pages of that list those periodicals are on?

A. They are covered on pages 11, 12, 13, inclusive, of the
requisition.

Q. Will you refer again to the list and state whether it
includes requisition to purchase English Reports?

A. Yes, it does. Probably I can find the actual purchase
order quicker.

Q. Let’s stay with the list right now, Mr. Logan.
A. All right, sir. Yes, on page 15, English Legal Material,

from the Carswell Company.
Q. How many total volumes of English material are

requisitioned?
A. 854.
Q. Now, will you refer again to the list and state whether

it showrs a total for the number of—a summary and a total
[fol. 254] for the number of the books on the list?

A. Yes, the total volumes, 8,727, and the price on that------
Q. No, will you refer to the requisition and state what

date you received that at the Board of Control?
A. The requisition was received on March 3, 1947.
Q. Will you state who signed the requisition?
A. It is signed by D. K. Woodward, Jr., Chairman, Board

of Regents, the University of Texas.
Q. I believe—will you identify the requisition as to the

number ?
A. It is UN-1. That is the coding of the Negro University.
Q. Give me the requisition and the list that was attached

to it.
A. All right, sir.
Q. I would like to introduce this.
(Said instruments were admitted in evidence as Re

spondents’ Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10, respectively.)
Q. Mr. Logan, have you done anything to comply with the

requisition made? What have you done to comply with the
requisition, or to purchase the law books requested?

A. Well, upon receiving the requisition, we interviewed
a number of representatives of the law book publishers and
dealers, clarifying the specifications, and talking to them
about the availability of them, and with the University of
Texas. A good many of these are out of print, and after
going through those discussions, on April 7th we issued the

155

[fol. 255] bid forms, as we call them, and asked for bids on
April 7th, 1947, including the specifications essentially as
set out in the duplicate of that.

Q. Do you have a copy of the request for bids and the
specifications that you mentioned?

A. Yes, I have. Here is the specifications in detail, com
prising the 54 pages, and here is the three page rider of
explanation of instructions on the bid, as we issued them
to some 35 prospective bidders.

Q. Will you refer to that request for bids and state what
date it bears?

A. It bears the date of April 7th, for opening, two weeks,
the customary opening period.

Q. What number does it bear?
A. It bears requisition UN-1.
Q. Will you refer to the list which you attached to that

request for bids, and state how it compares to the list that
you received with the requisition ?

A. It is an exact duplicate of the other. The only excep
tion is that when the University gave them to them for the
purpose of their encumbering of funds, they put estimated
prices on there. When we send it to the bidders, we leave
the price off. We don’t want to tell them what to charge.

Q. Will you refer to the list and state how many books
are included on the list which you attached to your request
[fol. 256] for bids?

A. I don’t believe it is totaled, but we could examine it
and compare it to those for items.

Q. It is your understanding that it includes the same
number of books as the list attached to the requisition ?

A. That is right.
Q. Will you give me a copy of the request for bids, the

specifications, and the list attached to it?
A. Yes.
Mr. Littleton: I would like to introduce this.

(Said instruments were admitted in evidence as Re
spondents’ Exhibits Nos. 11 and 12, respectively.)

Mr. Daniel: To save the record, may I ask counsel if they
will agree that it is the same, except for the prices, and not
put it in the record.

156

Mr. Marshall: I think, if Your Honor please, they are
identical, and at some future time we can withdraw one of
them.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Logan, to whom did you send your request for

bids on these law books?
A. There is a list of 35 bidders.
Q. I don’t think it is necessary to— —
A. All of our recognized list that we carry who pay their

fee as standard bidders on all types of books, legal books,
plus some others that we felt could bid, everybody we could
[fol. 257] think of.

Q. Have you received bids on these law books pursuant
to the requests made?

A. Yes, we have received 23 bids from 22 separate bid
ders, one making two bids.

Q. Have you made any awards or placed any purchase
orders on the basis of the bids received?

A. Yes, we have placed the purchase orders on all of the
new books, plus the English volumes. We have not placed
any on second hand to date.

Q. How many volumes, all told, have you placed
orders on?

A. 5,702 volumes have been placed to date.
Q. Will you describe the English volumes that you men

tioned that you have ordered?
A. These were purchased from the Carswell Company,

English Beports, reprint, volumes 1 to 176, good, second
hand, 176 volumes.

English Table of Cases, 2 volumes, new cloth—wait, that
second item isn’t a part of it. The other part of it is English
and Empire Digests, subject to prior sale, isn’t second hand;
49 volumes. The two total $1,085.00.

Q. On the books that you have ordered, what dates of
delivery were generally specified?

A. Shall I just run through them?
Q. I think—do you have some standard date? You can

[fol. 258] give it to me approximately.
A. 30 to 60 days, another 30 to 60; 30 to 60; 60; 10 days

after receipt of order; 60; 30 to 60; 30 to 60, 30 to 60, 15
days; 30 to 60; 30 to 60; 10 days; 30 to 60; immediate de
livery; immediate delivery.

Q. What are the—do your orders show delivery instruc
tions ?

A. The delivery instructions, books to be shipped to the
Un-versity of Texas Library, Room 11, Main Building,
Austin 12, Texas. They all read the same way.

Q. Mr. Logan, you have stated that you have placed that
order—orders for 5,700 of the books requisitioned. You
have also stated that there were 8,700 books requisitioned.
Can you state why the orders on the remainder of
the books of which you—the remainder of the books on
which you have received bids have not been purchased?

A. The balance of the books, we understand, will all be
second hand, not available as new, because we specified
wherever possible to buy new books, and these other three
thousand, whatever they are, are going to require a con
siderable amount of study in order to determine which is
the best buy from the State’s standpoint. They are—we
anticipate, without any question, they will be released within
two weeks. We cleared these new ones first. The second
hand books are classified as to excellent, whether they are
shelf worn, or whether they are good, with further bindings,
[fol. 259] and we have to analyze each of those conditions
with the price to determine which is the best buy.

Q. You have received bids, however, on all of the books
requisitioned?

A. We have.
Q. Pass the witness.

Mr. Marshall: No questions.
The Court: All right, Mr. Logan. You will be excused.

(Witness excused.)

157

Miss H elen H argrave, having been recalled as a witness,
testified further as follows:

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I show you this purchase requisition,

UN-1, dated March 3, 1947, and I show you the list of books
attached to that requisition and ask you to look over that
list and state whether or not you prepared it?

158

A. This is the list that I prepared.
Q. Will you refer to the list, Miss Hargrave, and state

the total number of volumes included on the list?
A. 8,227.
Q. Miss Hargrave, I show you again the list which you

prepared, which meets the requirements of the Association
[fol. 260] of American Law Schools, and ask you to refer to
the list and state how many volumes are included on that
list?

A. There are 10,008 volumes on that list.
Q. So that between the list that you prepared to meet the

standards of the Association of American Law Schools and
the list that you prepared for the requisition there is a dif
ference of 1,281 books is that correct?

A. That is right.
Q. Will you state why you did not include the 1,281 books

on the list which you prepared for requisition?
A. The reason that I did not include them was because

that number of books had been offered as gifts to the new
law library, or are available for transfer to it, as I qualified
them in earlier testimony, to the new library.

Q. Pass the witness.
Mr. Marshall: No questions.

(Witness excused.)

E. J. M ath ew s , a witness called by the Respondents, hav
ing been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. You are Mr. E. J. Mathews?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 261] Q. You are the Registrar at the University of
Texas?

A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been Registrar?
A. 35 years.
Q. Were you appointed the Registrar of the Negro Law

School?
A. Yes, sir.

159

Q. State the dates that you assigned for registration in
that law school?

A. March 10, 1947. That was the first day, but regis
tration was not to be restricted to that one day.

Q. How long did you keep the law school open for reg
istration, Mr. Mathews ?

A. Well, we announced a week, but in correspondence we
didn’t fix any final day.

Q. Did you in your capacity as Registrar notify the re
lator, Heman Mation Sweatt, of the opening of that law
school and the dates of registration?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you notify him ?
A. By letter, registered mail.
Q. Do you know the date of that letter?
A. I think it was March 2 or 3; it was a week before.
Mr. Littleton: If Your Honor please, we have served the

formal notice for them to produce the original of the letter
in Court.
[fol. 262] The Court: All right.

Mr. Durham: That is it.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Mathews, I show you this letter and ask you

whether it is the letter that you sent, that you wrote to
Heman Marion Sweatt?

A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature?
A. It is.
Mr. Littleton: I want to introduce the letter.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond

ents’ Exhibit No. 13.)
(Mr. Littleton read to the Court Respondents’ Exhibit

No. 13.)

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Mathews have you received any reply from the

relator to that letter?
A. No, sir, none at all.
Q. Has the relator presented himself for registration

since the mailing of that letter?
A. No, sir.

160

Q. How many inquiries—have you received any inquiries
regarding this school since its establishment?

A. Yes; all told, fourteen. Two of the—twelve of the
fourteen came during the first half of March. Two of
them came during April, and so I take it they applied more
particularly to start next fall, some future time, hut there
were twelve, rather, eleven letters, and one inquiry in per-
[fol. 263] son that were made during the first half of March.

Q. Did. all of these inquiries come from prospective stu
dents for the school?

A. Well, I assume they were.
Q. In other words, did the nature of their inquiry indi

cate to you that they were prospective students ?
A. The reading of the letters indicated------
Mr. Durham: Wait, Your Honor.
The Court: Of course, the letters------ -
Mr. Durham: The letters would be the best evidence.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Do you you know whether Henry Doyle inquired con

cerning the opening of the law school, and registration?
A. He presented himself on March 10th at the Negro Law

School. He, with a friend, asked some questions, but he
wasn’t ready to enroll.

Q. Had he talked with you before that time about his reg
istration?

A. I suppose that would be hearsay testimony. He
didn’t talk to me, hut he talked to------

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to it.
The Court: That is right.
A. — the Assistant Registrar.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Durham:
Q. Mr. Mathews, I believe you have stated that the re-

[fol. 264] quirements for admission to the University of
Texas are identical with the requirements for the admis
sion of a student to the Negro Law School?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your letter you referred to the relator’s applica

tion. When did you first see and examine the relator’s

161

application for admission to the University of Texas School
of Law?

A. It was during a period of a conference between some
half dozen negro leaders in Texas, held in the President’s
Office. I believe that was last summer.

Q. The application of the relator was presented to you at
that time as Registrar of the University of Texas for admis
sion to the first year law class of the University of Texas
School of Law. I believe you examined the application
and determined his qualifications for admission!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the same application that you referred to in

paragraph 2 of the letter addressed to the relator on March
3,-1947?

A. Yes.
Q. That was the only application that you had had from

the relator, and he possessed the qualifications necessary
for admission to the law class, first year law class, in the
University of Texas School of Law?

A. The academic qualifications.
[fol. 265] Q. The academic qualifications. Now, I believe
the application on the part of the relator for admission to
the University of Texas School of Law, first year class, was
refused?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why was it refused, Mr. Mathews?
A. Because the Constitution of the State of Texas forbids

us to accept as students members of the Negro race.
Q. He possessed all other qualifications, except he wasn’t

a white student?
A. So far as I know, yes; academic qualifications.
Q. And you refused his application for admission to the

first year law class of the University of Texas Law School
solely on account of race and color?

A. The Constitution of Texas.
Q. I observe, Dr. Mathews, from the letter there that you

have got mimeographed,—typewritten form of letterhead.
Did you have any printed form of letterhead for the Negro
University?

A. Mimeographed.
Q. That is all you had; likewise, for your envelope ?
A. Yes, sir.

11—725

162

Mr. Durham: We want to offer the envelope.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator’s

Exhibit No. 5.)
Mr. Durham: That is all, Your Honor.

[fol. 266] Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Mathews, you stated you received some 14 inquiries

during the first half of March, and April. Did any of those
persons making an inquiry, of those 14 persons, register in
the school?

A. No, sir.
(Witness excused.)

(The Court: I suppose, then, we will recess until two
o ’clock.)

(Court was recessed at 12 o ’clock noon, May 14, 1947,
until 2 o ’clock p. m., May 14, 1947.)

Afternoon Session
May 14, 1947, 2 P. M.

Miss H elen H abgrave, having been recalled as a witness,
testified1 further as follows:

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I want to add one question to the testi

mony that you gave before lunch. You testified that you
had 1,281 books available by gift, and from the Texas Uni
versity Library. You also testified that the list which you
[fol. 267] had made up for requisition from the Board of
Control showed 8,727 books. I ask you whether or not the
8,727 books, plus the 1,281 books, as has been shown by you,
and listed, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the
Association of American Law Schools?

A. Yes.

163

Q. During the lunch recess have you made—did you make
an inspection of the building at the law school, the Negro
Law School?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make that inspection—what was the object

of that inspection?
A. I wanted to look over the arrangements of the rooms,

and to find out about the space so that I could figure how
many books could be accom-odated there, law books could
be accom-odated there.

Q. From your inspection, will you state whether you
found that there was—the building was ample to house a
library of more than 10,000 books ?

A. Yes, it is.
Q. Pass the witness.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Miss Hargrave, it is true, is it not, that you couldn’t

put them in that basement part that is now open for the
law school, could you ?
[fol. 268] A. No.

Q. Did you see the ground floor that you go down five
steps to get to there, that floor?

A. Yes.
Q. You couldn’t put that on that floor, could you?
A. With the other things moved out, there could be put,

as I figure, in those rooms, approximately 7,000 books.
That leaves the stacks with adequate aisle space between.

Q. Would there be any other space left down there after
that ?

A. No, that would take the space on the ground floor
for the books.

Q. Is it possible on the ground floor to have a library and
law school at the same time?

A. Not of the size library that has been ordered and ac
quired for the law school.

Q. What I should have included, Miss Hargrave; is it
possible to have a library sufficient in size to meet the
standards of the Association of American Law Schools
and class rooms and library space and office space; is it
possible to have all of that on that first floor?

164

A. No, it is not.
Q. No way it could be done?
A. No, it would not be possible on the first floor.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. When you made your inspection at lunch, Miss Har-

[fol. 269] grave, you inspected the whole building?
Mr. Durham: We object to that. The evidence shows

the State didn’t have the whole building at that time, and
doesn’t have it now, and that certainly is going outside of
the pleadings, and outside of this case on a speculative
proposition.

Mr. Littleton: The evidence shows that arrangements
have been made for the acquisition of the entire building.

The Court: But as I understand, you allege that you
have sufficient space to---- -

Mr. Littleton: Your Honor, I am showing how much
housing facilities it would take to house the library.

Mr. Durham: We don’t object to him showing how much
it would take to accom-odate this school.

The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. When you made your inspection at noon, Miss Har

grave, did you compute—did you examine the entire three
floors of the building?

A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to it. It is im

material. It isn’t in issue in this case.
The Court: I am going to hear it, but I am bearing in

mind it is just what it might take to put that many books in.
Mr. Durham: If that is the purpose, it is different, Your

[fol. 270] Honor.

By Mr. Littleton:
_ Q. Did you find the three floors of this building substan

tially of the same area?
A. Yes, I did.

165

Q. Would you say that a library of 10,000 volumes suffi
cient to meet the requirements of the Association of Ameri
can Law Schools could be housed in an area of that size?

A. Yes, it could be.
Q. Would that leave an area of that size, and housing a

library of that size, would that leave sufficient space for
class rooms?

A. Yes, it would.
The Court: I am considering it for the purpose stated

only.

By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Did you make any observations as to the structure

of that building?
A. I noticed that it was a brick building.
Q. That is all.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Did you make any test as to whether or not the second

and third floors would hold stacks of law books?
A. I made no tests.
Q. So, you are not in a position to testify, as to whether

or not you could put a library on the second and third
[fol. 271] floors, are you?

A. I presume in a brick building the walls, solid brick,
that the balance of the books could be so arranged around
the walls that with the knowledge that I have about that,
it would take care of those books.

Q. Do I understand your testimony to be that you would
put the books around the walls, and you wouldn’t have
stacks in the middle of the floor?

A. On the ground floor, no. On the ground floor, it would
take the space of the ground floor for stacks, as we usually
find them in libraries, in order to handle the approximately
7,000 books that I figured on.

Q. And where would the reading room be—downstairs?
A. No, you couldn’t have the reading room downstairs.

It would have to be on another floor because the ground
floor would be tilled with stacks of books.

Q. Miss Hargrave, as a matter of fact, are you familiar
with the amount of space in a law school that is needed for

166

class room instruction, Dean’s office, faculty offices? Are
you familiar with that, or just in a general way?

A. Just in a general way. I don’t know much about that.
Q. So that when you testify that that building is adequate

to house all of this, you are testifying just in a general way,
are you not?

A. I don’t see how it could be much otherwise.
[fol. 272] Q. That is all.

Mr. Littleton: That is all.
The Court: All right.
(Witness Excused.)

Charles T. M cCorm ick , having been recalled as a witness,
testified further as follows:

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dean McCormick, during the noon hour, did you in

spect the three floors of the building in which the Negro
Law School is now housed?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. I will ask you to state whether or not in your opinion

the entire building furnishes sufficient space within which
to house the number of class rooms, reading room that
you now have, and a law library of 10,000 volumes?

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we make the same objection.
The Court: It will be given the same consideration as I

stated before.
A. Assuming a small student body for which those facil

ities were furnished------
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we ask that that answer be

stricken as not responsive.
The Court: Yes, it really isn’t.

[fol. 273] By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Limit it strictly to the question of whether or not

it would furnish sufficient room for the same number of
class rooms and reading room you now have, plus space
for 10,000 volumes of books; I will ask you whether or not

167

in your opinion that building would furnish such suitable
space?

A. By class rooms we now have, you mean on the first
floor?

Q. Yes, the same size class rooms?
A. Yes, it would contain all of those facilities.
Q. I will ask you to look at this picture, please. Will

you state to the Court what building that pictures?
A. That appears to be a representation of the building

at 104 East 13th Street.
Q. Is that a picture of the building which we have re

ferred to as the building which now houses the Negro Law
School?

A. Yes, it is.

Mr. Daniel: We would like to offer that.

(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respond
ents’ Exhibit No. 14.)

Q. Dean McCormick, I will ask you to look at the picture
again, and state, if you know, from what place the picture
was taken, looking at the foreground between the place
where the camera was and the building?

A. Evidently taken from the Capitol grounds.
Q. From within the Capitol grounds ?.
A. Yes.

[fol. 274] Q. That is all.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, when you were inspecting the law

school at noon hour, did you go through this entrance as
indicated by the picture?

A. I don’t believe I did. I entered on the second floor
and came down through the stairs.

Q. Do you recognize that as the entrance to the law
school?

A. Well, there seems to be a corner near by. I assume
it is correct. I don’t know that I would recognize it if
you didn’t tell me it was, however.

Q. Can you recognize your sign on the door telling the
prospective students to come to your office?

168

A. The sign is there. I certainly can’t recognize it in this
picture-.

Q. But this appears to you to be a part of the law school?
A. Yes, sir, I judge so.
Mr. Nabrit: We would like to offer this in evidence.
Mr. Daniel: You had better identify what is upside down

and otherwise in that picture.
Mr. Nabrit: That is a problem.

(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator’s
Exhibit No. 6.)

[fob 275] Q. Dean McCormick, did I understand you to
state in reply to the question of the Attorney General that
in your opinion, from your inspection of the building, and
using all three floors, it would adequately house a law school
with the same number of class rooms which you now indi
cate you have on the first floor, and with library facilities
adequate to contain a library with a minimum number of
10,000 volumes?

A. That is right.
Q. Are you an expert on library arrangement?
A. No, I am not.
Q. How did you compute the number of feet of floor space

necessary to house the stacks, and on what basis of compu
tation did you determine the number of stacks necessary to
house 10,000 volumes, in making your estimation?

A. I really didn’t carry it out that far. I just was making
a general inspection, and it seemed to me that the building
was large enough for that purpose. Miss Hargrave, how
ever, did make the detailed estimates of the number of
stacks, and of the space needed, and where the space could
be found to put them.

Q. Are you testifying on the basis of Miss Hargrave’s
estimates, or on the basis of your estimation?

A. Well, I suppose it is really partially both.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I should like to make a motion

to strike out all of the testimony which Dean McCormick
has made with reference to the adequacy of this building
[fol. 276] to house the law library, in that he says it is not
based on his information, and evidently upon that of Miss
Hargrave.

The Court: I believe he said partly, didn’t he?

169

Mr. Nabrit: What part is that?
The Court: I wouldn’t know.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, what part of your estimation is

yours ?
A. Well, I have had some contacts with law school build

ings, so that I have a general notion of the size of building
appropriate for the small law school, and from that back
ground, and from my inspection, and in the course of that
inspection Miss Hargrave and I discussed the particular
parts of the building where books could be so stored, and
she pointed out to me features, and the availability of space
for the books, so that those things are always somewhat
of a composite of fact and background and experience and
inspection, and what people point out to you and tell you.

Q. Suppose we ask you this, Dean McCormick; taking
an average size library stack such as Miss Hargrave indi
cated to you would be used there, how many volumes of law
books would it hold, the average size law library stack?

A. Well, if there is any uniform size for them, I am not
aware of it.

Q. Let’s take any size that you know of, the size that you
[fol. 277] discussed.

A. We didn’t discuss any particular size.
Q. From your background and experience with law

schools, what size, how many volumes do you know will get
on any one stack? Take any stack that you know about from
your experience. How many volumes would get on it ?

A. I think of a stack as a tier of say, from two to perhaps
eight or nine shelves, and I don’t know how many books
would go in a stack. I don’t know of any uniformity as to
number.

Q. Take a stack that extends across the width of that
room, 8 tiers, steel stacks, purchased by the Dean and the
Board of Regents for this Negro Law School, to house these
books. How many volumes would one of those stacks hold?

A. You say, a steel stack?
Q. I assume you are going to use steel. I will just say

stacks. Maybe you are going to use some other kind.
A. Are you assuming a certain length of it? I don’t

know the uniform practice as to length of the shelves.
Q. Looking at the space on the ground floor, you estimate

that it, together with the other space, would hold 10,000 vol-

170

Times. I am asking yon these questions to find out if you
had any part in this estimation, or if it is based on your ex
perience, or of, so far as you- statement is made, it is based
simply upon Miss Hargrave’s testimony, or her experience,
or her information, or is there any knowledge which you
[fol. 278] possess, for example, as to the number of feet of
space required for a student in a library reading room, or if
you know how much floor space is required for an average
table in a law school, how much aisle space is required by a
standard law school librarian, or is your statement, as a
matter of fact, merely a guess?

A. No, I would say it was a general fact from my experi
ence and observation of law schools in general, and my in
spection of this one. Now, Miss Hargrave makes that re
port, and it seems to me that by going over there and looking
at the building and seeing whether that report accords in a
general way with my knowledge and experience, that I
would be able to state that I believe the building would fur
nish those facilities.

Q. What type of building is that, Dean McCormick, con
struction ?

A. Well, it is a three story building, with brick construc
tion on the outside.

Q. Is it solid brick, semi-brick, brick facing?
A. I could not tell you as to that.
Q. Does it have steel beams and girders?
A. I don’t know. I haven’t made that close an examina

tion of it, and I don’t know very much about construction,
any how.

Q. So that you don’t know whether it will house the li
brary or not, because you don’t know whether the walls and
framework will sustain the weight of it? Do you know of
[fol. 279] your own knowledge that it will?

A. No, I don’t.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:

Q. Have you, as Dean of the school, discussed with Miss
Hargrave if you had the whole building where the majority
of the books should be located in the building?

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to their going into
anything Miss Hargrave told him, as hearsay.

171

The Court: Of course, he shouldn’t testify from what she
told him. I think he might, with consultation relate what
conclusion he arrived at.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I didn’t mean to ask you what she told you. Did you

have a consultation with her as to where in that building
would be the proper place to put the bulk of the library
books?

A. Yes.
Q. And from that consultation, what conclusion did you

arrive at as to the floor on which the majority of the books
should be placed?

A. Well, I thought probably the ground floor would be
the most appropriate place.

Q. There isn’t any question about the supports to the
ground floor, is there, Dean McCormick?
[fol. 280] A. Well, I would suppose not.

Q. That is all.
Mr. Nabrit: No questions.
The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Daniel: We would like to call the relator, Heman

Marion Sweatt.

H em an M arion S w eatt, Relator, having been called as a
witness, and having been by the Court first duly sworn, testi
fied as follows:

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Will you state your name, please?
A. Heman Marion Sweatt.
Q. Are you the relator in this case?
A. I am.
Q. Where do you reside?
A. Houston, Texas.
Q. What business are you in?
A. United States mail service, mail carrier.
Q. How long have you been a mail carrier ?

172

A. Eight years.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, would you ask the witness to

[fol. 281] speak out just a little louder?
The Court: Speak out louder.

A. Eight years.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You applied for entrance into the University of Texas

on February 26, 1946, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. I will ask you if it isn’t true that on or about March

20, 1946, you were furnished a copy of an opinion by the
Attorney General of Texas stating that if you desired and
made demand on Prairie View University, that that school
was under mandatory duty to furnish you an equal law
training with the University of Texas Law School?

A. Yes.
Q. You read that opinion, did you?
A. I did.
Q. Did you make demand or give any notice to Prairie

View University, or any of its officers, that you wanted to
attend a law course there?

A. I did not.
Q. Did you ever apply to Prairie View University or

to any official of that school, or of A. & M. College for a
law course?

A. No.
Q. You didn’t, then, follow the Attorney General’s opin

ion as to what was the legal procedure by which you were
[fol. 282] entitled to an equal law course?

A. No.
Q. You were in this court room on December 17, 1946, at

the last hearing of this case, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear the resolution read at that time whereby

the Board of Directors of A. & M. College authorized the
officials of Prairie View to set up a separate law school in
Houston for Negroes?

A. I did.
Q. Then, at that time you knew that such separate law

school was proposed for establishment in Houston, Texas,
didn’t you?

173

A. I did.
Q. Did you read in the newspapers anything about that

law school being set up in Houston?
A. I did.
Q. You did.
A. I did.
Q. You knew, then, that that law school was set up by

Prairie View University in Houston, Texas on February
10, 1946, didn’t you?

A. I knew some rooms were there.
Q. You knew they were where?
A. In Houston.
Q. In Houston?

[fol. 283] A. That is right.
Q. You knew that they called that the Law School of

Prairie View University, didn’t you?
A. I knew that they called it that, yes, sir.
Q. Did you go up there for the purpose of registering?
A. I went up there to see it. I didn’t go to register.
Q. But you knew where the location was, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Before the date of registration, February 10th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew the date of registration was February

10, 1946, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk with any of the men who were employed

to operate the law school?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you check into the qualifications of the lawyer who

had been employed to teach law in that school?
A. Yes.
Q. You checked into his qualifications?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you doing that for the purpose of determining

whether or not you would attend the school?
A. No.
Q. When did you make up your mind that you wouldn’t

[fol. 284] go to that school?
A. After talking with my attorney.
Q. Which of your attorneys?
A. Mr. W. J. Durham.
Q. Did you talk with any other of your attorneys?
A. No, I did not.

174

Q. Did you have Mr. Marshall, attorney for the National
Association for Advancement of Colored People, as one of
your attorneys at that time?

A. December 17th?
Q. Right.
A. I didn’t have—I never have had Mr. Marshall as my

attorney. I have not.
Q. You have not?
A. That is right.
Q. You know Mr. Marshall, sitting right here, do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You know, of course, having sat through the case, he

is participating here in the case and cross examining wit
nesses?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is signing the papers as one of your attorneys of

record?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t you authorize him to do it?
A. I authorized Mr. W. J. Durham to represent me, and

in a conference with him, I left it with him to secure what
[fol. 285] aid he found it necessary to.

Q. You found it agreeable for him to accept the aid of the
attorney for the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People?

A. It is agreeable for him to employ Mr. Marshall.
Q. After talking with your attorney, and before making

an inspection of the facilities, you decided you wouldn’t go
to the school?

A. I decided before talking to them.
Q. After inspecting the school?
A. No, before that.
Q. Did you do that before finding out what kind of

facilities there were, and faculty was going to teach in that
school?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you check into the courses that were going to be

offered in that school?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you register in that Prarie View Law School at

Houston?
A. No, I did not.
Q. About how far is the school from your home in

Houston?

A. I would estimate it as being two and a half or three
miles.

Q. Now, in February of 1947, did you know about a new
law school about to be established here in Austin for
Negroes?

A. Yes.
Q. You read the newspaper accounts of it, didn’t you?
A. Yes.

[fol. 286] Q. You knew Senator Lacy Stewart, who is now
deceased, did you ?

A. I didn’t know him. I knew he was a Senator.
Q. You were acquainted with his Senate Bill 140 pending

in the Legislature during the month of February, or read
of it in the newspapers?

A. I was familiar with the newspaper reports of it.
Q. You knew the bill proposed to set up a State University

•for Negroes, and a separate Law School for that University,
to be conducted in Austin by the University of Texas Board
of Directors, didn’t you?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive this letter from the Registrar of the

Negro Law School that was introduced here this morning?
A. The letter that was shown me, yes, sir; I received it.
Q. That is Respondents’ Exhibit No. 13?
A. Yes.
Q. What date did you receive the letter? It is dated

March 3d?
A. I think I received it on the 4th or 5th, one.
Q. Upon receipt of that letter did you make any reply to

Mr. Mathews, the Registrar?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you go to see Mr. Mathews and talk to him about

what he said in the letter about absolutely equal courses
being offered here in the law school?
[fol. 287] A. I did not.

Q. Did you go and talk to Dean McCormick to see about
what kind of courses would be offered?

A. I did not.
Q. Did you talk to any University of Texas officials to see

if you would actually get equivalent instruction in law in
this separate law school, the same as if you went to the Uni
versity of Texas?

A. I did not.

175

176

Q. Did yon make any investigation of this separate Negro
Law School!

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make an investigation before you made up

your mind you wouldn’t attend it!
A. I imade an investigation immediately after receiving

the letter.
Q. Didn’t you send the letter to Mr. Marshall, the letter

that you saw him take out of his brief case, before we intro
duced it! Didn’t you send that to Mr. Marshall!

A. No, I did not.
Q. Who did you send it to!
A. I took it on the train to Mr. W. J. Durham.
Q. When did you make up your mind not to go to the

school!
A. When Mr. W. J. Durham told me it wouldn’t give me

equal law training as the University.
[fol. 288] Q. Is that the same day you took him the letter!

A. Yes.
Q. How soon did you get on the train after you received

the letter!
A. The next day.
Q. And you went to Dallas to see your attorney, Mr.

Durham!
A. That is right.
Q. After how much consideration of the matter was it

before your attorney told you, advised you not to attend
the school!

A. I stayed in Dallas for a week.
O. How long had you been there before your attorney

told you that!
A. During the time that I was there, we discussed it at

length, while we were there.
Q. The first day you got there you showed him the letter,

is that right!
A. That is right.
Q. And that was about what date!
A. I don’t remember it by dates. I received the letter

either the 4th or the 5th, and I got the train on the 6th.
Q. Then, you were there in Dallas by the 6th or 7th!
A. That is right.
Q. Right!
A. Yes.

177

Q. And you showed him the letter the first thing, didn’t
you?
[fol. 289] A. That is right.

Q. And there in that conference of yours he made his
decision about what you ought to do?

A. It was several days before he made his decision. He
told me definitely after the conference that it would not afford
me equal education as could be obtained in the University
of Texas.

Q. And you made no personal investigation of the matter
yourself, did you?

A. I am not qualified to pass upon the quality of a law
school, no.

Q. Hid you talk to anybody else about the quality of the
law school other than Mr. Durham ?

A. I did not.
Q. And how long did you remain in Dallas after the 6th

or 7th of March?
A. I was there on—I am telling you I went there around

the 6th or 7th, and I remained there probably a week before
I came hack to Houston.

Q. Then you were there on March 8th when the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People and
other organization representatives met to decide whether
or not to support or not to support this separate Negro
Law School, weren’t you?

Mr. Durham: We object to it; first, upon the assumption
[fol. 290] that the National Association for Advancement
of Colored People met. That is the first assumption. The
question assumes that he was there at the meeting. Both
assumptions are without any evidence on the matter in the
record.

The Court: I think you had better ask him if he was there.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Were you in Dallas on March 8th, 1947 ?
A. I was there.
Q. Are you acquainted with a meeting—do you know

anything about a meeting held in Dallas on that date at
which this lawsuit was discussed?

A. I know nothing of the meeting.
12—725

178

Q. Did yon while you were in Dallas read a report in the
Dallas News about what took place in that meeting1?

A. I did not.
Mr. Durham: We object to it as being hearsay.
The Court: He says he didn’t.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You did not. Isn’t it true that you knew before the

date of registration down here, March 10th, at the new
Negro Law School, that certain leaders who were helping
you in this case opposed you in this separate law school?

Mr. Durham: We object to that about “ certain leaders.”
There is no evidence in the record. It is purely an assump
tion.

The Court: He can ask him if he did.

[fob 291] A. I don’t know anything about—I don’t know
what leaders—I don’t know anything about the leaders.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Do you know Joseph J. Rhodes, President of the Texas

Council of Negro Organizations?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you discuss this law school with him while you

were in Dallas ?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you hear about the action his organization took

against the school while you were in Dallas?
A. No.
Mr. Durham: We object to it as hearsay.
The Court: He says he never heard it.

By Mr. Daniel:

Q. Now, your deposition was taken in this case on June
15, 1946, wasn’t it?

A. There was a deposition taken in Houston a little before
the first hearing.

Q. Did you state in your deposition at that time, and as
you have stated here, your attorney was Mr. Durham, is
that right?

A. Yes.

179

Q. At the time you filed this suit Mr. Marshall wasn’t in
the case at all representing you, was he ?

A. No.
Q. At the time' we took your deposition on June 15, 1946,

[fol. 292] he was not in the case, was he?
A. No.
Q. You had not known him, and he had not been brought

into the case at the time your deposition was taken, had he?
A. Not from me, no.
Q. From anybody else, your attorney or anybody else?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that in your deposition taken on June

15, 1946 that this question was asked to you, and you gave
the following answer ; this is the question?

“ Q. Isn’t it a fact that you would not attend the
Prairie View University if legal training were pro-
vided for you there?”

And didn’t you give this answer?
“ A. That is not true. I will attend Prairie View

University on a first class law school equal to the Uni
versity of Texas.”

Isn’t that true?
A. I gave that answer.
Q. At that time, on June 15,1946, you said that you would

have attended a law school at Prairie View University if it
was equivalent to that at the University of Texas?

A. If it was equivalent.
Q. In other words, you have no objection to a separate

law school for Negroes if it is equivalent?
[fol. 293] A. I will have to answer that question in this
way. I don’t believe in segregation. I don’t believe equal
ity can he given on the basis of segregation. I answered
that question, in that it stated that it would be—if it would
be given at Prairie View, I still do not believe that segrega
tion will give equal training.

Q. That is exactly the point I am getting at. On June 15,
1946 you were willing to accept segregation and a separate
law school at Prairie View if it was on an equal basis,
weren’t you?

A. Assuming that it would be equal.

180

Q. That is what I say. Is this your signature to the depo
sition that was taken on June 15th?

A. That is mine.
Q. Now then, after June 15th, 1946, and after you had

sworn in your deposition that you would go to a separate
law school if it furnished equal facilities; after that time,
Mr. Herbert Marshall—I mean Mr. Thurgood Marshall,
Attorney for the National Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People, came into this case, and has been
helping on it since then?

A. After what date?
Q. After your deposition, June 15th, 1946?
A. A good time afterwards, yes, sir.
Q. A good while afterwards?

[fol. 294] A. A good while afterwards.
Q. And after June 15th, 1946, after you swore to that in

this deposition, is when you made up your mind you were
not for segregation at all?

Mr. Durham: We object to it because it does not repre
sent the facts in that question. The question doesn’t ask
him about a separate school. The question asked about a
school at Prairie View

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Are you acquainted with Prairie View University?
Mr. Durham: We renew our objection. Nothing has

been done about that question and answer. He asked if he
didn’t take the position on that date that he was for segre
gation. That isn’t represented in that question.

Mr. Daniel: I withdraw the question.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You are acquainted with Prairie View University?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know that is a separate Negro school, don’t you?
A. Yes, it is a separate Negro school.
Q. White people do not go to that school?
A. As far as I know.
Q. You knew at the time you swore to this in your deposi

tion that that was a separate school for Negroes, didn’t
you?

A. I did.

181

[fol. 295] Q. And when you said in that deposition that:
“ I will attend Prairie View University on a first

class law school equal to the University of Texas,”

on June 15th, you knew that was a separate Negro school,
didn’t you?

A. I did not. A first class law school, in my opinion, a
first class law school is where an individual has general
contact with people with whom he will work after gradua
tion.

Q. You didn’t answer my question. Let’s go back to my
question. At the time you said you would attend Prairie
View University on a first class law school, you knew Prairie
View was a separate school for Negroes at that time, didn’t
you?

A. At that time, but I answered the question on the basis
of the establishment of the school.

Q. That is right?
A. That is right.
Q. But at Prairie View?
A. In Prairie View.
Q. You didn’t think they were going to establish a school

for both whites and Negroes at Prairie View?
A. I didn’t know what they were going to do.
Q. Let’s see if you didn’t know one thing. Didn’t you

know at that time it would be a separate Negro Law School,
if it was at Prairie View?
[fol. 296] A. I did not.

Q. You did not. Anyway, you were willing to go to a law
school at Prairie View, if it was equal to that at the Uni
versity of Texas, weren’t you?

A. If it was equal.
Q. And that was June 15, 1946. Now, since that time,

June 15, 1946,1 will ask you if you have changed your mind
about going to a separate law school at Prairie View Uni
versity, if it was equal to the University of Texas.

Mr. Durham: We object to the portion of it, if he has
changed his mind since June 15th, for the reason that the
deposition, they haven’t offered it, and it isn’t the proper
assumption.

The Court: He can ask him if he is willing to go now.

182

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Will you answer that!
A. Am I willing to go to a separate school at Prairie

View!
Q. If it is equal to the University of Texas!
Mr. Marshall: The record shows there is no law school

at Prairie View. The evidence shows it.
The Court: It would be hypothetical. Let’s see what the

last question was.
(The Reporter read to the Court the last question set out

above.)
The Court: I sustain the objection to the last one. You

can reframe your question.
[fol. 297] Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Since June 15, 1946 you have changed your mind about

being willing to go to a law school at Prairie View Uni
versity, even if it was equal to that at the University of
Texas, haven’t you!

Mr. Marshall: We renew our same objection.
The Court: Ask him if he has changed his mind, first.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Have you changed your mind!
A. Yes.
Q. And you changed it after June 15, 1946!
A. No, I changed it after studying the situation after

filing the suit, after learning more facts about education.
Q. After you swore that you would attend one on June

15, 1946; isn’t that right!
A. That is the date of the deposition!
Q. That is the date of the deposition.
A. After that.
Q. After that date!
A. Yes.
Q. And it was after that date that Mr. Thurgood Mar

shall of the N. A. A. C. P. came into this case!
Mr. Marshall: I didn’t object in the beginning, but I

object at this stage to cluttering up the record, and I wish,

183

if the Court would permit me to take up a case, that is
[fol. 298] on all-fours. It is State, ex rel. Bluford vs.
Canada, 153 S. W. (2d), page 12.

That is in regard to the Journalism School at the Uni
versity of Missouri, and that case ruled against the same
things we are urging in this case; however, in that case the
Attorney General of Missouri put up the same type of
smoke screen to the effect that the case wasn’t the plaintiff’s
case, but belonged to a public organization, and to put the
case further on all-fours, the organization is the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and
the Supreme Court, although ruling against us, had this to
say.

“ In our view, if appellant has the legal right and
actually expects to attend the University, her motives
for doing so are immaterial.”

On that basis, we object to the continuation of this line
of testimony.

The Court: I think he has answered it, as far as we need
on it.

Mr. Daniel: If the Court please, I would like to say to
the Court that our purpose here is not to show his motive
for wanting to attend a law school. Our purpose is to lead
up to a connected chain of events motivating him not to
attend the separate school that has been offered to him, and,
therefore, showing bad faith on the part of the relator.

Mr. Durham: He had a right to change it one minute
before ten o ’clock on the 10th. That is an individual right,
[fol. 299] and the fact that he did change can’t be ques
tioned.

The Court: I think he had a right to change his mind.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any other Negro boys who want to

attend the law school?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as being immaterial,

irrelevant, and of no probative force.
The Court: I believe I will let him pursue it.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Do you know of anyone else of the Negro race want

ing to go to a law school ?

184

A. I know some who say they want to go to a law school.
Q. Would you give me the names of those whom you know

personally who wanted to attend law school?
A. I read in the paper where there was a Mr. Doyle said

he wanted to attend a law school.
Q. Who else do you know, of your own knowledge?
A. That is all.
Q. You know of only yourself and Doyle?
A. That is right.
Q. Has the National Association for the Advancement

of Colored People contributed to you, toward the expenses
of this lawsuit?

A. Contributed to me?
[fol.300] A. No.

Q. Have they contributed toward the attorneys here, or
any other expenses of this lawsuit?

A. I don’t know that they have. They offered, after I
had filed the suit, to assist me in it.

Q. Were you in Austin on March 26, 1947, about the time
of the last hearing in the Court of Civil Appeals in this case?

A. I was here at the last hearing in the Court of Civil
Appeals.

Q. Isn’t it true that you attended a meeting here in Austin
the night of March 25th, at which Thurgood Marshall, the
attorney here, spoke to a group of Negro citizens.

Mr. Durham: We object to that as completely immaterial
and not germane to any issue.

The Court: I don’t see how it could assist us, Mr. Attor
ney General.

Mr. Daniel: I want to prove as to what was said and
done about that matter about finances for this case, for the
purpose of showing that the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People had as much control and
management of this case, and what happened in this situa
tion about this law school as he does himself, and that they
have the further purpose of following that up with a con
certed program to boycott this law school and keep other
students out.

Your Honor, we were careful not to bring up the point
about no students over there. Only Marion Sweatt, did we,
[fol. 301] on direct examination show, as not in that school.
The relator on every possible occasion has pointed to the
fact that there were no students there, and we feel like we

185

can show that chain of events, and it is his fault and the
people supporting the lawsuit that they don’t have students,
and that is a material issue in this case.

The Court: Anything he would testify to would be hear
say, wouldn’t it? It would be what somebody said,
wouldn’t it?

Mr. Daniel: No, sir; I believe, Your Honor, that through
that I can refresh his memory as to knowledge of money
which has been spent in this case by N. A. A. C. P. I am
trying to refresh his memory. I am also trying to—I will
also try to impeach him in the fact that he said he doesn’t
know anything about the expenses paid by N. A. A. C. P.,
and show that he does know about it, and knew about it at
this meeting where $20,000.00 was asked for.

Mr. Durham: We don’t think he can show it through the
newspapers.

Mr. Daniel: I am not asking that.
The Court: He can testify to anything he knows of his

own knowledge about this.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Isn’t it true that at that meeting you attended, isn’t

it true that at that meeting you attended you heard Mr.
Marshall say that this case had already cost $6,000.00, and
[fol. 302] that the N. A. A. C. P. was helping finance it.

A. I don’t remember.
Mr. Durham: That is immaterial.
The Court: He said he didn’t hear it.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did you hear Mr. Marshall tell the crowd you needed

to raise $20,000.00 for this lawsuit.
Mr. Durham: That would be hearsay, what the attorney

said.
Mr. Durham: It is purely hearsay.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Are you paying Mr. Marshall a salary or fee for

assisting you in this case?
A. I am not.
Q. The National Association for the Advancement of Col

ored People is furnishing his services?

186

A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know how he came into the case?
A. He came into the case—in a conference with Mr.

Durham, he said he would get assistance in the case, and
how he got it and who is paying him, I don’t know.

Q. Do you know whether or not the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People have encouraged
this lawsuit, and encouraged people to support it?

Mr.' Durham: We object to it.
Mr. Daniel: I asked if he knew.

[fol. 303] Mr. Durham: We object to that as irrelevant
and immaterial.

The Court: If it was communicated directly to him, I
expect it would be helpful.

A. I don’t know.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Now, you took a year’s study at the University of

Michigan, didn’t you?
A. That is right.
Q. What year was that?
A. That was the school year of 1937-38.
Q. Did the State of Texas pay anything on that at all?
A. No, they did not.
Q. That was at the University of Michigan?
A. That was at the University of Michigan.
Q. Now, did you on March 10th, 1947, present yourself

over here for registration in the new Negro Law School?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you at any time from your trip to—the receipt of

your original notice and your trip to Dallas to talk it over
with your lawyer, did you personally make any—come to
Austin and look over this school?

A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you talk with any of the law professors who were

going to teach in the school before making up your mind
not to go to it?

A. I did not.
[fol. 304] Q. You actually didn’t make up your own mind
about whether to go to it or not?

A. Sure, I made up my mind. I made up my mind after
talking with somebody who could judge a law school. I
couldn’t do that.

187

Q. And that was only Mr. Durham?
A. That was only Mr. Durham.
Q. And you took his word that you shouldn’t came be

cause it was not equal?
A. I took his word it wouldn’t give me the type of law

education that I could obtain in the University of Texas.
Q. You want to go to law school at the University of

Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. You know for seyeral years there have been appro

priations made by the Texas Legislature to send Negro
students outside the State of Texas to schools when they
wanted to take certain training that is not provided inside
Texas?

A. I know that is possible.
Q. You didn’t apply for that money?
A. I did not.
Q. You want to go to school in Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. You are not interested in transferring from some law

school you are admitted to, to some law school outside of
Texas?

A. I want to complete my course in Texas.
[fol. 305] Q. Not interested in transferring outside the
State later on, are you?

A. No.
Q. You have finished your A.B. Degree?
A. Yes.
Q. What other degrees?
A. That is the only degree I have finished.
Q. You don’t care to take any other courses than law

courses?
A. I don’t know. I might, after I get in.
Q. At the time you filed the suit, all you wanted was law

courses?
A. I don’t know what it will take for me to take law.

When I went to the University of Michigan, taking Bac
teriology, I had to go back and get other courses. I don’t
know what I will take when I get in the University of Texas.

Q. That is all you have applied for up to this good day,
is law, is it not?

A. Yes.
Q. And that is all you want at this time?

188

A. Yes, that is right.
Q. If this Court should hold that this New Negro Law

School gives you substantially equal opportunity to obtain
a- education in law, you wouldn’t attend it, would you?

Mr. Durham: We object to that.
The Court: It doesn’t make any difference to me if he

[fol. 306] attends it or not. This Court is concerned only
with the facilities. We don’t care whether he goes or not.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. If it is thought that the separate Negro Law School in

Austin offers you absolutely equal facilities, you wouldn’t
attend it, would you?

Mr. Durham: We object. It is a supposition.
The Court: I believe in that case he would have a right to

answer if, in his opinion, this school was absolutely equal.

A. It depends upon an assumption that I can not agree
with.

Q. If you could agree with it; let’s say that, let’s say we
leave it to other judges, and some judges, somebody who
knows about it, found it to be so, and we assume it is so,
that the new Negro Law School is absolutely equivalent to
the University of Texas Law School, but it is a separate
school for Negroes, you wouldn’t attend it, would you?

A. I would not.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Durham: We reserve the right to examine him later,

Your Honor. No questions.
The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, I believe that—I was just

thinking, they have some witnesses they are in a hurry to
[fol. 307] put on, so I suppose it would be all right for us to
stop our testimony, and come back to it later. We won’t
close.

The Court: That will be all right. We will take a few
minutes while you are getting your witnesses lined up.

(Court was recessed at 3:05 p.m., until 3:15 p.m., at
which time proceedings were resumed as follows:

189

Dr. R obert R edfield, a witness produced by the relator,
having been by the Court first duly sworn as a witness,
testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give the Court your full name, sir.
A. Robert Redfield.
Q. And your present occupation?
A. I am now Professor of Anthropology and Chairman

of the Department of that name at the University of Chi
cago.

Q. Will you review briefly your past qualifications, and
your training, and the positions you have held, and the
general work you have been doing?

A. After taking a Bachelor’s Degree, I went to the Uni
versity of Chicago Law School and took a degree of J. D. I
was admitted to the Bar of the State of Illinois, and two
years thereafter returned to academic life, where I re-
[fol. 308] ceived training in Anthropology and Sociology,
and special work in the problems between the racial and
color groups. I received a Doctor’s Degree in 1928.

Except for periods when I have been giving instruction
at other universities in the United States, I have been em
ployed at the University of Chicago as a teacher, and doing
research work, and as an educational administrator.

I have also been in charge of the research program for
Carnegie Institute at Washington, and at the present I am
in that capacity. Last October I gave up the position of
Dean of Social Sciences at Chicago University, a position
I held for 12 years.

Q. How long have you been studying in the field of racial
differences?

A. About 20 years.
Q. And in that period of time have you considered the

question of alleged racial differences in school students?
A. I have considered many aspects of the problem of dif

ferences between national groups, including school students.
Q. And have those studies included the comparison of

students of both races, studying under the same circum
stances ?

A. I have followed the literature in that field, as well as,

190

of course, making my common-sense observations as a
teacher and administrator.

Q. Well, Dr. Redfield, as a result of your studies, are you
[fol. 308%] in a position to give your opinions on the general
subject? I will give you more specific ones later, but I wish
on the general subject of, one; the inappropriateness of
segregation to the purposes of education, the inappropriate-
ness of segregation in education to the interests of public
security end of it, and to the general welfare of the com
munity.

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object because this lawsuit
involves only education in law and procedure. We object
to any questions or opinion evidence that may be offered as
to general surveys, not limited to law schools, which are
composed of those who have completed certain preliminary
work in other fields, and we object to the testimony that has
been called for by this question, to the question, and to any
other questions along that line.

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, this case has nar
rowed down to one issue. I think the pleadings did consid
erable toward the end of narrowing it down. In the first
place, in our original petition we claimed that the refusal
to admit the relator was in violation of the 14th Amend
ment, and in all of the pleadings filed by the State of Texas,
no question has ever been raised as to the qualifications of
relator other than his race or color, so that is out of con
sideration.

The defense of respondents is summed up in their first
supplemental answer, large paragraph 2, small (1) in
parenthesis, in this statement.
[fol. 309] I am quoting.

“ The Constitution and laws of the State of Texas
require equal protection of law and equal educational
opportunities for all qualified persons, but provide
for separate educational institutions for white and
negro students.”

And then follows the allegation that the refusal to admit
the relator in this case was not arbitrary at all, and was not
in violation of the 14th Amendment, but was in keeping with
the segregation statutes of the State of Texas, and in that

way joined issue; and in the second supplemental petition
we alleged:

“ In so far as respondents claim to be acting under
authority of the Constitution and laws of the State of
Texas their continued refusal to admit the relator to
the Law School of the University of Texas is nonethe
less in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.”

If there can be any doubt as to our position in the case,
in the fourth paragraph in the same pleading in the supple
mental petition, we state:

“ In so far as the Constitution and laws of Texas
relied on by respondents prohibit relator from attend
ing Law School of University of Texas because of his
[fol. 310] race and color such constitutional and statu
tory provisions of the State of Texas as apply to relator
are in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.”

So, I think that the lines are drawn in this case, and the
direct attack has been made that the statutes requiring
segregation, the general statutes.which prohibit this relator
from attending the University of Texas, we claim are
unconstitutional, and we have the right to show their
unconstitutionality.

How do we propose to do so? Several ways. Before
that, I would like to bring this out. As to whether there is
any question as to the validity of segregation in this case,
the Attorney General brought it out with the last witness.
He deliberately brought it out, according to which, as I
understand from his cross examination, the Attorney Gen
eral believes the relator has changed his position from con
forming to the statute to now insisting that segregation was
invalid, and it was the Attorney General who asked the last
question which puts the validity of the segregation statutes
flat in issue in this case.

There are several ways of going about proving the un
constitutionality of statutes. They haven’t shown any line
of reasoning for the statutes. I imagine they are relying
[fol. 311] on the presumption that the statutes are constitu
tional. If they are relying on that we have a right to put in
evidence to show that segregation statutes in the State of

191

192

Texas and in any other state, actually when examined, and
they have never been examined in any lawsuit that I know
of yet, have no line of reasonableness. There is no under
standable factual basis for classification by race, and under
a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court, not on the
question of Negroes, but on the 14th Amendment, all courts
agree that if there is no rational basis for the classifica
tion, it is flat in the teeth of the 14th Amendment.

The Court: I will let you offer your testimony. I will give
you your bill, and I will allow it, at any rate.

Mr. Daniel: Do I understand they will be limited to sur
veys on law students, or education in general?

The Court: Of course, it is like throwing a rose into a
group of flowers. The odor is there. We are presumed to
act only upon what is admissible testimony, in the last
analysis, anyhow, so I am going to hear it, and if in my
opinion it is material and admissible testimony, I will con
sider it. If it isn’t, I will not.

Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.
The Court: It will be in the record.
Mr. Daniel: We may have our full bill on it, without re-

[fol. 312] peating our objection?
The Court: That is right, it will follow right through.
Mr. Daniel: Unless there is something else.
The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Redfield, as to the question of the relationship of

segregation to the purposes of education, will you first give
us what are the overall acceptable purposes of education
as construed by educators in the field? What is the main
purpose of public education?

A. No two men, of course, will state this the same way,
but I should say that the main purposes of education are to
develop in every citizen in accordance with the natural
capacities of those citizens, the fullest intellectual and moral
qualities, and his most effective participation in the duties
of the citizens.

Q. Dr. Redfield, are there any recognizable differences as
between Negro and white students on the question of their
intellectual capacity ?

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object to that. That would
be a conclusion on the part of the witness. It covers all

193

negro students and all white students. It isn’t limited to
any particular study or subject or even show what it is
based on.

The Court: I suppose his qualifications he has testified to
[fol. 313] would qualify him to draw his conclusion.

Mr. Marshall: We will follow with what he bases it on.

A. If Your Honor will allow me I will present the answer
in that form.

The Court: Yes.
A. We got something of a lesson there. We who have

been working in the field in which we began with a rather
general presumption among our common educators that
inherent differences in intellectual ability of capacity to
learn existed between negroes and whites, and have slowly,
but I think very convincingly, been compelled to come to the
opposite conclusion, in the course of long history, special
research in the field.

The general sort of situation, Your Honor, which brings
about this opposite conclusion, the conclusion that I may
state now, significant differences as to intellectual ability,
or as to ability to learn, if any, are probably not present
between the two groups. We have been brought to that
conclusion, Your Honor, by a series of studies which have
this general character.

Samples from the two groups, negroes and whites, are
placed in as nearly identical situations as possible, and
given the limited tasks to perform, tasks which are under
stood to be relevant to the intellectual faculties, or the
capacity to learn. Then these samples are measured against
each other as to the degree and kind of success in performing
[fol. 314] these limited tasks. That is a general description
of the material which leads to the conclusion I have stated.
Perhaps at this point it is sufficient to say that the general
conclusion to which I come, and which I think is shared by
a very large majority of specialists------

Mr. Daniel: We object to that as hearsay, Your Honor.
The Court: I think so.
A. The conclusion, then, to which I come, is differences in

intellectual capacity or inability to learn have not been
shown to exist as between negroes and whites, and further,
that the results make it very probable that if such differ-

13—725

194

ences are later shown to exist, they will not prove to be sig
nificant for any educational policy or practice.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. As a result of your studies that you have made, the

training that you have had in your specialized field over
some 20 years, given a similar learning situation, what, if
any differences, is there between the accomplishment of a
white and a negro student, given a similar learning situa
tion?

A. I understand, if I may say so, a similar learning
situation to include a similar degree of preparation?

Q. Yes.
A. Then, I would say that my conclusion is that the one

does as well as the other on the average.
Q. Well, in your experience, your studies in this particu-

[fol. 315] lar field, what is your opinion as to the effect of
segregated education; one, on the student—I will give them
all to you, and then you can take them separately—two, on
the school, and three, on the community in general. Will
you give your opinion?

A. My opinion is that segregation has effects on the stu
dent which are unfavorable to the full realization of the
objectives of education. First,—for a number of reasons,
perhaps. I will try to distinguish.

Speaking first with regard to the student I would say that
in the first place it prevents the student from the full, effec
tive and economical coming to understand the nature and
capacity of the group from which he is segregated. My
comment, therefore, applies to both whites and negroes, and
as one of the objectives of .education is the full and sympa
thetic understanding of the principal groups in the system
in which the individual is to function as a citizen, this re
sult which I have just stated is unfortunate.

In the second place, I would say that the segregation has
an unfortunate effect on the student, which I might now
anticipate, since, to my opinion, has an unfortunate effect
on the general community, in that it intensifies suspicion and
distrust between negroes and the whites, and suspicion and
distrust are not favorable conditions either for the acqui
sition and conduct of an education, or for the discharge of
[fol. 316] the duties of a citizen. You asked me, did you
not, as to the class, and the community?

195

Q. The school was the second, and the community was the
third.

A. I think I have perhaps indicated the difficulties with
reference to the school. The school room situation is, pro
vides less than the complete and natural representation of
the full community. That is the general view of educators,
or it is my view, I should say. It is my view that education
goes forward more favorably if the community of student,
scholar and teacher is fairly representative of the total
community. Bather, the highly specialized and the develop
ment of the suspicion and distrust which the segregated
situation brings about is correspondingly unfavorable in
the school.

With respect to the general community, I suppose there
isn’t a great deal to add, but if I am still answering your
question, I might say this. In my opinion, segregation acts
generally on the total community in an unfavorable way for
the general welfare, in that it accentuates imagined differ
ences between negroes and whites. These false assump
tions with respect to the existence of those differences are
given an appearance of reality by the formal act of physical
separation. Furthermore, as the segregation, in my ex
perience, is against the will of the segregated, it produces a
very favorable situation for the increase of bad feeling, and
even conflict, rather than the reverse.
[fol. 317] Q. Dr. Bedfield, what has been your personal
experience concerning the admission of minority groups to
educational facilities to which they had previously been de
nied admission?

A. Well, as I have indicated, my principal experience has
been in connection, in the University of Chicago, and in its
related educational institutions. The situation there gen
erally is that no segregation is practiced in any of the edu
cational facilities of the University, neither in the class room
nor in the dormitory, or in eating facilities or anywhere else
in the educational facilities. While the same city or com
munity in which the University lies is one in which segrega
tion or exclusion is practiced as a matter of custom, but not
as a matter of law, in a very wide variety of situations, and
facilities open to the general public.

In giving that background, I come to the question of what
my experience has been with negroes theretofore denied
some educational facilities, and I have had experience with

196

one or two such situations in the University of Chicago and
its affiliated institutions, and that in each of the cases that
I can recall the result has been, in my opinion, highly benefi
cial to education and to the University community.

Q. Were there any ill effects at all!
A. I don’t know of any.
Q. Do you know of any good effects?
A. Yes. Perhaps I should mention a case. The students

[fol. 318] were denied admission, negro students were dis
couraged from admittance is perhaps a more accurate state
ment, to the laboratory school of the University.

They were discouraged admission for a great many years.
Then it was made apparent that they would be welcome,
and they began to come, and there was an opposition from
a minority of the academic community to the step. Many
evil consequences were told. None of those consequences
took place, but, on the other hand, there was an improve
ment in the community in that there was a representation
of the national community which is favorable to education,
and the relations between the white and the negro groups
were improved in parent-teacher and endeavor.

Q. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Daniel: I want to be sure that my exceptions and ob

jections have gone to the entire testimony.
The Court: Oh, yes.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Redfield, how many of those surveys of the reaction

of students have been limited to law school students ?
A. Are you speaking of surveys which I made personally,

or of which I have known ?
Q. Which you made personally?
A. I have never made a survey of law school students,

[fol. 319] Q. Is this testimony you have been giving based
on surveys you have made, or you have read about?

A. In larger measure, the latter. I have participated.
Q. You have participated in some?
A. Yes.
Q. But the majority of the studies you have been testify

ing about and upon which your testimony is based, are stud
ies made by other people, and which you have read?

197

A. That is the nature of science, sir.
Q. Yes. I just want to be sure that is in the record.

Somebody may not know that is the nature of the science.
Have you yourself made any study of the effect of separate
education in law schools?

A. No, sir.
Q. As I understand it, it is your opinion that it is discrim

ination against the white students to require them to go to
a white University here in Texas; is that right?

A. If I understand the meaning of what I said, that
isn’t what I was attempting to say. I was attempting
to describe the consensus in regard to educational objec
tives in the policy of segregation.

Q. And you applied that to separate white schools, with
only white students. You said several times, I believe, in
your testimony, I believe you said several times that the
same applied to segregation of white students, making them
ffol. 320] go to the separate school.

A. I think it is to the advantage of any student to be in a
community that is largely representative of the national
community.

Q. To that extent, you believe that any state that re
quires the white students to go into a separate school from
the negro students is to that extent a discrimination against
the white students?

A. I am not sure the other description was used, but I
think it worked both ways.

Q. It worked both ways. You have talked about a grad
ual change that you have observed. All of your testimony,
I believe, indicated a gradual change in the situation you
have talked about, and in the conclusion you have reached.

A. With reference to admission of negroes to facilities
that had theretofore been denied them?

Q. Yes.
A. The case I had in mind was where there was a period

when they were not admitted, and then a period when they
were admitted. I don’t know how you use the word “ grad
ual.”

Q. As I understood, you thought there was some differ
ence between ability to learn------

A. I beg your pardon. You are now asking me with re
spect to to the quality of students, as to this matter of racial
difference?

198

[fol. 321] Q. Yes.
A. I said opinion on the subject has gradually changed.
Q. Isn’t that generally due to the fact that the subject

matter has gradually changed over a period of years ?
A. We are wiser than we were, yes, sir.
Q. Don’t you believe that in a community where segrega

tion has been enforced as long as it has in some of our
southern localities, that the only way that the ultimate goal
that you think is the best can be properly obtained is by a
gradual change, instead of forcing it upon the community?

A. If I can answer the question at all, Your Honor, I
would like------

The Court: You can explain.

A. I think that all change should not come on any more
rapidly than it is consistent with the general welfare.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Yes, sir. In other words, you will agree with the other

eminent educators in your field, the fields in which you are
acquainted, that it is impossible to force the abolition of
segregation upon a community that has had it for a long
number of years, in successfully obtaining the results that
are best?

A. No, I don’t agree to that.
Q. Do you think the laws should be changed tomorrow?
A. I think that segregation is a matter of legal regulation.

Such a law can be changed quickly.
[fol. 322] Q. Do you think it has anything to do with the
social standing in the community?

A. Segregation in itself is a matter of law, and that law
can be changed at once, but if you mean the attitude of the
people with respect to keeping away from people of another
race, then perhaps I have another answer.

Q. I am speaking about desired results for the individual
and the community, and for the state.

A. Will you ask your question over again?
Q. With respect to the individual, the state, the com

munity and the schools, do you, in your opinion, believe that
an immediate change in segregation will accomplish the re
sults that you have testified as being best in a community
where segregation has been enforced and recognized for
many years ?

199

A. I think in every community there is some segregation
that can be changed at once, and the area of higher educa
tion is the most favorable for making the change.

Q. You admit there are areas in which the change can not
be made at once ?

A. You mean in 24 hours, with more harm than good re
sulting ?

Q. Yes.
A. Certainly.
Q. Or within a year!
A. May I state my opinion again ?
Q. Instead of 24 hours, we will say within a year or two.

[fob 323] A. I will put it this way. I think this will satisfy
you on that as covering my opinion. I think the steps by
which, and the rapidity with which segregation in education
can be removed with the benefits to the public welfare will
vary with the circumstances.

Q. In other words, the circumstances of the community
and how long there has been segregation will have a bear
ing on it?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, do you recognize or agree with the

school of thought that, regardless of the ultimate objective
concerning segregation, that if it is to be changed in south
ern communities where it has been in effect for many years,
if it is to be changed successfully, it must be done over a
long period of time, as the people in that community change
their ideas on the matter ?

A. That contention, I do not think, will be my opinion on
the matter scientifically.

Q. Does that represent, scientifically, a school of thought
on that, in your science, in the matter ?

A. There are some that feel that way.
Q. Yes, sir. You are acquainted with the history of the

carpet bagger days in the Civil War?
A. I feel better acquainted with it today, sir, than any

body.
Q. Dr. Redfield, let me get you clearly on that. You are

not talking about your own trip down here, are you, to
[fol. 324] Texas? You say you are acquainted with it today?

A. It just drifted into my mind.
Q. You recall the carpet baggers, where they packed up

and came down here from out of the state. You didn’t mean
to be talking about your trip down here, did you? You are

200

the only witness from out of the state that we have had on,
so far. You didn’t mean to be talking about the trip down
here?

A. I am afraid the idea has come into my mind now.
Q. That wasn’t what you referred to?
A. It is in my mind now.
Q. Are you acquainted with the history of the carpet

bagger days in the south?
A. In a very general way.
Q. You know, do you know, from that history, that the

attempt to force the abolition of segregation in the south
just didn’t work?

A. Yes, of course.
Q. Do you feel like the social attitudes and beliefs of the

people in that day had some bearing on whether or not it
would work?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. Of both races?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Are you acquainted with Howard University Law

School in Washington?
[fol. 325] A. No, sir, only by reputation.

Q. You know it is a negro law school?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you made any check on the separate Negro Law

School as to the kind of educational facilities and equality
of opportunities that are offered the students of that school?

A. No.
Q. Would you undertake to testify here, Dr. Redfield, that

students attending that separate Law School for Negroes at
Howard University do not receive equal educational oppor
tunities in law with those attending a similar white school?

A. In my opinion, deprivation of opportunity to exchange
professional and intellectual matters with members of the
other major groups in their nation is one of the short-com
ings of the school.

Q. You have never made any check, though, as to students
who have come out of that school, and where that has been a
handicap on them, have you?

A. No, I never have.
Q. It is just your idea it is a handicap, without having

checked to see whether or not it is ?
A. That is right.

201

Q. Are yon acquainted with Lincoln University by repu
tation, a separate law school for Negroes in Missouri!

A. I have heard of it.
[fol. 326] Q. Have you made any survey of the students
educated in that school!

A. I think I have indicated I made no survey of legal
education.

Q. You are not prepared to say whether or not those stu
dents who received their legal education in that separate
law school come out of there handicapped in any respect,
as far as their knowledge of the law is concerned, are you!

A. I have the opportunity of transforming a conclusion,
and as far as there is validity in that, I can draw a conclu
sion as far as segregated education is concerned.

Q. I am talking about the individuals who have come out
of the separate Negro Law School. Have you made any
check to see whether they have received equal educational
opportunities with white students of Missouri in the white
law school!

A. I have had no occasion to.
Q. Then, you don’t know whether there are any disad

vantages or not, actually, to those individuals, do you!
A. In the particular case of those individuals!
Q. Yes, sir.
A. By virtue of knowledge I might have of them in par-

[fol. 327] ticular, no.
Q. Do you recognize, Dr. Redfield, that there should be

some limit to your theory of abolition of segregation!
A. I think I have indicated a limit.
Q. A limit!
A. Yes, a limit.
Q. What limit do you say there should be, and will still

give what you think is necessary from the standpoint of
public education!

A. The general welfare would be served by extending non
segregation, at the expense of segregation, and that general
limit will be defined in my particular conclusion, as the par
ticular circumstances.

Q. Is it necessary that there be social commingling!
A. I understand that by social commingling is meant com

munication of students and professor, and intellectual en
deavor,—yes.

202

Q. Is that as far as you think it is necessary to have such
commingling to obtain the objectives you think are so neces
sary?

A. I think that whatever commingling is a natural and
proper accessory to the educational endeavor will in the
[fol. 328] long run develop to the general welfare.

Q. Do you think it is necessary to have social comming
ling of the races in order to obtain the things you think are
necessary to give, to attain the objective that you say is set
for public education?

A. The question is repetitious. I have answered it.
Mr. Durham: If Your Honor please------
The Court: I really believe he has answered it. If you

are not quite satisfied, General, you may ask another ques
tion.

Mr. Daniel: I am not quite satisfied. I don’t want to ask
an embarrassing question, but yet,—you have testified—I
really want to know—you have testified that you believe cer
tain segregation must be done away with in order to accom
plish the best for the school and the community?

A. If you are thinking about intermarriage,—if that is
in your mind, I would be delighted to answer.

Q. My mind hadn’t gotten quite that far on the subject,
[fol. 329] A. I am sorry.

Q. I am simply trying to ask you, since you have testified
that a certain amount of doing away with segregation is
necessary, I want to know your explanation, or expert
opinion, on how far it must be done away with in order
to accomplish the best for the individual, the school and
the community.

Mr. Marshall: This case is at least limited, and the direct
examination is most certainly limited, to education.

The Court: I understood that is what he answered, that
only in so far as it was necessary for students to have a
mutual exchange of ideas along professional and educa
tional lines.

Mr. Marshall: But this question isn’t limited to that.
The Court: I understood he answered as I stated, a

good while ago, General.
Mr. Daniel: I have asked how far he thinks that is

[fol. 330] necessary.

203

A. In order to accomplish the educational objective!
Q. Yes.
A. Roughly speaking, in the class rooms and in the natu

ral discussion of educational objectives we have common
rooms in our University where the students meet to discuss
common educational problems.

Q. What about fraternities! Is it necessary that there
be commingling there!

A. In any particular situation, I should think probably
not.

Q. You think it is not necessary that they belong to the
same social groups!

A. This might not be your case, but I should say probably
not.

Q. You feel like a Negro student at a separate school
that doesn’t have the same fraternities or scholarships
as the other school------

A. I was thinking of social fraternities.
Q. Let’s limit it to that.
A. That seems relatively unimportant. I could answer

it either one way or the other, and I would like to see the
particular case to see how I would answer it.

The Court: Are there other questions!
[fol. 331] Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir; just a second, Your
Honor.

Q. Doctor, are you acquainted with the Encyclopedia
Britannica, the publication by that name!

A. I have a set. I don’t look at it very often.
Q. You are from the University of Chicago!
A. Yes.
Q. Is that publication now published under the auspices

of that University!
A. Yes, sir; and it badly need- rewriting.
Q. It is published under the auspices of your University!
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read the article therein on education, and

segregation of the races in American Schools!
A. If I have, I don’t remember it.
Q. You don’t remember it. Have you written any articles

for the Encyclopedia Britannica!
A. No, we are just beginning a revision of anthropological

articles, and it seems there has to be a very drastic change.

204

Q. Do you know who wrote the articles in the Encyclo
pedia Britannica on the subject of higher education for Ne
groes, and segregation?

A. I don’t remember such articles.
Q. Do you recognize the Encyclopedia Britannica and

the articles on such subjects as an authority in the field?
A. No, I do not.

[fol. 332] Q. You do not?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know of some scientists in your field who do

recognize those articles?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as being irrelevant and

immaterial, what somebody else recognizes.
The Court: That would be his—perhaps not what they

recognize, but what they have said about it.
A. I think I could answer that question, and do more

justice to the meaning than just with a yes or no answer.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Go right aread.
A. All of the articles you have mentioned in that publica

tion are of extremely uneven merit, so that the men with
whom I have talked who have studied it—I haven’t studied
it—tell me that certain articles, are extremely good and
other articles are extremely bad. That is about the best
I can answer.

Q. I understand you are going to leave, and we may
want to know something about that, as an authority. Is
that Encyclopedia Britannica, could we here in the Court—
could the Court, in your opinion, consider that as one of
the recognized authorities in the field, if they have an
authority on the subject?

A. I don’t think you could, for the reason that you might
hit on one of the articles that was particularly out of date,
[fol. 333] Q. You haven’t read the articles on the subjects
we are talking about?

A. If I have, I have forgotten it,—I probably have.
Q. But it is your opinion the Court couldn’t accept that

as an authority?
A. You might get a bad one. I couldn’t say.
Q. Could you give us some of the authorities that you

think we would be justified in taking as authorities on the

205

subject you bave testified to us about? Have you written
any books on the subject?

A. Not with respect to the American Negro. I have
written on the general subject with respect to other racial
groups. Franz Boes, Ruth Benedict, Ashely Montague,
Otto Kleinberg. Is that enough.

Q. Give us one more.
A. One more. I will make it a good one. Then, Dr.

Leslie White.
Q. Do all of these scientists have the same, share your

ideas as to segregation?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know any scientists who have written books

or articles on the American Negro, on segregation, who
do not share your ideas?

A. Many of the scientists that study this problem have
not written or expressed themselves on the education re
sults of segregation. They are agreed, all that I have men-
[fol. 334] tioned, and a great many more on the conclusions
which I gave in direct testimony in the first of my remarks
with regard to the probability, or the existence of inherent
differences in educational capacity, but the application of
the conclusion to the school situation concerns a very much
smaller group of people, because the group of people con
cerned with that are educational administrators and the
like and many of those people whose names I have given
you are not educational administrators.

Q. But on your conclusion as to education, you told me
there were authorities in the field who disagreed with your
conclusion?

A. I think not.
Q. Maybe I am speaking about the gradual change.
A. I don’t know who I -could cite for that.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Redfield, you testified on cross examination that

your opinions were based on your own studies, but mostly
on other studies that have been made. I want to ask you
as to whether or not the studies you are speaking of made
by other people were scientific studies or not?

206

A. They were.
Q. And I want to ask you as to whether or not they were

mostly published scientific studies?
[fol. 335] A. They were.

Q. Generally recognized in your field as authorities?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Do you know of any recognized scientific study that

recognizes any inherent racial difference among the races,
as to capacity to learn?

A. A man named Portees in Australia published some
papers which I have read, on the Australian aborigines,
which reach the conclusion that there are inherent differ
ences between the races. I am sure there are other papers
that reach a similar conclusion. They are all specific
studies, and the conclusions are drawn on differences in
achievement in the races, and the case of Portees is one.
John Ferguson is publishing one, but there are very, very
few that would draw the opposite conclusion to the one
that I have stated concerning the inherent difference.

Q. Isn’t it true the Australian aborigine is on the bottom
of the heap?

A. The important thing is there are different studies,
and it has taken them a long period of time to reach the
conclusion I have offered.

Q. Isn’t it true the majority of scientists in your field
are in agreement there is no inherent racial difference?

A. Yes.
Q. Isn ’t it true that such studies as the Kleinberg study

in 1935, and others, are specific factual studies which show
that a given fact situation, there is no difference?
[fol. 336] Mr. Daniel: We object to that because it is lead
ing.

The Court: Of course, it is leading.
Mr. Marshall: Your witness.

Recross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Redfield, in determining the question of changing

the laws and regulations in a community concerning segre
gation, how far, in your opinion, should the community,
should the State consider the community attitudes of both
of the races concerning the matter ?

207

A. It would depend upon the circumstances. I can make
an observation, which I think is a partial answer. I think
the effect of having a regulation—I guess I will have to
make a speech to answer that.

Q. I don’t believe------
A. I have got quite a long------
Q. I don’t believe it calls for that. I will ask you this.

Do you think the community attitude of both of the races
should be considered when you go to see what is best in the
way of the field of education for that community?

A. I think so. You understand that the attitudes of the
community are complex. Attitudes in the State of Illinois
and the State of Texas, I take it, are, one; some white peo-
plea don’t want to be near negroes under certain conditions,
and those same white people want equality of education
[fol. 337] and other opportunities in America, and there
are both kinds of attitude in making the change.

Q. Would you consider the attitude of some Negroes that
would rather have segregation themselves, in determining
the educational situation?

A. Yes, and you have to consider that Texas, with other
Americans, share the view that equality of opportunity is
due every man in this country, and they are struggling, as
are all of us, to reconcile those attitudes.

Q. You would take those two into consideration before you
would arrive at what is best to be done for the individual
and the community ?

A. Always understanding both kinds of attitudes.
Q. I will ask you, Dr. Redfield, if you have made any cheek

on the relative number, of where the Negroes of this coun
try who hold college degrees, have obtained those degrees?
Have you made any study as to the opportunities offered for
the Negroes of this country to obtain college degrees?

A. I have read reports on it.
Q. Isn’t it true that the figures of 85% of the Negroes

of this country w'ho have college degrees received them
from southern, separate colleges?

A. I don’t remember.
Q. Does that sound about right?
A. When you say it, sir, it does.

[fol. 338] Q. Thank you. Are you a member of the Na
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

208

A. No.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Durham: That is the only one that we have to put

on out of order.
Mr. Daniel: I want to call Mr. Durham.

W. J. D u rh a m , having been called as a witness by the
Respondents, and having been by the Court first duly sworn,
testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. State your name, please.
A. W. J. Durham.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Durham?
A. Dallas, Texas.
Q. What business are you in?
A. Engaged in the practice of law.
Q. Are you attorney for Heman Marion Sweatt in this

case ?
A. I am.
Q. You heard him testify concerning the fact that you

were his attorney when the suit was filed?
A. I did.

[fol. 339] Q. Was Thurgood Marshall here in the case at
that time?

A. No, I wasn’t here when he talked to me about it.
Q. You were not in it either?
A. You said was he here. I was in Dallas when he talked

to me about it.
Q. You misunderstood my question. Was the attorney

here, Thurgood Marshall, the attorney for the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored people, help
ing you in the case at the time you filed it ?

A. No, he wasn’t.
Q. Was he in the case at the time the deposition of the

relator was taken in Houston, Texas, June 15, 1946?
A. I had possibly had communication with him.
Q. You had?

209

A. Yes.
Q. Had the relator had any communication with him at

that time ?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. I would like for you to state to the Court what, in the

way of finances or legal services, the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People is furnishing in
this case?

A. They have furnished the money to pay for the record
on appeal.

Q. How much money has the National Association fur
nished ?

A. $100.00 to me, I think it was. No, whatever the record
in this case costs. I don’t remember just what it was.
ffol. 340] Q. Are they also furnishing the attorney for the
Association, Mr. Marshall?

A. That is right.
Q. Were you here at the meeting held here in Austin

the night before the case came up in the Court of Civil
Appeals ?

A. I was not.
Q. What other finances had the N. A. A. C. P. furnished

in this case?
A. None, to me.
Q. Do you know of any to anyone else ?
A. I don’t know, not of my own knowledge.
Q. Did you attend a meeting on March 8, 1947 in Dallas

and address that meeting which was considering the ques
tion of this lawsuit and higher education for Negroes?

_ A. I have attended several meetings in Dallas where they
discussed higher education for Negroes. As to what date,
I don’t know, I don’t remember at this time.

Q. Were you in Dallas when the relator came up there
and showed you the relator from the registrar saying that he
would be admitted to the new Negro Law School?

A. I was there. He stayed at my home.
Q. You have heard him testify here as to the discussion

and conclusion that was reached there, to the effect that he
should not enroll, have you not ?

A. I did.
Q. Prior to advising him whether or not he should enroll

in the new Negro Law School, I will ask you if you came to
[fob 341] Austin and made any check on the school?

14—725

210

A. I did not.
Q. Did yon send anyone down here to make an inspection

of the school ?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you talk with Dean McCormick or any of the

other faculty members assigned to the new Negro Law
School to determine whether or not, in your opinion, this
new Negro Law School had the equal facilities to those at
the University of Texas?

A. Did I talk to any of them?
Q. Any of the officials of the University?
A. I did.
Q. Did you make any investigation whatever of the

courses that were to be offered, and the instruction to be
offered in this new school, before advising, before you and
the relator came to the conclusion that he should not attend?

A. I only read the courses set out in the catalogue.
Q. And those are the same courses offered at the Uni

versity of Texas?
A. Those are the courses offered at the University of

Texas.
Q. That is all of the knowledge of the matter that you had

before you and he reached the conclusion he should not
enroll in the separate law school?

A. No.
[fol. 342] Q. You say that isn’t all of the information you
received concerning the courses?

A. The courses, yes. That is the only information I had
concerning the courses.

Q. Did you have any other information concerning the
professors?

A. I never knew who the professors were.
Q. I see. And that is all of the investigation that you

made at that time concerning the facilities of the school, the
courses and the professors, before the decision was reached
as to what he should do ?

A. Well, no.
Q. What other investigation did you make of the facilities,

the courses and the professors?
A. I asked a Mr. Maceo Smith to furnish me a report.
Q. You asked Mr. Maceo Smith to furnish you a report

on the new Negro Law School?
A. That is right.

211

Q. Did he furnish you that report?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he connected with the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People?
A. Yes.
Q. What is his official position with that organization?
A. Secretary of the State Conference of Branches, N. A.

A. C. P.
Q. State that again.

[fol. 343] A. Secretary of the Texas Conference of Bran
ches of N. A. A. C. P.

Q. Is he here in the court room today?
A. I haven’t seen him.
Q. Where does he live?
A. Dallas.
Q. Did you make any investigation other than the one you

asked Maceo Smith to make?
A. No.
Q. Did he give you a written report?
A. He gave me a report by telephone.
Q. How long after you asked him for it?
A. Oh, perhaps four or five days.
Q. Perhaps four or five days—did you make—then, was

it strictly on the investigation made by Maceo Smith that
you arrived at the conclusion that you and the relator
agreed upon him-------

Mr. Nabrit: We object to that. The basis upon which the
attorney advises his client is------

The Court: It is confidential.
A. And I desire to claim it at this time.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. All right. I will ask no further questions,'—before

you go, I will ask you one question. Did you make any
other investigation yourself of the matter, regardless of
what you advised your client? You, yourself, did you
ffol. 344] make any other investigation of the matter other
than what Maceo Smith------

The Court: You can ask him whether he did or didn’t,
but not what he did.

A. I made no other investigation.

212

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. When you say the money that was contributed to the

record in this case by the N. A. A. C. P., did you mean the
National office of the N. A. A. C. P. or the State Conference
of Branches?

A. The State Conference of Branches of the N. A. A. C. P.,
and not the National.

Q. And that conference is composed solely of people in
Texas?

A. Around 40,000 negroes and whites.
Q. Both whites and negroes?
A. I want to make this statement. When I said “ for the

record” in this case, Mr. Sweatt gave me the first $100 to
pay the Court costs when I filed this lawsuit. That came
directly from Mr. Sweatt.

Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. To refresh your memory on this matter of the meeting

of March 8, 1947, I would like for you to look over this
[fol. 345] article and see if you can refresh your memory as
to that particular meeting I am asking about.

A. This says March 13th.
Q. If you will read on down it says the meeting was on the

8th.
A. I attended a number of meetings. Whether this meet

ing or not, I don’t know.
Q. Look that over and see if that doesn’t refresh your

memory about attending that particular meeting?
A. Now, I attended two or three meetings where similar

actions were taken as the action taken here. Whether it
was at this meeting or not, because they hold many meetings
that I don’t attend.

Q. This meeting reported here was held just before the
Negro Law School was to be opened, the week-end before,
wasn’t it?

A. I don’t know.
Mr. ISTabrit: Your Honor------
Mr. Daniel: I will withdraw the question.

213

Q. Did you attend one of those meetings several days
before March 10, 1947, at which you made a report to the
meeting yourself about the separate Negro Law School that
was set up here, and which Mr. Henry Doyle, of Austin,
was present, and Joseph Rhodes was present and presided
at the meeting ?

A. I have never made a report to any meeting at any
time anywhere with reference to the Negro Law School, be
cause I knew nothing about it.
[fol. 346] Q. You knew nothing about it. Did you ever
attend any meeting at which any report was made concern
ing the N. A. A. C. P. intending to picket the Negro Law
School on March 10, 1947, the date it was to open, in which
that was reported?

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, that question is entirely ir
relevant and it is immaterial.

The Court: I believe it is. I will let counsel answer it,
if it—if he wants to.

A. I have never been in a meeting that I can remember
where the N. A. A. C. P. took action with reference to
picketing the law school.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I didn’t ask you if they took any action. I said, was

any report there made or anything mentioned concerning the
proposed picketing of this school?

A. Not while I was in the meeting.
Q. Not while you were in the meeting. How long did

you stay?
A. I came into the meeting—the Bar Association meets

from ten until eleven, as well as I remember, the last
meeting I attended on Saturday morning, and I attended
the Dallas County Bar meeting from ten until eleven. I
don’t know how long the meeting had been in session. I
went back to my office, and the office girl told me they called
me to come to the auditorium at the Roseland Hall. They
wanted me to make a statement for the benefit of those as-
ffol. 347] sembled with reference to the Sweatt case, and
I think I got to the meeting around twelve o ’clock. The only
statement I made in that meeting was with reference to the
status of the Sweatt case, and as to other—what other
business they transacted before or after I left, shortly

214

after I made my statement with reference to the Sweatt
case------

Q. Picketing wasn’t mentioned while you were at the
meeting ?

A. No, because when I came in I told the girl in the office
that I would have only a few minutes, and when I came in,
they said, “ Come to the front, and we will let you make
your statement and go. ’ ’ I made my statement, and I guess
I had been in there not more than four or five minutes.
As soon as I made my statement I attempted to leave the
building, and some two or three fellows I knew stopped me,
and I sat and talked to them for maybe five or ten minutes,
and I left the meeting, and it occurs to me that the meeting
adjourned while I was still there talking to them, but I don’t
know what discussion took place before I went there.

Q. What was the name of the meeting—the organization?
A. I believe that was the—I am mistaken about the

N. A. A. C. P. It was a State Council of Negro Organiza
tions.

Q. Was N. A. A. C. P. a member of that council?
A. As I understand, every organization in Texas, re

ligious, fraternal, social and all other characters, organiza
tions of that nature, are members of that organization.
That is my------
[fol. 348] Q. Do you know Henry Doyle, of Austin?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you see him there at the meeting that day?
A. I am not sure whether I knew Henry Doyle on that

day. I probably did. My impression is there were some
people from Austin.

Q. That was Saturday before May 10, 1947 ?
A. I can’t be exact about the date.
Q. It was before the opening date of the new law school

in Austin?
A. My best recollection is that it was, but I wouldn’t be

positive about it.
Q. I see. Is Maceo Smith a lawyer?
A. No.
Q. He is the man that made you the only report that yon

received on the law school, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. He is not a lawyer?

215

A. That is right.
Q. That is all.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: We will recess until nine o ’clock in the morn
ing.

(Court was recessed at 4:30 p. m., May 14, 1947, until
9 :00 a. m., May 15,1947.)

[fol. 349] Morning Session, May 15,1947. 9 :00 A. M.
E arl G. H arrison, a witness produced by the Relator,

having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as fol
lows :

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. State your name, please.
A. Earl G. Harrison.
Q. And where do you live, Mr. Harrison?
A. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2028 Spruce Street.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Professor of Law, and Dean at the University of Penn

sylvania Law School in Philadelphia.
Q. Dean Harrison, would you please state your educa

tional qualifications ?
A. I received my Bachelor of Arts Degree at the Uni

versity of Pennsylvania in 1920; my Bachelor of Law De
gree at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1923.

Q. Would you state briefly your professional experience?
A. From 1923 until July 1, 1945,1 practiced law in Phila

delphia. During a portion of that time I conducted courses
at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, principally
between 1932 and 1938. I became Dean, full-time Dean, and
[fol. 350] Professor of Law on July 1, 1945.

Q. Are you a member of the American Bar Association?
A. Yes, sir, I am; and I am Vice Chairman of the Ameri

can Bar Association’s Committee on Continuing Education
of the Bar, a committee which is considering ways and
means of post admission education. I might say also that
since ’39 I have been a Trustee of the University of Penn

216

sylvania, and as such, a member of the Board of Trustees
of the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Q. Have you ever done any work for the Department of
Justice?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. What was the nature of that?
A. Well, in 1940 I directed the first National registration

of aliens in the United States; immediately after the out
break of war I supervised the registration of aliens of enemy
nationality. Prom 1942 to 1944, I served as United States
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.

Q. Now, Dean Harrison, I want to ask you a hypothetical
question. Based upon the evidence which has been, which
has already been offered in this case, and to be offered in this
case, and upon the proposition that these facts will he proved
that are used in this hypothetical question. Assuming that
the proposed Negro Law School in Texas is equal in all
other respects to the Law School of the University of Texas,
except in respect to the size of the student body, and further
[fol. 351] assuming that the proposed Negro Law School
has a student body which consists of one student, in your
opinion would the Negro Law School offer to that Negro stu
dent a legal education equal to that offered to any student
at the University of Texas, which has a student
body of approximately 800 students, and further in connec
tion with that, would it offer a legal education substantially
equivalent to that?

A. In my opinion, it would not.
I have taken into consideration in that answer the facts

as have been testified to by Dean McCormick------
Mr. Daniel: Excuse me, sir. We object to anything taken

into consideration outside of the hypothetical question.
The Court: Yes, that is right. The answer should he to

the question of counsel.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, he assumed in that question

the testimony that had already been introduced.
The Court: I know, hut then counsel asked him to assume

certain things, and he then in his answer said he was assum
ing something s o m e t h in g else. It may have been in the testi
mony, but it wasn’t within the confines of his question.

Mr. Nabrit: All right.
A. I would like to make this additional comment upon the

question. In my opinion, it is mistaken, even absurd, to

[fol. 352] speak of any institution that has one student as
a law school.

Q. Why?
A. Because the system, the modern system of instruction

used in a law school is what is known as the case system,
the case method. That is to be contrasted with the former
method of the lecture system, in which the professor of law
merely sat and lectured to the class, in which case it didn’t
make much difference how many or how few students there
were in the class.

Q. Before you go any further in that, Dean Harrison, I
would like for you to include in a discussion of this hypothet
ical question, in dealing with two propositions, whether this
student could get equal education or whether he could get
the substantial equivalent to that received by a student of
the University of Texas; also, ten students. That is, we
want the hypothetical question with one student in the
Negro Law School, and we want you to deal with and take
ten students at the Negro Law School, both in contrast to
the students of the University of Texas, where they have
approximately 800 students. Will you tell'us something
about the case system of study and the reason for your opin
ion?

A. Before I do that, I want to answer specifically the
question supposing a student body of ten students.

Q. Yes.
A. In my opinion, such students still would not get an equal

[fol. 353] education, or even one that is substantially equal
to that which is received by the students in such an out
standing law school as the University of Texas Law School.

Now, I say that largely for the reason that the system
of instruction used today is the case method. I was about
to elaborate on that. It is to be contrasted with the lecture
system. Also, it is to be contrasted with the so-called text
book system, in which the professors and class would use a
textbook, which means the result of study by some other pro
fessor or lawyer or judge of the pertinent court decisions in
that field. The class would take, therefore, rather predi
gested material by someone else, and undertake to become
familiar with the rules of law that can be taken from court
decisions, but a good many years ago a change was effected
in the method of legal education, and gave rise to the so-
called case system.

217

218

That system merely means that the students go to the
original sources for their materials, namely, the decisions
of the courts, and under that system the professor does
very much less talking than he did under the lecture sys
tem.

He calls on some member of the class to make a report on
a given case which has appeared in the case book, and right
at that point, the professor usually calls for comment from
the other members of the class, and from there on it is
largely a matter of discussion in which the members of the
[fol. 354] class participate to a large extent, one commenting
on the recital made by the previous; another criticizing his
statement, either the facts of the case or the decision arrived
at by the Court, and it is first and foremost a class dis
cussion.

Now, I find it very difficult even to contemplate the pos
sibility of legal education under such a system of that being
received even slightly adequate, if you have a single student
in the class, and more than that, I say the same thing is
true where there is a limited group of ten.

The so-called smaller law schools usually average be
tween 50 and 100.

Mr. Daniel: We object to that. He is testifying about
something not within his own knowledge, hearsay.

The Court: Yes. I think that isn’t within the question.
He might know of it, but he was not questioned about it.
I will sustain the objection.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. So that, Dean Harrison, in your opinion, under the

case system of study, it is practically impossible for a
single law student to get the best possible training out of
a class!

A. That is true. In my opinion, a very important facil
ity of a modern law school consists of one’s classmates. In
other words, it isn’t enough to have a good professor. It is
equally essential that there be a well-rounded, a represen-
[fol. 355] tative group of students in the class room to par
ticipate in the class room discussion which centers around
previous decisions of the courts.

Q. Now, Dean Harrison, does the presence of—I will re
state that. Is the study of law affected by the presence or
absence of upper classmen. By that, I mean this; if a single

219

law student, studying in a freshman class in a school where
there are no other students, in the second and third year
classes, is the possibility of that student receiving a sound
legal education affected by the absence of these upper
classmen?

Mr. Daniel: We object, that calls for a conclusion of the
witness, Your Honor. It doesn’t even call for opinion testi
mony.

The Court: I believe he could answer that, Mr. Attorney
General.

Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
A. In my opinion, it would have a very material bearing

upon the legal training the student would receive. In other
words, work in a law -school outside of regular class room
hours is exceedingly important, rubbing elbows with the
other students in the law school, taking part in small dis
cussion groups, discussion with advanced students, all are
very important considerations, equally so, in my opinion,
with the actual class room work itself.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean Harrison, have you made any studies; are you

[fol. 356] acquainted with the results of any scientific studies
with respect to the size of law schools?

A. I am.
Q. Would you state your knowledge of these scientific

studies or your conclusion which you have reached from
your own investigations?

Mr. Daniel: We object to the question, and we would like
to know what the studies are.

The Court: He can perhaps relate what the studies are.
A. I am familiar with the studies that have been made

by the section on Legal Education of the American Bar
Association, with the surveys that have been conducted
periodically by the Carnegie Corporation, and by the Rus
sell Sage Foundation.

Q. What has been the result of your studies with respect
to the sizes of law classes and their bearing on legal educa
tion?

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor-
Mr. Nabrit: If you know?

220

Mr. Daniel: We object to the testimony concerning these
studies. We believe they would he the best evidence here.
He is testifying about something he didn’t have anything
to do with, according to what has been shown so far.

The Court: I think he would have a right to testify, being
familiar with the scientific studies.
[fols. 357-367] Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.

A. All of the studies that I have mentioned have consid
ered at one point or another the relative merits of a large,
as contrasted with a small student body. Most of these
studies have divided the law schools of the country into
three groups; the so-called large law schools that have a
student body in excess of 1,000. Most of the law schools
in the country, it was found in the course of these studies,
have a student body ranging from 100 to 500.

There is another substantial body of law schools having
a student body less than 100. The studies that have been
made have put into the category of so-called smaller law
schools those students having a student body of between
50 and 150. Those studies also have indicated that the
opportunities for legal education, a thoroughly rounded
legal education, are much more limited in the so-called
smaller law schools than they are in the larger law schools.

The studies that I have reference to have pointed out in
general there are four objectives of law school education.
One is, of course, to prepare the practitioner. Second, is
to prepare and train law teachers. Third, is to train and
prepare men for legal research, and the fourth objective
is to train and prepare men and women for public service.

The studies to which I have referred have reached the
conclusion that the so-called small law schools are not in a
[fob 368] position to achieve or even to strive for all of
those four objectives. They have concluded that the small
law schools are not in position really to train men for law
teaching or for legal research, and those studies have
reached the conclusion that the so-called smaller law schools
should, therefore, confine themselves primarily to prepar
ing practitioners, and for preparing men and women for
public service.

Q. Dean Harrison, do these studies show the, show
whether the smaller law schools have in most cases such
things as law reviews, moot court!

221

A. The studies show that many of the smaller law schools
do not have those additional facilities, which, in my opinion,
are extremely important. The existence of a law review is
not only a great incentive to all students, but if a student
is fortunate enough to qualify for a position as editor, it is
a tremendous advantage to him, not only then in the course
of his legal training, but throughout the rest of his pro
fessional life. It is a qualification to which he can always
point with pride, and which will be very helpful to him in
connection with his professional standing, and with his pro
fessional advancement.

The same is true with respect to the system of moot court
arguments. That, again, is something that is outside the
class room, but all of the leading law schools of the country,
certainly including the University of Texas Law School
[fol. 369] have a system of moot court arguments. It
doesn’t make much difference, in my opinion, whether those
arguments are participated in by first year men or not. It
is something to which they have access, but in the second
and third years they are permitted to take part in it.

They learn something which isn’t taught in a good many
law schools in any other way, brief writing, ability to stand
up and present an argument before a court, training in
that, legal research, all of those are covered by the so-called
moot court argument system which prevails generally in
the leading law schools of the country.

Q. Dean Harrison, would you say that scholarships,
honors, societies like the Order of the Coif, and law reviews,
are extraneous and unimportant factors in a law school?

A. They are by no means extraneous. They are an im
portant part of law school life of law schools. To have
such an organization as the Order of the Coif is, again, an
incentive to the student body, not only looking forward to
practicing, one looking forward to a career of public serv
ice, but certainly to one who might look forward to law
teaching, work on legal research. The fact that he has had
an opportunity to be elected to an organization such as the
Order of the Coif is an extremely important one to him. All
of the matters to which you refer are, in my opinion, an
integral and most important part of the legal training, and
[fol. 370] are by no means to the slightest degree ex
traneous.

Q. Dean Harrison, is it true that with one student there
is no necessity for a full-time teacher because one student

222

with the same capacity as other students could get a better
grasp of the principles of law than if he were one of 800
students with many teachers?

A. I thoroughly disagree with that point of view, and in
my opinion, it is not true, that merely because there should
be a small number of students there would be any the less
need or desirability for full time professors. Now, the
reason, as clearly shown in all of the studies that have been
made, the reason for insisting------

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, that isn’t responsive to the
question. I would like for him to ask him the questions.

The Court: Yes.
A. I am about to discuss the full-time professors.
Mr. Daniel: I know, but let him ask you for it, please,

Dean Harrison, from now on.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean Harrison, it has been stated that the reason for

full-time teachers is that the teachers will have some chance
to individually and personally know the students. Is that
the reason for full-time teachers in law schools ?

A. That is one of the reasons.
Q. Do you know the other reasons? If so, state those.
A. Of course, I know them; and other reasons equally

[fol. 371] important are that the teacher should be available
to the students during the usual business hours. The great
objection to the part-time lecturer, the lawyer or the judge
downtown who comes out and gives an occasional class
room hour, the greatest objection to having the whole fac
ulty consisting of that kind of professors is that he will
not be available to the student during the ordinary hours
when the student is going over the class room notes, his
class room discussion, and endeavoring to make up what he
calls a digest, or his own review.

Frequently he gets stuck. Something then becomes un
clear to him which he thought previously he understood,
and so, it has been thought to be a great advantage that
the law professor ought to be in the building, accessible
to the law students. That doesn’t mean that he is accessi
ble every minute of the time. A professor has other duties.
He is often engaged in his own research, which is a funda
mental reason for requiring a reasonable number of full
time professors, have them there in the law school so that

223

they should be available to the student outside of regular
class room hours, to help him over troublesome spots.

Q. Dean Harrison, are you familiar with the standards
of the Association of American Law Schools ?

A. I am.
Q. Under the standards of the American Association of—

[fol. 372] Association of American Law Schools, would a
student who was enrolled and engaged in the study of law at
an unapproved law school during its first year of operation,
who wished to transfer from that school to one of the law
schools in the Association of American Law Schools, would
that student’s credits be accepted by the school which was
a member of the Association?

A. They certainly would not. If a student attended a
first year------

Mr. Daniel: Just a minute.
Mr. Nabrit: Just a minute, Dean Harrison. I think he

has answered it, too.
The Court: Yes, he has answered it.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Would the fact that students’ credits would not be

accepted from this school be of any importance in evaluat
ing the legal education of that student and the opportunity
for that student at this unapproved school, in comparison
with the legal education of a student at another school which
was approved, and whose credits would be accepted?

A. Of course, it would.
Q. What is the reason for that?
A. A great many law students, after they have taken

part of their education, desire to launch upon a specific
kind of career. Many of them are totally unable to judge
at the outset of their legal education what they want to do,
[fol. 373] and so, not an inconsiderable number of them do
think in terms of transferring from one institution to an
other, after they get a clearer idea of what it is they want
to do, particularly if they want to specialize.

A student who is in an unapproved school can not trans
fer to an approved institution. Let’s say at the end of the
first year, for example, if the school which he has been
attending up to that point has not been approved by the
Association of American Law Schools, therefore, there is
a distinct advantage to the student who is attending an

224

approved institution to have that greater flexibility which
arises out of the fact that he may, for one reason or another,
wish to transfer to another institution, even though he
may not have that intention at all when he enters the law
school.

Q. That is all.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dean Harrison, one of the main advantages of the case

system of study is in order that the students may go to the
original sources, prepare for recitations on them, and make
those recitations in the class room, isn’t that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. That is one of the advantages?
A. That is right.

[fol. 374] Q. Now, let’s take a hypothetical case of a
hundred and seventy five students in the class room as com
pared with ten students in the class room, with the same
professors, a one hour class period. I will ask you, in your
opinion, whether or not a larger percentage of the students
in the class room of ten could recite on the cases assigned
for the day than in the class room of 175?

A. Unquestionably, a higher percentage of the smaller
class would be called on to recite on the cases, but it is neces
sary for me to qualify that to this extent.

Q. I will let yon qualify it in a minute.
A. I must explain my answer now.
Q. I think you have answered my question.
The Court: I think he can explain his answer.
Mr. Daniel: All right.
A. I do want to say that an equally important part of

class room discussion------
Q. I am coming to that next.
A. All right, if you ask me a question.
Q. I am not going to leave anything out in the value of

the system.
A. Thank you.
Q. T&e neit important------
Mr. Durnam: T e object to it. The witness is entitled

to mswer me .m—non. to qualify ins answer. Now he sroes
ton 3731 to the next ruescon.

225

Mr. Daniel: That is going to be just what he is talking
about.

Mr. Durham: All right.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Now, the next important feature of the case system,

as I understood your testimony on direct examination, was
the class room discussion, where, after this one student
has recited, or as many, as large a percent as possible has
recited on the case during the class period, then other
students may be given an opportunity to arise and criticize
the discussion and make comments; correct?

A. That is right.
Q. Now, I will ask you if it isn’t correct that in a class

room of ten during an hour’s period, with the same profes
sor, if a larger percentage of the students within the class
room would not be able to comment and discuss the case
than in a class room of 125 during the same period of time?

A. Yes.
Q. That is correct?
A. Yes, but it is here that I want to say that it is equally

important what the student hears, as well as the opportunity
he has to make his own comment. It isn’t alone important
that the student have an oppportunity to make comments or
suggestions or arguments, but it is equally important, in
my opinion, that he should hear the comments and criti-
[fol. 376] cisms of other members of the class.

Q. Now, Dean Harrison, you have been teaching that
system for several years, haven’t you?

A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it an unusual thing for more than nine fellow

students to comment on recitations ? Isn’t that the unusual,
rather than the usual thing?

A. No, not in my classes.
Q. I see.
A. There is more likely to be 25 or 30 students in any

one hour who will make a comment, not a recitation on a
case, but will make a comment or criticism of what has been
said by some fellow student or what has been reported
upon on the case under discussion.

Q. But in an hour’s class where you allow 25 to com
ment on the recitation given by a fellow student, certainly

15—725

226

you do not get to cover as many cases during that hour as
if fewer commented?

A. That is right. You don’t cover as many cases.
Q. But in a smaller class of ten where less would be able

to comment, not more than nine, ten counting the professor,
you would, of course, be able to cover more cases during the
hour, wouldn’t you?

A. Yes.
Q. Now then, Dean Harrison, I would like to ask you on

[fol. 377] the full-time professor proposition if the—a law
school has three or four full-time professors for ten
students, assigned full time; if they would not be in a posi
tion to meets the requirements there of giving as much
time as possible to the students, much better than in a
school where seventeen professors have 850 students to
give time to?

A. Let me he sure that I understand your question.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Am I to assume that the three or four so-called full

time men spend their time outside of the class in the same
building with me. the student?

Q. All right, sir. exactly as—you were here when Chair
man Woodward and Dean MeCormiek testified?

A. Yes.
Q. About the proposed plan, for the future of this Negro

Law School under discussion*
A. Yes.
Q. If that is adopted, whereby three er fear full-time

professors are there ah of the tune, would uot they be able
to rt—e more of that repaired time than seventeen wuold to
850 students at the larger law school '

A Of morse they would, if they are faiL-cme m the so-
•i new tBstsfeaSSHK. a « i t&ay grx isics: te-t&e

Tmve retry i f Texas after they mm mem user Lass riunr
work.

*4- I TPitud. aka ar ask. ywt a iro*mtecnas£ kbsoub. hi
• 1 . JTS - *s - \ ' > sar~

at me oary i f um by wifi lftfdinny
m l in f iitlmwnV m. -rniy’fkq. Iftnlmnftiars

>< %■$. s o r y "'*• -u u — v t o aw sesrues it
ostrr k it warn list sscay -tsstsser

af ’he s*a*e ami # mjtyiriiBi>ig. -upaF

miSi: ?»*** a* yswr

227

there would be any chance that a student attending one of
those separate schools would not receive substantially equal
legal training and procedure from those two schools ?

A. In my opinion there is a considerable chance that just
that would be the case.

Q. They would receive substantially equal legal educa
tion?

A. That they would not, and I say that because whenever
you have a student body that is limited to one group, you do
not get the kind of representation, cross-section of the com
munity that is so highly desirable in particularly the first
year classes of law school.

Q. If I understand your answer to that question, you be
lieve that a law school in one part of the city with 850 white
students, the same faculty, everything exactly the same as
one in another part of the city with 850 Negro students,
everything is exactly the same except they are separate
schools, you believe that the student in the white school
[fol. 379] would not receive equal or substantially equal
legal training with the student over in the Negro School, is
that correct?

A. I say that the student in the white school would re
ceive a better legal education, better legal training, because
in my opinion, you can not get, under present conditions, a
class made up entirely of Negro students that would be as
representative of the entire community as would be the case
in a class, a sehool made up entirely of white students.

Q. You don’t think there would be any chance of sub
stantially equal educational opportunities then in separate
schools ?

A. No, the white student would have a decided advan
tage, in my opinion.

Q. That is all.
Mr. Nabrit: That is all. Thank you.

(Witness excused.)
Mr. Marshall: That is the only one we have.
Court was recessed at 9:45 a. m., until 10:05 a. m., May

15, 1947, following which proceedings were resumed as
follows:

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, we have one
witness whose testimony will be based on some records.

228

that we will have on the way here, and I think it would be
all right, if, with the permission of the Court and the other
side, for him to testify to those.
[fol. 380] The Court: Subject to the production of the in
struments, I think it would he all right.

Mr. Marshall: They will be here in a few minutes.

D r . C harles H. T hompson , a witness produced by the
Delator, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testi
fied as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Will you give your full name?
A. Charles H. Thompson.
Q. And your address !
A. 1230 Fairmont Street Northwest, Washington, D. C.
Q. Your present position?
A. I am Dean of the Graduate School of Howard Uni

versity.
Q. That is in Washington, D. C.?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all, where were you born?
A. I was born in Jackson, Mississippi.
Q. Will you trace your educational qualifications?
A. Yes. I attended an elementary school, private Bap

tist school in Kosciusko, Mississippi, and graduated from
what I thought was a high school; and I attended W ay land
Academy, of Virginia Union University, in Richmond, Vir-
[foL 381] ginia. starting in 1911, and finishing the academy
there in 1914, and subsequently attended college until 1917,
mu went to Chicago, and spent a year there and got the
ieirree >f Bacneior u Philosophy in June, 1918, and then
I went )vers«asb in World War l and spent eleven mouths- in
P ’ance. mtumed sad veuc back to the University of
hicago, C m W o v '.Agree n 1929.

Jl .li-L-lI. UsUgtli si :!e IJhiOit Q'r.' It
IRatMMSMb, At ho A hat 1,'vens
L tftt' IhnAmTsRx o Wiv-.ojjf, ̂ x it

v '■ Si . >. - - S *.o-. :t

229

Montgomery, Alabama, and spent two years as instructor
in teacher training in that institution.

In 1924 I went back to the University of Chicago and
completed the training for the doctorate, and received my
Doctor’s Degree in 1925. On completion of my doctorate
at the University of Chicago I went to the Sumner High
School in Kansas City, Kansas, and taught psychology
and economics in the Junior College for one year.

Q. Dr. Thompson, on your master’s, what was your par
ticular study in your thesis?

A. I made a study of comparative learning abilities of
Negro children in the City of Chicago.

Q. Getting back to the positions you have held since you
obtained your doctorate, after leaving Sumner High School
[fol. 382] in Kansas City, where did you go?

A. To Howard University, as Associate Professor in
Education, in 1926. In 1929-1930, I was made Professor of
Education. In 1931 and 1932 I was Acting Dean of Educa
tion at Howard University.

In 1932 I was made Director of the Bureau of Educa
tional Research and editor of the Journal on Negro Educa
tion, and in 1938 I was made Dean of the College of Liberal
Arts, which position I held until 1943. Beginning Janu
ary 1, 1944, I have since been Dean of the Graduate School
of Howard University.

Q. Up to the present time?
A. Yes.
Q. Explain to the Court what is the Journal on Negro

Education.
A. The Journal on Negro Education is a scholarly maga

zine in the field of education, which deals primarily with
the education of minority groups, and particularly, the
Negro group.

Q. And how wide is the circulation of that?
A. It has average circulation of a scholarly journal.
Q. Is it a magazine of general circulation, or a magazine

usually circulated among people in the educational field?
A. Primarily the latter.
Q. What then is the Bureau of Educational Research that

you are Director of?
A. The Bureau of Educational Research is an organiza-

[fol. 383] tion which was set up to make investigations of
various types of educational problems, primarily problems

230

dealing with minority groups, particularly Negroes in
America.

Q. Have you published any scientific articles?
A. Yes.
Q. In what publications, as far as you can remember?
A. A number of publications. The Annals of the Ameri

can Academy on Political and Social Science, Educational
Administration and Supervision and several others that I
do not recall at the present time, School and Society.

Q. Dr. Thompson, have you done any scientific work, re
search on the question of the comparative educational facili
ties for white and Negro students in segregated school sys
tems ?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. About how long have you been working on that?
A. Oh, as I indicated a moment ago, I became interested

in the problem when I was working for my Master’s De-
gree_ at the University of Chicago. In 1928, I believe I
published the first results of an investigation that I made on
the educational achievements of Negro children in separate
schools. That was published in the annals to which I re
ferred, in 1928, and since then I have published a lot of
things, a list of which I do not have at the present time.

Q . Dr. Thompson, are you familiar with other recognized
scientific studies in the field of the comparison of education
[fol. 384] of Negro and white students in separate schools?

A. I am.
Q. Have you worked at all with the United States Depart

ment of Education in recent years?
A. On several occasions.
Q. Can you briefly give those occasions, and what type of

work it was?
A. The first contact with the Bureau was around 1931 or

1932. That wasn’t on one of these comparative studies. It
happened to be a study of the products of graduate schools
of the country. The second contact was a commission called
the Wartime Educational Commission. The most recent
contact I have had was as advisory member of the Na
tional Survey on Higher Education of Negroes, published in
1942.

Q. Was that published by the United States Government
Printing Office?

A. Yes, it was.
Q. As an official document?

231

A. It was.
Q. By the way, while discussing the Government, do you

at the present time hold a position on any official commis
sion of the Federal Government?

A. I don’t know whether you would call it United States
Educational—United Nations Scientific Educational Organi
zation. I am on the National Committee for the United
[fol. 385] Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization,
which is under the sponsorship of the State Department.

Q. That represents the United States Government?
A. Yes.
Q. In the United Nations organization on education?
A. Yes, commonly known as UNESCO.
Q. Are there any people from Texas serving on that

Commission with you?
A. I think Professor Dobie, at the University of Texas,

and Dr. Evans, of the Library of Congress, is on that Com
mission,

Q. Do you have any official connection—what is the Na
tional Educational Association?

A. That is an association of teachers in the United States,
public and private.

Q. And do you hold any official position in that organiza
tion ?

A. I am the consultant to the Educational Policies Com
mission of the UEA.

Q. What is the Educational Policies Committee?
A. That is very much as its name suggests, to study and

make recommendations concerning educational policies for
development of education in the United States.

Q. Do you know of the Association of American Colleges?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. That is an association of some five or six hundred

[fol. 386] liberal arts colleges in the United States which
have come together in an association for their mutual
benefit.

Q. Do you hold any official position in that organization?
A. Yes, I happen to be a member of the Committee on

Teacher Education of that organization.
Q. Do you know anything about the Nation’s Schools, a

magazine, and if so, what is it?
A. The Nation’s Schools is a magazine in the field of

232

education that deals largely with administrative and super
visory problems, broad policy problems.

Q. Do you hold any position in that organization?
A. I happen to be consulting editor of that magazine.
Q. Do you hold any position with The World Book En

cyclopedia ?
A. Yes. I have forgotten my exact title. I suppose it is

consulting editor. What I do is edit all of the material
concerning Negroes which goes into that encyclopedia.

Q. What is the Southern Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools?

A. The Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools is an organization composed of a number of white
secondary schools and colleges in the southern area. It is an
accrediting agency for this region, and I presume there are
other things that go on in it that I don’t know of.

Q. Does that Association accredit white schools in the
Austin area?
[fol. 387] A. It does.

Q. Colleges and secondary schools?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it also accredit Negro separate schools in the

same area?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you hold any official position in connection with the

accreditation of these schools?
A. During the past year and a half I have been an inspec

tor of Negro colleges for the Southern Association Com
mittee which accredits Negro schools.

Q. What were your duties in that position ?
A. My duties were to go around with a committee, gen

erally of three, to inspect designated institutions, and to
make a report as to whether or not they were living up to
standards, in the case of schools already in, and in the case
of schools that were trying to get in, to find out whether
they met the standards.

Q. How many such schools have you inspected in the last
year and a half?

A. Six or seven.
Q. Six or seven?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you requested by the relator in this ease to make

certain studies concerning higher education for Nesrroes
in Texas?

233

[fol. 388] A. I was.
Q. Approximately what date?
A. Around the first week in April.
Q. As a result of that request what did you do ?
A. Well, the first thing, I had to rearrange my calen

dar at the University. That was the very first thing.
Q. I mean, in connection with the study?
A. The first thing I did on the study was to exhaust all

of the sources that were available to me in the Bureau of
Educational Research at Howard University. That was
number one. Number two, I exhausted all of the resources
in the United States Office of Education, particularly the
Statistical Division. By exhaust, I got all of the material
and made a study of it, as far as possible, up until about
May first, when I got on the train to come to Texas. I
have been here since, the last 10 or 12 days; in fact, I got
in. Austin Tuesday a week ago. I have been attempting
since being in Austin to exhaust all possible sources of in
formation relative to the education in Texas.

Q. Where did you go for this information? What I am
driving at, what type of information did you examine?

A. First, I went to the Department of Education.
Q. Is that the State Department of Education of Texas?
A. That is the State Department of Education of Texas,

to the office of the Executive Secretary of Scholarship
[fol. 389] Commission. I have forgotten the gentleman’s
name, but his secretary was there, and she gave me the
information which I desired.

Then I went over to the Capitol Building. That was
in the education building here on Congress and something.
I went over to the Capitol Building to the State Superin
tendent’s Office, with the intention of talking to the State
Superintendent but he was busy and I found I could get
the information I wanted from the statistical department
in the Superintendent’s Office, and I talked to a Mrs.
Tanner in that department, and I went to the Division of
Higher Education to see if I could get catalogues or audit
reports of State supported institutions in Texas, and found
I couldn’t get them from that office, but I was directed to the
State Auditor’s Office, where I went and got all of the avail
able latest reports for all of the higher institutions, State
supported, in the State of Texas.

Then I went out to the University of Texas for two rea
sons. First, to get some information, and, second, to see

234

it and to look over the general plan. I went to the Regis
trar’s Office to get some catalogues, which I did, on various
schools. I didn’t get all of them that I need, but suffi
cient. Then I went over the grounds of the University
of Texas. I started on foot, and it was very hot, and I
got a taxicab and drove all around the place to get an idea
of what it looked like. Then I began work on the material,
[fol. 390] While I am talking about where I went------

Q. Didn’t you also go some place else in Texas?
A. The next place I went was to Prairie View State Col

lege, where I spent five or six hours going through that
plant, talking with the principal and teachers, looking at the
equipment in the various buildings and that sort of thing. I
spent a very profitable five or six hours at Prairie View.
I hadn’t been to Prairie View before, and I was very anx
ious to get all I could from that institution.

Q. Dr. Thompson, in these studies that you made of the
information that you did not have in your own mind, but that
you obtained from other documents and records, will you
give the Court as many of those documents and records
as you can remember, as to whether or not they were official
or private documents?

A. Well, the audit reports were official reports.
Q. We will decide whether they were official. Just name

them.
A. The State Auditor’s Reports, audit reports of the

several State supported higher instititutions in Texas. Of
course. I had recourse to S. B. 140.

Mr. Daniel: Would you give the dates on those re
ports. so- that we will mow how tar they go?

A. 154o and 1 I4f. 1945 for seme of them, and 1946. I was
toil those were the latest avails:.e ores. There was ore
■ A itk I A d safe g et a U A they sa id w as a d available.
fiL -1 ramery me report for tre Texas Technological

i -o - i t L ai:nock, tut I got £ of the rest of them.

V iar tuner in cumene?
Whi., L wTT finish with Texas.

■at use tot year srjdy *
s if l ear.

o ucKceady £1 £ tie gaca-myies- k me
tSrte sup. \ • lilies use: o tons.

235

Q. When you say “ catalogues” do you mean the pub
lished catalogues?

A. The published catalogues of the institutions. There
are a few exceptions, of course. I have had access to
H. B. 246, which is the current appropriation bill, I think,
passed by the House. What else in Texas? State Superin
tendent’s Report, the Regulations of the Board of Trustees
of the State Board of Education in Texas. Others will come
to me.

Q. What, in Washington, did you use?
A. The reports of the United States Office of Educa

tion, the biannual surveys for 1937 and 1938, 1938 to 1940—
1940 to 1942; Statistics of Higher Education, Statistics of
Higher Education of the United States Bureau of Educa
tion for 1943-1944, Statistics on Higher Education for 1945-
1946 for some institutions.

Q. As to those Government reports from the Depart
ment of Education, what are they based upon, if you know
of your own knowledge?
[fol. 392] A. They are based upon reports sent in by the
several institutions of the United States Office of Education
for compilation and summarizing.

Q. And is that pursuant to the United States Department
of Education?

A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything else that you can remember now?

If not, we will come to it.
A. The list of accredited schools, United States Office of

Education. I have a good memory, but I can’t remember
all of them.

Q. We will find out. Now, Dr. Thompson, as a result of
your experience over twenty-some years in the field of
comparing the education in segregated school systems, and
as a result of the materials that you have gone into and
examined, are you prepared to testify as to the comparative
value of the public education in college, graduate and pro
fessional levels, in the State of Texas, with statements as
to the official documents from which you obtained informa
tion that you do not have in your own mind?

A. I do—I am.
Q. As a result of your past experience, your research

among recognized scientific sources of information, and
your personal observation and examination of official

236

documents and records while in Texas, have you made a
[fol. 393] comparison of the provisions for and the quality
and quantity of education offered at Prairie View for Ne
groes with that offered at the University of Texas and other
schools offering college, graduate and professional train
ing for white students in the State of Texas?

A. I have.
Q. First of all, will you name the State supported in

stitutions of Texas above the high school level to which
Negroes are admitted?

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, I would like to interpose our
objection to that question. It seems to be the phase where
he is about, after having qualified, to testify as to the
schools for the purpose of making a comparison in the field
of higher education. I would like to make the objection to
that question and to the testimony along that line con
cerning higher education that* has been furnished in Texas
in the past in other schools other than the two schools that
we now have for consideration in this case. The relator’s
petition asserts an individual right, as held by the Supreme
Court in the Gaines case, the right that he has to enter
the State supported white school, is an individual right
which he has, unless the State furnishes a separate school
with substantially equal facilities for the training he de
sires.

In his petition here, he makes no allegations whatever
that would put us on notice that he intends to put into
[fol. 394] this case evidence as to all of the other schools,
schools he doesn’t seek to enter. Whatever the comparative
value or the comparative value may have been in the past
as to those schools, has no bearing whatever as to his
individual right to a legal education, what he is seeking
by this suit, and we say that certainly that line of testh
mony is not admissible. It is irrelevant and immaterial
in this case. We will not object to any part of that testi
mony bearing on the schools that we have directly involved
in this case, but as to the other schools, and what has gone
on in the past, and not concerned with what we have at
the present, we feel is irrelevant and immaterial in this
case. It is today, and what we have for the relator today
tiiat answers wnu: he has alleged that he is entitled to as
an individual riant in this ease.

237

The Court: Unless it has a final hearing on this case it
would not be considered.

Mr. Marshall: But I can proceed, sir!
The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Will you name the State supported institutions of

Texas above the high school level to which Negroes are
admitted?

A. Prairie View University.
Q. Would you say—do you know of any others?
A. I don’t know of any other school, no.
Q. Any other public supported school?

[fob 395] A. No.
Q. Will you name the State supported institutions main

tained by the State of Texas above the high school level
to which white students are admitted?

A. I take it that you mean the four year institutions,
rather than------

Q. I do mean four year institutions.
A. Well, there is the University of Texas, and all of its

branches; the Texas A. & M., and its several branches, in
cluding the Agricultural School at Tarlton, and Prairie
View, by the way, is a branch of A. & M., and Texas State
College for Women at Denton; Texas Technological College
at Lubbock; the Texas College of Arts and Industries, and
then there are seven teachers colleges.

Q. There are seven teachers colleges?
A. There are seven teachers colleges, North State

Teachers College, and East State Teachers College, West,
Southwest Teachers College, the Sul Ross State Teachers
College, and Sam Houston State Teachers College.

Q. Making a total of how many?
A. That ought to be twelve, the way I named them.
Q. There are twelve, are there not? And is there another

one?
A. It doesn’t come to me.
Q. What are the—and I am speaking now, I am asking

you to answer this from your experience in his particular
[fol. 396] field, and among your associates in that field and
the studies that have been made in that field, what are the
recognized criteria for comparing education offered in
different schools?

238

A. Well, the adequacy of, at least, the following things
which I shall mention: Number one, physical facilities,
plant assets, and the general total assets of an institution.
The physical facilities, such as buildings, equipment, et
cetera. The total assets of the institution would include
not only that, but endowments and other items involved.
Number two, the amount of current educational funds at
the disposal of the institution. Three, the curriculum,
courses of study offered, or the course, as the case may be.
Four, the faculty. Five, the library. Those are the five
generally recognized criteria. I might add, the standing
of the educational institution in the educational world and
in the community. I don’t know whether accreditation
would cover it or not, but we will say those five or six.

Q. Now then, in appreciating and comparing one school
with another, or one school with a group of schools, do
you use any one of these as the most important, or any
group of them as the more important, or how are they
considered in relative value, the six items you have men
tioned?

A. I don’t know how you -would make any relative value.
They are so interdependent it would be difficult to divorce
[fol. 397] one from the other. You can’t have a curriculum
without a building and equipment. At one time we had
Mark Hopkins on one end of the log and Garfield on the
other, but it is different now. You can’t have one of these
without the other. They are interdependent.

Q. The first of the criteria mentioned was physical plant.
Will you compare the physical plant at Prairie View with
that of the University of Texas and other colleges and uni
versities, public supported, that you mentioned above,
which are offered to white students?

Mr. Daniel: We wish to renew the objection directly to
that question. That has no bearing on any issue in this
case.

The C ourt: I am going to hear it. I am unable vet to
relate it to this.

Mr. Daniel: Our bill will go to all of it?

A. ̂m - e m ice i -mny if ice man: assets* and the total
MBtf iM hutif asoE&B ffif the d n n skeHMImms ttttt I
n an tinner. whn me isescom the Texas mecnnccmal

239

College. I have used as sources for my information the
audit reports of the State Auditor of these institutions, S.
B. 140, and the U. S. education bulletins to which I have just
referred. Now, in 1945-46 these institutions, with the ex-
[fol. 398] ception of Texas Technological College, had plant
assets worth approximately $72,000,000.00. Probably be
fore I go into that, Your Honor, I might state the basis upon
which I am determining adequacy and the general criteria
of measurement, if you please.

The Court: All right.
A. Beginning with the second Morrill Act------
Q. What is the second Morrill Act?
A. That is the land grant college act in 1867.
Q. Of the United States Congress?
A. Of the United States Congress. There were four

Negro schools under the act of 1862 which received some
money, some of the land grant money. Then in 1890, when
the second Morrill Act was passed, it made provision for
all of the Negro schools to receive—all of the Negro land
grant schools—to receive a portion of the money, the act
reading something like this; that a just and equitable dis
tribution shall be made. That phrase has been in the sub
sequent amendments, the Nelson amendment in 1922, and
Section 2 of the Bankhead-Jones Amendment of 1925. In
making out the just and equitable distribution, the adminis
trators of that fund have set up a formula as follows, or
substantially as follows: That where you have separate
schools and there is to be a division of these funds, that
the Negro school or the school separated, or the schools
separated, because in some states they have separate schools
[fol. 399] for several races, they would receive an amount
at least, or a proportion, at least equal to the proportion
which they are of the total population.

Q. Is that formula used by the U. S. Department of
Education ?

A. That is in the case of the distribution of those funds.
Q. As to the U. S. Department of Education and other

studies that have been made, and all of the comparisons
that you have studied during your years of experience, isn’t
that the formula that is generally used by the people in
your field ?

A. Among the majority, I think. I don’t know all of
them, but I think the majority accept that.

240

Q. Is that a formula in comparing Negro and white
schools where they are separate?

A. Where money is involved.
Q. Where money is involved. Get back to the plants.
A. To explain further the formula; in the State of Texas

there are roughly five and a half million white people, and,
roughly, one million Negroes. Just for purposes of illus
tration, suppose that $11,000,000.00 were appropriated to
the white schools, that would mean two dollars for each
white person in the population. Therefore, I would say it
was two dollars per capita total population for the whites.
If in the Negro schools one million dollars were appropri
ated, and there were one million Negroes, that would be one
dollar per capita. That is one way I will use. the formula
[fob 400] in giving the statistics. The other way is this;
the Negroes in the State of Texas constitute 14.4% of the
population. Let’s assume that ten million dollars were
appropriated for the higher institutions in the State of
Texas, Negro and white.

On the basis of this formula, it would be expected that
the Negroes would receive at least $1,440,000.00, being 14%
of ten million dollars. I shall use from time to time that
formula in those two ways, if I may.

Q. I want to get back to the plant. I think you testified
there were some $72,000,000.00 worth of assets?

A. Yes; I had better be exact about that.
Q. First, let’s have that, will you? While the Attorney

General is looking at them I want to ask you a few ques
tions.

Mr. Daniel: Those are just his notes?
Mr. Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: You are not going to introduce them?
Mr. Marshall: No.
Mr. Daniel: He can read them better than I can.
The Court: He can use them to refer to.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Using that group of papers you have in your hand to

refresh your recollection, and to testify to, to go back to
the comparison of the physical plant at Prairie View with
these other schools------

A. All right. Now the plant assets of all of the institu-
[fol. 401] tions studied, the four year institutions, minus

241

the Texas Technological Institute, the plant assets of all
of those institutions in 1945-1946 amounted to a total of
$72,790,097.00.

Q. What was it at Prairie View, according to the same
report ?

A. Prairie View’s plant assets were stated as being
$2,170,910.00. Now, recently S. B. 140 has appropriated
$2,000,000.00 for plant, so adding that to the Prairie View
item, you would get a total appropriation for, or total plant
assets for Negro education or higher education as being
$4,170,910.00.

Q. May I ask one question there, Dr. Thompson? In ar
riving at any figure on the physical plant and the assets,
is it not proper to include money that has been appro
priated and available, even though it hasn’t been spent yet?

A. Yes, that is the reason I call it plant assets, rather
than physical plant. Under that formula, of $72,790,097.00,
which represents the plant assets of the total institutions,
if the formula had operated, that is to say, if Negro institu
tions had gotten 14.4% it would have totaled $10,481,773.00.
Instead, however, they got a little over four million dollars.
In other words, they got six million—or they didn’t get
six million, three hundred and ten thousand, seven hundred
and sixty-three dollars which they would have gotten under
the formula.
[fol. 402] Now, to put it another way, and probably a
little clearer, on a total per capita population basis, there
were invested in plant assets of white institutions $12.88
for every white person in the State of Texas. There were
invested in the Prairie View,—in the plants of Negro in
stitutions—$4.71 for every negro in the population in
Texas.

Q. Now, what about the total institutional assets of the
two groups, at Prairie View, as compared to the others?

A. In the total institutional assets, they total $162,039,-
628.00. That is all of the institutions. Prairie View, $2,-
568.554.00. S. B. 140 appropriated $3,350,000.00, making
a total for the Negro assets of $5,918,554.00.

Q. In order that we might have this clear, what is the
difference between total institutional assets and the other
material you were just giving?

A. The plant assets have to do with buildings, equip
ment, et cetera. The total institutional assets include not

16—725

242

only that, but also all of the other assets of the institution,
endowment funds and all other kinds of funds.

Mr. Daniel: Now, I think he is getting into something on
which the records would be the best evidence, if they are
admissible at all. We would like to be on notice of what he
is counting as endowment for these white schools.

Mr. Marshall: These auditor’s reports have all been
[fob 403] subpoenaed, and we told the auditor we didn’t
want to keep him around, and we had him on call, and he is
called. Do you have the reports? He is testifying exactly
from the reports, and it is commenting on the basis of evi
dence that will be in.

The Court: Let’s proceed, and you will have your evi
dence, and we will handle it by motion to strike, or anything
else that is proper.

Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. We still don’t have clear what you mean by the total

institutional assets. What are you reading from now!
A. The Audit Report of the University of Texas.
Q. For what year!
A. For 1945.
Q. And who is it issued by !
A. C. H. Cavness. C. P. A.. State Auditor.
Q. Of the State of Texas?
JL Of the State of Texas.
Q. What page are you rearing from?
A- Page A It includes as assets general operating funds,

pledged revenue property funds, and endowment finds.
... Now what page are you reading from '
A. P'ant finds. Fags Plant funds that is what that

includes. generally
H a£ as what ft Xwog tie lisfc

r - A - rnesoia her :r j that was that the total ippr-iaduns
-- me— Z mean the meal frsctrtrtcaal assets tor the Negri
Iwab tian mt Ysawr was some ~hto. iwiHwa A fe s r

nat yam et?
A. Thar is rghc.

Amt ’he tocsi-—Ttea -cr** ue total Lgtre Mr - i » ittssr
n - ™ - . . r s a s >:•?£. i l E . i r

At 5o». t&St sfc dk* teia. ̂
snrhsi. vers sAE, W.A/VhAh

243

Q. That is the institutions of higher learning, including
Prairie View?

A. That is right.
Mr. Daniel: Now, Your Honor, I wish to make a further

objection to the testimony in this record concerning en
dowment funds from private sources. In this case, if he is
going to make a comparison as to State funds, and I under
stand that is what he said his ratio was he is testifying
about, that we should distinguish between private endow
ment funds and gifts to this University and other schools,
and limit the comparison to State funds.

Mr. Marshall: I don’t think we ever took the position we
were limiting this to the State funds. I don’t care how the
University of Texas gets it.

The Court: I don’t think it would be material as to the
private gifts.
[fol. 405] Mr. Marshall: But it is available.

The Court: I don’t think that would work a mitigation
to you as to private gifts.

Mr. Marshall: Say we have a university, that both schools
get a hundred thousand dollars from the Legislature, and
it happens the University of Texas has oil wells that are
available and can be used tomorrow morning to build them
more buildings.

The Court: Those are state properties.
Mr. Marshall: The endowment is state property.
The Court: But he is speaking of some private person

who gave a thousand dollars.
Mr. Marshall: Let’s ask this question.
Q. Dr. Thompson, is the figure of endowment included

in the auditor’s report of the State of Texas as an asset of
the University of Texas!

A. Yes.
Q. It is included as an asset in there!
A. Yes.
Mr. Daniel: May it please the Court, may I ask him one

question for the objection?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: Do you know whether or not that endowment

included as assets comes from State funds or private funds?
A. The one I am going to refer to in a moment comes

[fol. 406] from State funds.

244

Mr. Daniel: I am talking about your total you have been
testifying about on tbe University of Texas. Are you in
a position to testify whether or not that total endowment
and the other assets came from State or private funds?

Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please------
Mr. Daniel: Have you broken that down to see where the

funds come from?
A. It is broken down in the report, but it is included in

this figure.
Mr. Daniel: What I am asking you about------
A. Whether I have used these funds-------
Mr. Daniel: Your total on the endowment funds is what?
A. $61,000,000.00.
Mr. Daniel: $61,000,000.00?
A. From the State.
Mr. Daniel: Well, that is owned by the State now, you

mean?
A. Yes, this came from the State.
Mr. Daniel: Do you know whether or not that endowment

came from the State? It is listed under State. Do you
know of your own knowledge whether that came from the
State or private sources?

A. This report indicates it came from the State. There
[fol. 407] are other funds which presumably are the ones
which you are referring to, but the $61,000,000.00 came from
the State.

Mr. Daniel: I want to preserve my bill on it.
Mr. Marshall: I just remember the testimony that they

are relying on, on supposed gifts to our law school to make
it equal. They relied on that all day yesterday.

The Court: Yes, I understand.
Mr. Daniel: We testified to it as a gift. Here we want

to know what is a gift, and what is State funds, that is all.
Mr. Marshall: That is all right.

A. Shall I proceed?
Q. Yes, Doctor.
A. As I was saying, the total institutional assets of white

institutions amounts to $23.66 for each white person in the
population. In the Negro schools it equals $6.40 for each
XegTQ in the total Negro population. In other words, the
whites have almost four and a half times, to be exact. 4.47
tfme~ as much in total assets per capita of the population
as the Nesrroes.

245

Q. Now, as to the proportion of the population, will you
use the figures that are used as to the proportion of the
population in the State of Texas'?

A. Do I have those figures?
[fol. 408] Q. No, I said, will you give those as to this
particular institutional assets, if the formula you mentioned
above had been used?

A. If the formula, that is, the 14.4% had been used,
Negro higher education would have totaled institutional
assets of $23,333,706.00, or $17,445,152.00 more than they
actually were. Now, the total assets of the white institu
tions are proportionately much greater than the plant
assets, as you can see, largely because of the large en
dowment fund which the University of Texas has by reason
of money or lands or other material things given by the
State. In other words, the1 University of Texas has an en
dowment from the State listed as $61,277,162.00 in 1945.
Now, if the formula were operative as far as Negro higher
education is concerned, Negroes would have had an endow
ment fund from the State which totaled $8,923,911.00 of the
above amount. Now, Prairie View, the only endowment
fund that I could find for Prairie View is $26,000.00 in U. S.
Government securities listed in the A. & M. audit report
for 1945.

Q. Well, now getting to the question of one of the
criteria of the current educational, that is, as of the last
audit report, limiting it strictly to the current educational
funds, will you compare Prairie View with the other
schools?

A. In 1943-1944, the latest complete statistics available,
in the U. S. Office of Education for all of the schools, in-
[fol. 409] eluding those in Texas, I say, all of the schools
because I want to compare those with some of the other
schools, there is appropriated------

Mr. Daniel: You say that is 1943—what?
A. 1943-1944.
Mr. Daniel: The fiscal year 1943-44?
A. U. S. Office of Education Bulletin for ’43-44, for that

year.
Mr. Daniel: I want to make the further objection, if

this testimony is considered by the Court, what has gone

jHarofore "wmmin. t m m amp tw im g on die ease. Zar-
~aimT—ne Tar" ;.iV-x n ~!Kv vunhin.'- isom m y iear:ng in
S o k . hhi ~f» laBgg am Watg t a l wrfiiy at BamriL
T - urr^sr n ± s~ Tnoiir' rrmffrmn: mix 'itimarem&i- m z m z
zd : e a rm z •?: v z iir 3 rm iim ie zaris—

3v t - .|;ir--rail
Eer Z e s :ue~i(ir: ’ Za:-^ is - sees»

iJp' xmev a *a* .^sae£..s&MBte*t-d»r7. -̂ e t .

3» ~lr. itescssaal:
4 '$■£ swan ser .aasas-.
A J^er eapis.
4 Triomnsoi. dix tvjx ,iTj -.-• -.->». -tr. ^ j^ d A m e

ti? -fee 49fe. '
A . I dirl.
Q- What fixmref did that -snow'
A. That showed total appropriation. excluding such

things as appropriation for firemen’s training, teaching
hospitals for the medical branch at Galveston and coopera
tive extension and the like; the total amount of money
appropriated for purely educational purposes in the State
of Texas was $11,476,519.00 for 1946, and $11,469,478.00 for
1947. Now, to the white four year State higher institutions

247

there were appropriated in 1947 $11,066,519.00, and in 1941

$11,059,478.00 to the white schools. Now to the Negro
[fol.411] sehool, Prairie View, there were appropriated
$410,000.00, which included $25,000.00 for the scholarship
fund, for each of the years 1946 and 1947.

Q. When you say scholarship fund------
A. The out of state scholarship fund for Negro students.

On the basis of the formula which I have described, Negro
institutions, higher institutions, State supported institu
tions, should have gotten in 1946 $1,652,618.00. In 1947
they would have gotten $1,651,684.00. May I correct that
last figure? $1,651,604.00 is the correct figure. In other
words, in 1947 and 1946 the State supported white institu
tions got $2.01 per capita on the basis of the total popula
tion, and the Negro schools for the same years got 44c for
each Negro of the total Negro population in Texas.

Q. Now, did that figure include the two appropriations
of $500,000.00 in S. B. 140?

A. No, it did not, but assuming that to include It. the
two appropriations of $500,000.00, which would make
$1,000,000.00, for 1947, for this year, and add it to the
$410,000.00 which Prairie View got, which would give you
$1,410,000.00 the Negroes got, figured per capita on the
basis of the total population, it would be $1.53 as against
$2.01 for the whites.

Q. And that assumes that the whole million is spent in
one year?

A. That is right. /
[fol. 412] Q. Well, now going back to the reports of the
United States Office of Education for the years 1945 and
1946, and I ask you if the figures you are about to use are
the latest figures available?

A. That is right.
Q. Will you compare them, school by school, as best you

ean?
-A Jut Pr-a-ode Vie* Z^fU. students. The

Slate u i ' u - i - i i ’ ae>- & & i<*r -W f tent

A . - a ;. ‘ t' - - asii. .... >->^
Attorney

24S

Mr. Daniel: I am having to get it as yon go along.
A. I will make it available to yon.
Mr. Daniel: I want to get it right now as we go along.
V The school year 1945-1946.
The C o-—: We will take a few minntes" recess.

Court was recessed at I l f © a. m_ until 11:20 a. rr... at
which true proceedings were resumed as follow s:

By Mr M arshal:
Q. May it please the Co art. the- documents we are ~a r~ z

ih«mr_ m ist it ~herm hive come r . these Federal Retorts of
hie Carted. states FMcaitnart e f KifccatlxL. They tare
ill leer ier±5ed hy the istirrithaaS o & cr hi the _ enart-
-nwr it h ii-itjU L the Trsimhme Assistant, and hie isrti-
-rcarmr is m m a i: tt Seecaa. ISC, Chapter I f. Thhe CL
Qlhff fTTf TirfbeJ Sb̂ gHi Catls- will

-v * - ;r - i f then, hut v s vnohc "re ta txtr-ninee men.
—tit me r_mr if either site------

TC - Zannd Z<: —to mean, imsr the j e t ? —ihmies1
T r Marshall hare, v—>. the mghr i f ether- s-de to use

im ram S b r £
Mr Zamei W e «rrain l- v ;e»r.
The 7jam It v-nnd seem to me mar womd he mo r,m

m rwr t d n lose nfer the parr whiei vs rem nesr to mts
3HSS.

Sfe. I h i ^ T i 'd a mm, as tmti me tesaaMap I p He.
T fh r^ n rt w Mrinr T— fc f r — fflam -rwimrifr m i r T i r i f
to iw w me® m aanl me -iSase *r tfee a « B i r sar i k i f
m-soe s :n>- .-.jtriTosi. *«* sk u* r ms inemnesES

Mr. They, aeSl Me s f l h s r t i a .

Hfrr TTfciffif wiMwin! >1 «in "Tan Z v a a f l
"laum- A te 'rn f i^nni .^ ;^ ia r Mi—t t thhwo . j

iMaK. ^ )|Kk ^ 'H m m m k raitas- m tfaa*
w • - - - X - - “ -■ ft - - - V- - v - !--■ -:■ — .

r s*Ts r to -aW.A.- t re -revur-ems- tar as ®
'we®: ^ and aesd *e. wet so im. .mas: rats pssss
4Mk.

-A nj[ ,| j» ,

249

Mr. Marshall: And that his testimony is on that basis.
[fol. 414] Q. Do you remember where yon left off?

A. I was at Prairie View, and East State Teachers
College.

Q. That is right.
A. I was saying that Prairie View, with 1.576 students,

got from the State in 1945-1946, $346,250.00. East State
Teachers College, which is a white institution with 1.205
students, got from the State for current educational ex
pense $448,749.00. In other words, East State Teachers
got 30% more money than Prairie View, which had 29.6 V
more students.

Q. May I ask one question there? TTas Prairie View
giving, in addition to its regular liberal arts education, did
it also purport to be giving graduate training?

A. Prairie View is the teachers college, A. & M. College
and University for Negroes in Texas.

Q. And it purports to give Master’s training, too, does
it not?

A. It does.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. To put it another way, that the student appropriation

for East State Teachers College was $372.40; for Prairie
View the per student appropriation was $219.70.

Q. You are sure that figure is $219.00?
A. $219.00. East State Teachers had a per student ap

propriation from the State which was 69.4% larger than
the per student appropriation to Prairie View. East State
[fol. 415] Teachers College had a per student appropriation
from the State which was 45.8% larger than Prairie View’s
per student appropriation, from both the State and the
Federal Government.

The appropriation from the State per student for five
teachers colleges for white was $296.10, 34.5% more per
student than for Prairie View, and those teachers colleges
were East State Teachers, Sul Ross, Southwest, Sam
Houston, and North State Teachers.

Now, the proposed appropriation in H. B. 246 in the 50th
Legislature carried for 1948, eliminating the items which
I have mentioned previously in my testimony as quasi
education, a total of $23,125,323.00 for 1948. For 1949,
$27,389,----- -

250

Mr. Daniel: What are you reading from now, for 1948
and 1949?

A. The proposed appropriation for 1948 and 1949, H. B.
246 of the 50th Legislature.

Mr. Daniel: I don’t think that has been enacted yet.
Mr. Daniel: That hasn’t been enacted.
The Court: I don’t think it has been enacted.
Mr. Marshall: I don’t think it has been, either, sir; we,

therefore, move to strike that portion of it.
A. Now, as a consequence of such differences as I have

indicated in financial support, the Negro has been eduoa-
[fol. 416] tionally disadvantaged over the years in Texas
so far as Texas public higher education is concerned.

Mr. Daniel: We object to that as a conclusion of the
witness, Your Honor. He testified to comparative funds.
Now he is about to draw a conclusion as to whether or not
there has been educational disadvantage on account of that.

Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please, I will be very glad
to ask him a question, and then we will get the objection
straight.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Thompson, from your experience over a period

of years of comparing the educational facilities available
to white and Negro students in segregated public school
systems, and the recognized treatises you have read on that
subject, and I mean scientific treatises, as a result of your
work in inspecting colleges and the knowledge you have
obtained therefrom, what is your opinion as to the equality
of educational facilities offered by the State of Texas to its
white and negro students, limiting your opinion to college,
graduate and professional training?

Mr. Daniel: We object to that, Your Honor. It has no
bearing in this case. His question should be limited to
the schools involved in this case, if it is to have any material
bearing at all on the case.

The Court: I believe I will hear it.

[fol. 417] Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
A. The objection has removed the question.

251

The Court: He will read it back to you.
The Beporter read to Dr. Thompson the last question as

shown above.
A. The answer is that Negroes are seriously disad

vantaged both from the point of opportunities and rela
tive accomplishment. In the first place------

Mr. Daniel: Now------
The Court: That answers it.
Mr. Marshall: That answers it.

Q. Now, is that based—I want to ask whether or not your
answer includes the studies you have made in Texas or not,
that you have testified about?

A. Yes.
Q. It does include that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you explain to the Court your reasons for

your opinion which you have just given?
A. Well, I have three reasons. In the first place, twice

as many white students are provided opportunity in the
public higher institutions in Texas as Negroes, and I would
like to quote, if it is permissible, from a study, “ Senior
Colleges for Negroes in Texas,” which was made at the
direction of the Biracial Conference on Education for
Negroes in Texas, Professor T. S. Montgomery, of the Sam
[fol. 418] Houston Teachers College, Chairman of the Com
mittee for Study, Dean B. F. Pittenger of the School of Edu
cation of the University of Texas, Chairman of the Steering
Committee. The study was made and printed about—at
least printed, in 1944, presumably made between 1942 and
1944.

Mr. Daniel: Made by whom? You so far leave the im
pression it is Dean Pittenger.

A. It was made at the direction of the Biracial Confer
ence. Dean Pittenger was the Chairman of the Steering
Committee, and Professor Montgomery was the Chairman
of the Committee for the study, and wrote up the study, the
report.

Mr. Daniel: That clears it up.
A. Now, this report states the following, and I quote:

252

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. What page?
A. Page 24 and part of 25.

“ Texas provided through State-supported senior in
stitutions of higher education for 66.8% of white
students enrolled in senior colleges, but for only 31.8%
of her Negro students in senior colleges. The ratio
of the percentage that the Negro students in the State
college are of all Negro college students to the per
centage that the white students in State-supported
senior colleges are of all white senior college students,
is 1 to 2.1. In other words, the State is hearing twice
[fol. 419] the burden of providing opportunity for
higher education for whites than she is providing such
opportunities for Negroes. A disproportionate burden
is placed on private effort in providing opportunity for
higher education for Negroes.”

On page 25:
“ The ratio of the number of white students to Negro
students in State-supported colleges per thousand of
youth of each race, age 15 to 20 is 5 to 1. On this
basis the State is providing five times as much oppor
tunity for higher education in State-supported col
leges for white youth as it is for its Negro youth.”

Mr. Daniel: Give us the date of that report.
A. It is dated April, 1944. Now, in the second place, I

said that the differences in financial support resulted in
differences in educational accomplishment. In the last
census, which was the sixteenth census, in 1940, for the
first time the U. S. Bureau of Census attempted to find
out the educational level of the population; so that they
obtained from all persons 25 years old and over certain
information concerning how much education you have had,
how many years, et cetera. It was found in the State of
Texas that 218,225 persons, or 8% of the population 25
[fol. 420] years old and older have from one to three years
of college. That is white. In the case of Negroes 11,704,
or 2.5%. Over three times, to be exact, 3.2 times as many
whites had .one to three years of college as Negro.

Those who had had four years or more of college among
whites constituted 5%. Among the Negroes, 1.2%, again,
about three times as many.

253

Mr. Daniel: I would like to know where you are getting
those figures.

A. The U. S. Census Report for the State of Texas.
Mr. Daniel: Do you have them for the northern states

also in that book?
A. That is Texas.
Mr. Daniel: That is all right. I will ask you about it

later.
A. I said a moment ago that the Negro was disadvantaged

in this respect, particularly from the point of view of col
lege because, as we all know, an individual has to have two
or three years of college before he can get in a law school
or medical school or dental school, to say nothing about
other areas in which college training is necessary. Now, in
the third place, a similar situation exists on the professional
level.

Take the matter of doctors. In Texas there were 6,076
white doctors, 164 Negro doctors. In other words, there
[fol. 421] were of the white doctors 1 to every 903 of the
white population in Texas, and one Negro doctor to every
5,637 of the Negro population.

Thus, on the basis of population, there are more than
six times, in fact, 6.24 times as many doctors in propor
tion to the white population as there are Negro doctors in
proportion to the Negro population. For the sake of com
parison, in Tennessee, where the Meharry Medical School
is located, to which Negroes are admitted, there are almost
three times, in fact, to be exact, 2.8 times as many Negro
doctors in Tennessee as there are in Texas, where Negroes
have no medical school to which they can be admitted.

Take the matter of dentists,------
By Mr. Marshall:

Q. First, one question there. State whether Meharry
Medical College is a fully accredited medical college or not.

A. It is.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Take the matter of dentists. The number of male den

tists in the State of Texas, white, are 1,901; Negro 81.
The ratio of white dentists to white population is 1 dentist
to every 2,886 of the white population, one Negro dentist
to every 11,412 of the Negro population. There are almost
four times, to be exact, 3.9 times as many white dentists in

254

proportion to the white population as there are Negro den-
[fol. 422] tists in proportion to the Negro population.
Again, taking Tennessee for comparison, in Tennessee
where the Meharry Dental College is located to which
Negroes are admitted, there are twice as many Negro
dentists as there are Negro dentists in Texas, where
Negroes have no dental school to which they can go.

In the District of Columbia, where the Howard University
Dental School is, there are almost four times as many
Negro dentists in proportion to the Negro population as
there are Negro dentists in proportion to the Negro popu
lation in Texas.

Q. What about engineers, Dr. Thompson?
A. In the case of engineers in Texas, there are 8,961 white

engineers in Texas. In the case of Negroes, there are 6
Negro engineers in Texas. The ratio of white engineers
to the white population is one to every 612 of the white
population. The ratio of Negro engineers and Negro
population is one Negro engineer to every 154,065 Negroes.
In other words, there are over 250 times as many white
engineers in the State of Texas in proportion to the white
population as there are Negro engineers in proportion to
the Negro topuiitLon.

Now. dually, take the matter of lawyers. In Texas, and

Q. That is the latest census ?
A Thar os runt, on Texas mere were 7.7 1 white hi veers.

ii. -A tn hie. volte emr nation was one white lawyer
'■ -—-r~ ~_t A me woes yoomainm one Nsg~; lawner ta
-very 4 '.1C ic me Niter? rnctrlamm, to icier wur-is.
mem veto 7*i tmes is natty whom lawyers hr ocugurtrun to
o s whins iMumanaitt is mere were Nescri lawyers :t trro-

hrao.'.sysn. gmmmc m the nrinr i f e mnah-
i NSfw in i. the ocher scraoiS. will yrn
: .urroigAsorr it lAso-re View trsst witix the- mr-
.m er sohevis'
- om.v. :-\vhvoo;': ire rr me

The sad aeu-hy sad rotary ice
■ or xx .ejtt nose save
RnMI re«sOvi'\’. $ . -oev m test's y* m m s u i
*x \ a < s .c votive i f issesorf.

255

Q. When you say you have to have sufficient funds to have
an adequate faculty, are you or not speaking from your
experience in getting a faculty for the graduate school at
Howard?

A. I am.
Q. You have been in that field for quite a while, and know

quite a bit about that ?
A. About 15 or 20 years.
Q. Let’s compare the curriculum.
A. First, let’s take the under-graduate curriculum.

[fol. 424] Q. What is this testimony based on?
A. This is based on the National Survey of Higher Edu

cation for Negroes, which was a U. S. Office publication, and
also upon the catalogue study of Texas A. & M., University
of Texas, and Prairie View.

Q. Go right ahead.
A. The National Survey of Higher Education for Ne

groes, to which I have just referred, in the making of tills
survey, found out in Texas that there were 106 under grad
uate fields of specialization in the white State supported
institutions, and 49 in the Negro institution, Prairie View.
In other words, there were about twice as many fields of
under graduate specialization in the white institutions as in
Prairie View.

Now, I have made an analysis, or used the sources, the
Texas A. & M. Catalogue and the University of Texas
Catalogue, the Texas A. & M. Catalogue states, and that is
for 1946-1947, page 10, general information; there are 45
departments of under graduate specialization.

Prairie View University has 13 departments of speciali
zation. In other words, A. & M. has more than three times
as many. In the case of engineers, engineering is offered
in four white technical schools with eight different cur
ricula leading to engineering degrees. No such curricula
was offered at Prairie View, except that you might call
mechanical arts education, or industrial education, en
gineering.
[fol. 425] There are, however, a number of sub-collegiate,
or high school trade courses given at Prairie View, such as
broom making and mattress making; auto mechanics, car
pentering, laundering and dry cleaning, plumbing, shoe
repairing, tailoring and the like.

Q. Dr. Thompson, in your experience in the field of edu
cation, do you know of any other university in the country

256

that will give credit toward a degree in liberal arts college
for broom making and mattress making ? I am talking about
universities, not colleges or institutes. Do you know of
any recognized, accredited university?

A. No, I don’t know of any. I am trying to think. There
are several institutions which give similar courses. I don’t
know of any other institution that gives broom making
and mattress making.

Q. Isn’t it true that those are the subjects that are
usually taught in the high schools or lower vocational
schools ?

A. That is correct.
Q. For example, do they teach any of the subjects you have

mentioned at Howard?
A. No.
Q. Do they teach—did you find in the catalogue of either

A. & M. or the University of Texas, or any other of the
schools you have talked about broom making and mat
tress making?
[fol. 426] A. No, I did not.

Q. Auto mechanics or carpentering, or any of those?
A. No.
Q. You can go ahead, if you will, Dr. Thompson, to the

graduate level of curricula.
A. Yes. I might mention in connection with the under

graduate field, if I may, because it connects up with the
graduate field——

Q. Go right ahead.
A. The chemistry department, the chemistry department,

which is a very important department in a land grand in
stitution : the chemistry department at Prairie View is not
accredited by the American Chemical Society. I did find
they were approved at Texas A. & M. and the University of
Texas.

Q. What effect does that have on a student who wants to
do graduate work!

A. It means if he wants to do it in chemistry he has to
he et:r< iitio red. a year or a half year: for example, a student
n-m-n.-r to us without physical chemistry, which is a thing
us' given in one of tuese departments, would have to take a
year d mat hefors ae rc-uid temin his graduate school is

*T|irrn 7 o j—

I T o i ' - - v.tn :z Howard Graduate School*
A. Yes. sr.

257

Q. Is that true in all of the other schools that you know
of?

A. I should imagine so. I know it is true in some. I don’t
[fol. 427] know about all of them. The graduate school is of
recent origin. It began about the date of the Gaines
decision, which was around 1938. In the fall of 1946 nine
state Negro colleges in eight southern states gave gradu
ate work in at least one field.

In Texas Prairie View and the Houston College were
the Negro institutions giving graduate work. They had a
combined enrollment at Prairie View for the regular term
and summer of 1946 of 229; Houston College, 308, making
a total of 537 students. Graduate work is given in all of
the white four year State high institutions in Texas.

The regular term enrollment in white State graduate
schools in 1945 was 2,358. Thirteen white State institutions
gave 2,846 Master’s Degrees and 212 doctorates during
the period 1940 to 1945. That is from the Director of Col
leges, universities offering graduate work relating to Master
and Doctor Degrees, 1940 to 1945, U. S. Office of Education.

Prairie View gave during this same period 103 Master’s
Degrees and 55 Negro students got Master’s Degrees on the
out of state scholarship fund, and six doctorates on the
out of state scholarship fund between 1939 and 1943, mak
ing a total of 159 Negroes who got graduate degrees during
approximately a five year period, as contrasted with some
3,000 white students who got graduate degrees in the same
period. Now, in general, the range of offerings in white
[fol. 428] graduate schools, whether in Texas or in other
southern states, is wider than in the Negro graduate school.
The National Survey of Higher Education for Negroes, to
which I have referred, a U. S. Office publication, indicated in
1942 that the Texas state supported higher institutions for
whites offered graduate work in 65 fields, and 5 for Negroes.

At the present time Prairie View offers graduate work in
13 fields, and the Texas A. & M. 45 fields. The University of
Texas gives 10 different types of graduate degrees in 40
fields. Prairie View gives a Master’s Degree in 13 fields.

The Court: I suppose this would be a good point, then,
to resume, then, at two o ’clock.

(Court was recessed at 12 noon May 15,1947 until 2 p. zel.
May 15, 1947.)

17—725

258

[fol. 429] Afternoon Session, May 15, 1947. 2 :00 P. M.
Dr, Charles H. T hompson , having resumed the stand,

testified further as follows:

Direct examination. (Continued.)

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Thompson, when we closed I think you were testify

ing as to the curriculum of the under graduate schools.
A. No, I was on graduate schools.
Q. Continue on the graduate schools.
A. The University of Texas and A. & M. College of Texas,

between the period of 1940 and 1945 gave 212 doctorates.
Now, if a Negro wishes to obtain a Doctor’s Degree in the
State of Texas, the only recourse he has in so doing is
through what is admittedly an inadequate scholarship
fund.

Mr. Daniel: I want to------
The Court: Well, I think that part “ admittedly” —you

can withdraw that.
Mr. Marshall: I withdraw that.
Mr. Daniel: The inadequate part, too, unless followed by

some proof.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Daniel: Admittedly inadequate.

[fol. 430] By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Doctor, we will get to that later.
A. All right. Now, in order for a Negro to he eligible for

an out of state scholarship to do graduate or professional
work, he must be a resident of Texas; he must have resided
in the State of Texas for eight years. In order for a white
student to do graduate work, all he has to do is be white,
and maybe a resident of Texas, because out of state students
are admitted in the graduate school at the University of
Texas. The out of state scholarship fund provides $100 a
semester in all fields except medicine, where it is $150 a
semester.

It provides round-trip to the school of the student’s
choice at three cents a mile, less the following items: the
tuition fee paid to the University of Texas, which is stated
as $25 a semester, less the round-trip fare from the student’s

259

home to Prairie View. The student may also get ten per
cent of the total award. In other words, a student may get
a maximum of $165.00 for tuition for the regular year, that
is, two semesters, and three cents a mile for transportation,
less the round-trip from Prairie View.

Now, I have an illustration that was given on the Scholar
ship Committee Report of a student who wished to attend
Columbia University, taking fifteen percent. The tuition
was approximately $407.00, the railroad fare was $96.00.
That student received from the scholarship fund $165.00
for tuition and $70.00 for railroad fare, making something
[fol. 431] like $235.00 out of a total which he would have
to pay, merely for railroad fare and tuition to go to Teach
ers College, Columbia University, of five hundred and eight
dollars and some cents, making the student pay $237.00
himself.

Now, the cost per student at the University of Texas in
1945-1946, at the Main University was $511.00. At the
Texas A. & M. College, after eliminating the funds for co
operative extension, the cost of instruction per student was
$734.00 for the same year. The State spends $200 to $500
more in these institutions to educate a white graduate
student than they spend on the Negro student who wishes
to do graduate work on a scholarship.

Q. Dr. Thompson, how important is the question of op
portunity to do research in a well recognized and well
organized university?

A. It is very important indeed.
Q. Have you made any comparison as to the research

opportunities available at Prairie View with the other col
leges you have mentioned?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is the result of your study, please?
A. The results show, taking a sample of five white high

institutions of cour years, shows that they expended in
1945, 1946, $2,753,809.00 for separately organized and
[fol. 432] budgeted research. Prairie View received for
that year, 1945-1946 nothing, as in previous years, for
separately budgeted and organized research.

On the basis of the formula which I described this morn
ing, Prairie View or Negro higher education would have
received $396,547.00. In 1946 Prairie View was voted $10,-
000.00 by the Texas A. & M. Board of Directors of the
Experiment Station to set up a sub experiment station at

260

Prairie View to be known as Sub-Experiment Station No.
18. This is all of the money that Prairie View has received,
to my knowledge, for research.

The Federal Government in 1945 made an appropriation,
or gave Texas A. & M. College $251,288.00 for experiment
station research. In taking into account the amount of
money that the State puts in, if the formula had operated,
Prairie View or Negro higher education would have received
$36,185.00.

Q. The question was raised as to how much did they re
ceive, Prairie View?

A. $10,000.00 in 1946 for the special purpose of setting up
that Sub-Experiment Station No. 18.

Q. That came from Texas A. & M. ?
A. That is right.
Q. Have you compared the professional curriculum of

Prairie View with other schools?
A. I have.

[fol. 433] Q. What are the results of your studies on that?
A. Well, in medicine, I might state, as a general back

ground, that there are three Class A medical schools in the
State of Texas; two private, Baylor and Southwestern, and
one public, the medical branch of the University of Texas.
The University of Texas catalogue, 1945-1946, lists 353
students. They receive from the State for current expense,
not counting the amount of money that went to the three
hospitals which are used for clinical purposes, $694,165.00
for the year ending 1946. In other words, there was a cost
per student of around $1,800.00 or $1,900.00. Now, a Negro
student who wants to take medicine in the State of Texas,
his only recourse is to the scholarship fund, which I have
mentioned previously. Even if the student attended Mc
Gill University in Montreal, Canada, and I pick that be
cause it is the farthest away and it would cost more for
travel, he would get less than $500.00 for mileage. McGill
is 2,100 miles. The State spends more to educate a white
medical student in the University of Texas than they spend
on a Negro student through the scholarship fund, and there
are six times as many white doctors in the State of Texas
in proportion to white population as there are Negro doctors
in proportion to the Negro population.

Now, taking the matter of dentistry, the State pays around
$1,500.00 per dental student. A Negro who rvishes to study
[fol. 434] dentistry can not get more than $400.00 from the

261

scholarship. Thus, the State spends a thousand to eleven
hundred dollars more for the dental education of a white
student than for a Negro student through the scholarship
fund, which probably explains why there are almost four
times as many white dentists in proportion to the white
population than there are Negro dentists in proportion to
the Negro population.

Q. Without comparing the curricula at all, or other items,
how many accredited law schools do the records show there
are in Texas ?

A. Three—let’s see. Yes, three, Baylor and S. M. U.
and a public law school, the University of Texas.

Mr. Daniel: Accredited by whom?
A. The American Bar Association.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Now, getting to the fourth point of the criteria to

compare schools, public education in general, did you com
pare the faculty at Prairie View with the faculty at these
other schools you have testified to?

A. I have.
Q. What do the results of your examination show?
A. I might say that the basis of my examination is two

fold. Number one, salary; number two, training. Ob
viously, to have a good faculty and to hold it, you have got
to pay them attractive salaries and give them satisfactory
[fol. 435] working conditions. That is why I took salaries
from the point of view of training. I wanted to see whether
or not the training at Prairie View seemed to be, or some
of the members, at least, seemed to be equal to the training
of some of the white teachers in some of the white State
teachers colleges and other higher institutions, which got
high salaries.

Now, as to salaries, the salaries in general at Prairie
View are too low, in general, to attract and hold a sufficiently
large number of good teachers, or even to meet the com
petition from other Negro colleges, as I will point out in a
moment.

Q. Do you, as Dean of the Graduate School of Howard
University, have any knowledge as to the necessities of
this Negro university as to faculty members?

A. Very definitely so.

262

Q. Is the item of salary an item that is at least a part of
the consideration?

A. A very large part.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Now, I would like to refer again, if I may, to the study

that I referred to, Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas,
in which two statements, at least, were made concerning
salaries. Page 36, the first statement, and it is as follows,
and I quote:

“ With reference to Prairie View, further study was
[fol. 436] made to determine the number of faculty
members who had accepted offers from institutions out
side of Texas. Investigation disclosed that twenty-
five ‘well prepared and able teachers’ were lost to
other institutions within the past five years because of
the inability of Prairie View ‘ to match their salary
offers. ’ Of the twenty-five faculty members lost, eleven
held the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.”

The next quotation, page 39:
“ In no professorial rank is the median salary in

Prairie View equal to the lower limits of the range in
State supported white colleges. The median salary of
a full professor in Prairie View is $2,025.00, while the
lowest salary paid a full professor in a State supported
white college is $2,700.00. The corresponding figures
for associate professor are $1,530.00 and $2,000.00;
for assistant professor, $1,520.00 and $1,800.00; and
for instructor, $1,170.00 and $1,500.00.”

Now, not only was that statement true in 1942 or 1943, when
it was gathered for this study; the same is true in 1946 and
1947. Except one white teacher in thirteen white State
supported higher institutions, holding comparable positions
in comparable departments, the highest salary paid a full
ffol. 437] professor in Prairie View is lower than the lowest
salary paid a white professor in any one of these thirteen
institutions, on a nine months basis.

Again, the principal------
Mr. Daniel: May I interrupt there? May I get this down

to date? What is the date of it?

263

A. 1946 and 1947.
Mr. Daniel: And the data you read a minute ago was------
A. From this book in 1944, which was in 1942 or 1943.

The principal of Prairie View in 1946-1947 got a salary that
was $1,000.00 less than the lowest paid head of any four year
State supported institution in Texas.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. In going through the records of these several institu

tions, did you find any other institution in Texas giving
college and graduate work that has a principal at the head
of it?

A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Have you ever heard of any University in the United

States giving graduate work that is headed up by a person
with the title of principal?

A. No, I haven’t.
Q. What is the usual title?
A. President or chancellor, or something of the sort.
Q. Go right ahead.

[fol. 438] A. Now, Prairie View’s faculty as a whole ob
viously—I won’t say obviously—Prairie View’s faculty as
a whole isn’t adequately trained. However, there are some
adequately trained teachers at Prairie View, and naturally
they should be paid accordingly. Let’s look at the training
for the moment. In 1940-1941, and this is found in the
National Survey of Higher Education for Negroes, page 31,
—page 14, 8.33% held the Doctor’s Degree, 45.5% held the
Master’s Degree. In 1942-1943,—this is from the Senior
colleges, this study here, Senior Colleges for Negroes in
Texas, in 1942-1943, 6% had the Doctor’s Degree and 52%
had the Master’s Degree. In 1945-1946, according to the
Prairie View catalogue, and the degrees listed therein, 9.3%
had a Doctor’s Degree 52.3% has the Master’s Degree. I
said a moment ago that Prairie View would obviously have
to raise salaries considerably in order to meet the competi
tion of other Negro colleges. There are some four or five
Negro colleges, to my knowledge, that pay as much as
$5,000.00 for a full professor.

Q. Isn’t it also true that in recent years Negroes have been
given opportunities to teach in colleges that are not desig
nated as Negro universities?

264

A. That is true. There are some fifty or sixty Negroes
now teaching in northern institutions.

Q. So that you have additional competition now?
[fol. 439] A. That is right.

Q. You go right ahead.
A. The library, obviously, is very important. It is the

life-blood of graduate work. The present library holdings
of Prairie View are 25,000 titles, 465 serials.

Q. I think we know what titles are. What are serials?
A. Any sort of thing that runs in serial magazines and

proceedings which run in serials. Leaving out of account
the library at the University of Texas, which is one of the
best university libraries in the south, it certainly has the
largest collection of any university in the south, and taking
the State Teachers Colleges libraries, the holding of white
State Teachers Colleges libraries in Texas are larger than
Prairie View. For example, the holdings of twelve white,
four year schools, that is, teachers colleges and four schools
in 1945, ranged from 28,357 in the Texas College of Arts
and Industries, to 750,974 in Texas University.

North State Teachers College had more books, 144,426,
than all the Negro public and private colleges in the State
of Texas in 1945. The number of books that the negro col
leges in Texas was supposed to have in 1945 was one
hundred and ten thousand and something.

Now, East State Teachers College, with 1205 students in
1945-1946, had library holdings of 81,974 volumes in 1945,
as compared with Prairie View in 1947 with 1619 and
[fol. 440] 25,000 volumes.

The Southwest State Teachers College, with a student
body of 957 students, had 56,612 volumes in the library
in 1945. The Sam Houston Teachers College, with 1401
students in 1945-1946 had 63,100 volumes in the library in
1945.

Q. Dr. Thompson, from your experience as Dean of the
Graduate School of Howard University, is it one of your
responsibilities to ascertain as to whether or not that
library is kept up to standards for accredited graduate
schools ?

A. That is true.
Q. And in your position as inspector for the Southern

Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, is it one
of your jobs to inspect, as to the adequacy of libraries in the
colleges?

265

A. Yes.
Q. On the basis of your experience in those two fields over

a period of years, what is your opinion as to the adequacy
of the facilities which you saw and inspected at Prairie
View last week?

A. Well, frankly, they are inadequate.
Q. Did you see the library at the University of Texas,

for example ?
A. I didn’t go in it.
Q. Are you acquainted with the number of books in it?
A. I am acquainted with the holdings.
Q. How does Prairie View library, regardless of the num-

[fol. 441] ber—just the number of books—is there any
semblance of equality between the two?

A. There would not appear to be.
Q. And the figures you have given on the books are figures

that are used in that opinion of yours; is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Do you believe that Prairie View’s library is adequate

to maintain a graduate school?
A. In fact, Prairie View doesn’t have a first class under

graduate library. That isn’t only my opinion, but the
opinion of this survey committee. They quoted the late
Dr. Bishop, who was one of the outstanding librarians, who
was last at Michigan, if I may quote that, page 64, and this
is the quotation:

“ A well selected library of 50,000 volumes will per
haps suffice for the needs of sound teaching in a college
of not more than 500 students. This number does not
include duplicates.”

Q. Does Prairie View have anywhere near that amount?
A. They have 25,000 volumes.
Q. And how many students?
A. 1619, I think I mentioned that a moment ago, 1619

students.
Q. Dr. Thompson, in the earlier part of your testimony,

I think your last criteria was the one of—I don’t think this
is the exact phrase for it—accreditation or standing in the
[fol. 442] scholarly world. Did you check on the accredita
tion of Prairie View with the other public supported schools
in this state?

A. I did.

266

Q. What was the result of that study?
A. Well, the results that I found are as follows: I might

explain, in order to explain what the results mean, the
highest accreditation which any college can get in this
country is to get on the approved list of the Association of
American Universities. The highest accreditation that a
university can get is to be a member of the Association
of American Universities. There are three white State
schools on the approved list of the Association of Ameri
can Universities; Texas A. & M., North Texas State Teach
ers, and Texas College for Women.

Q. What about the University of Texas?
A. The University of Texas is a member of the Associa

tion of American Universities.
Q. Is Prairie View a member?
A. No, Prairie View is not a member.
Q. Is it accredited by that association?
A. No.
Q. Well, did you—about how much accreditation did you

find Prairie View to have?
A. Prairie View is accredited by the regional association

[fol. 443] in this area, the Southern Association.
Q. Does it carry any other accreditation that is recorded

in the legal proceedings, that you know of ?
A. Not that I know of, except the State accredits the in

stitution, of course.
Q. Well, now, what about for example, the Medical School

of the University of Texas? Is that accredited or not?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the—it is already in about the Law School.

What about the School of Engineering?
A. The School of Engineering is accredited by the En

gineering Council for Professional—I will give you the
name of it—Engineering Council for Professional De
velopment.

Q. Dr. Thompson, as a result of your study that you have
made of Prairie View with the other schools and universities
in this state that are publicly supported, can you compare
favorably—can you compare Prairie View favorably with
any one of them?

A. I don’t think so, at present. I can’t think of any in
stitution that it would compare—would you define “ com
pare favorably” for me, so that I may be sure to know what
you are talking about?

267

Q. Pick the smallest State teachers college in Texas—
your mind. Tell the Court whether or not there is any State
supported school in the State of Texas that will give a Negro
the equivalent of the education that can be obtained by a
[fol. 444] white student in the smallest of the teachers
colleges in Texas.

A. I doubt if I can answer that.
Q. I will ask you this. In your criteria you used to com

pare the schools, how do you compare Prairie View with the
Univeristy of Texas!

A. There is no comparison there. I can answer that.
Q. What do you mean, there is no comparison!
A. I mean that Texas University is a university. Prairie

View is the university-—I don’t know how else to say it.
It is a poor college.

Q. And it isn’t—and is it or is it not a university in the
field of general educational policies!

A. You mean on paper!
Q. No, as it exists today. Is it or is it not a real univer

sity!
A. No, it is not a real university.
Q. Can it give to the Negro student the type of educa

tion that is given to the white student at the University of
Texas!

A. Not at all.
Q. Can a graduate student attending Prairie View Uni

versity get the type of education that a graduate student
at the University of Texas can get!

A. I doubt it very seriously.
Q. In your experience in your field of education, and as

Dean of the Graduate School, is it possible to put graduate
[fol. 445] work, adequate graduate work training on to a
school that gives inferior under graduate training!

A. If I may turn the question around, I would say it is
highly undesirable. It is possible to put it on there and
have just as poor graduate work as you have under graduate
work.

Q. Would it inevitably follow that the graduate work
would be inferior!

A. I think so.
Q. Your witness.

268

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Thompson, you are not opposed to good separate

schools for Negroes, are you?
A. Would you mind elaborating on that question?
Q. I mean, based on your experience as an educator, for

the best interests of all of the people concerned, are you
opposed to having the establishment of good separate
schools for Negroes?

A. Emphatically, yes.
Q. You are opposed to it?
A. I am.
Q. Do you know Ambrose Caliver?
A. Yes, I know Dr. Caliver.
Q. Is he a Negro or a white man?
A. He is a negro.

[fol. 446] Q. Are you acquainted with his summary made
for the National Survey of Higher Education of Negroes
for the United States Department of Education? I will hand
it to you and see if you are acquainted with it.

A. I am generally acquainted with it.
Q. The book that you have there in your hand, I will

ask you to state whether or not that is a similar study to the
one you have testified here about on direct examination?

A. It is one of the series of volumes of that study.
Q. The one you have testified about, I believe, is dated

1942, is it not?
A. That is right?
Q. The one I have handed you is dated 1943, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. That is the latest one out, the one you have in your

hand now, isn’t it, the latest one you have any knowledge
of?

A. May I give a qualified answer to that?
Q. All right.
A. The summary was written after the other volumes

were set up, naturally.
Q. Yes.
A. And was printed after that. That is why it bears a

later date.

269

Q. That is the latest thing then arrived at from the work
that was printed ahead of it ?

A. It is a part of the study summarized by Dr. Caliver.
[fol. 447] Q. Your Honor, I would like to make clear that
I am cross-examining him, and I still want to retain my bill
of exception, and I am cross-examining him just in case the
Court desires to consider this evidence.

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Is Dr. Caliver a recognized authority in the same

field that you have testified about that you are acquainted
with, through experience and training ?

A. By some people, yes.
Q. Well, do you recognize him as such?
A. In some areas, yes.
Q. He has made a much more comprehensive study of

the subject in preparing this work for the Government than
you have in preparing for your testimony here today,
hasn’t he?

A. I doubt it.
Q. You doubt that?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you if you agree with his conclusion contained

in this work that the kind and amount of education needed by
any individual or group in a democracy at any given time is
determined by their capacities, their interests, their abili
ties, disabilities, and their goals ?

A. Certainly.
Q. You agree with that?
A. Yes.

[fol. 448] Q. Do you agree to his conclusion here in this
summary that in addition to taking into consideration the
amount of money spent and the facilities available, in deter
mining the question as to whether or not equal opportunities
are offered for higher education, that in addition to all of
that, in determining what should be offered, that you should
take into consideration the environment and social order of
the particular area in which the schools are established?

A. I don’t know that I get that. Would you mind re
stating it?

270

Q. Suppose I read you what he says, and then you tell us
whether or not you agree to that. This is from page 1 of this
summary:

“ National Survey of the Higher Education of Negroes,
a Summary,”

printed in 1943 by the United States Office of Education:
“ Formerly in our educational processes, particularly
in organized education, this inter-relationship has not
always been recognized,”

talking about inter-relationship between social order, that
I have been talking to you about, and the fixed facilities.

“ The Survey of the Higher Education of Negroes,
however, which this volume summarizes, attempts to
view education in its social setting, and consequently,
not only are institutional matters studied, such as
student personnel, curriculum, faculty, administration,
and other facilities, but also the social and economic
[fol. 449] factors surrounding the institutions and in
fluencing the lives of the students and their communi
ties. ”

Now, my question is, do you agree with that statement
from the summary that these educational things, in addition
to what you have testified about here today, must neces
sarily be taken into consideration in deciding upon how you
can offer equal educational opportunities in a given com
munity !

A. That was a basic assumption underlying all of my
study. What Dr. Caliver means there is apparently the
thing that I do not agree with. I have argued with him
about it.

Q. You don’t agree with his conclusion on that!
A. I don’t agree with his general educational philosophy

of what a university o f college is, or what it is supposed to
do for an individual.

Q. Do yon agree with this portion of the summary!
“ In saying, therefore, that the higher educational
needs of Negroes should be considered in light of their
backgrounds and special interests, a principal is enun
ciated which applies equally to any other groqp in our
body politic.”

271

A. I think that perfectly odd.
Q. Do you feel like, for a white student you should estab

lish the kind of school the need or demand calls for?
A. Yes, and if I may explain that, I don’t think there are

[fol. 450] any needs among the white part of the community
that are not among the Negro part, or shouldn’t be.

Q. You have been here through this testimony today,
haven’t you ?

A. I certainly have.
Q. I don’t mean today. You have been on the talking end

of it today, but since the case began Monday morning?
A. Off and on.
Q. You have heard it testified here that the relator in this

case is the first applicant for law to the only State Law
School that was in existence at the time he applied, haven’t
you?

A. I believe I heard that, yes.
Q. Yes. You know of no other applicants for law, any

other students who wanted to take law in the State today
before this time?

A. I didn’t even know he wanted to take it before this
case came up. I don’t mean to the facetious about that.

Q. I understand. I don’t mean to be, either. I am trying
to lead to the point as to your opinion as an expert as to
what should be available before there is a demand for it.
In other words, is there is only one Negro student who wants
to take law, none before him, do you feel like that the State
should have provided a law school prior to that time for
Negroes?

A. I think that the State should have provided for Negroes
[fol. 451] in 1876 or whenever it was that Prairie View Uni
versity or the Texas A. & M. was set up. I think it should
have been then. The fact that only one Negro student
wants law, it seems to me, is immaterial in this state or any
other state, from my point of view.

Q. You don’t teach broom making and mattress making
at Howard University?

A. No, those are not college subjects.
Q. You don’t have demand for them?
A. Negroes have demands for them, and we teach them

in the trade schools where they ought to be taught.
Q. Until there is a demand for certain subjects at Howard

University that you do not now teach, you just don’t offer
them, do you?

272

A. That isn’t true, no. You see, there is a difference be
tween demand and being able to meet the demand. We put
on three departments last year that we didn’t have. We
didn’t know a single student would take those subjects,
geology, geography and another that I can’t think of at the
moment. We put those subjects on, not because of the fact
that we had a demand, but because we thought students ought
to have the opportunity to get an education in those fields,
and I think the same thing about a university. The op
portunity ought to be there, because the opportunity itself
is stimulating.

Q. Regardless of whether the students want to take the
[fol. 452] courses or not?

A. That is right. The only way to determine whether a
student wants to take a course is to make it available, in
my opinion.

Q. Now, you have studied—you have read the survey and
the summary that has been made on this question, you have
testified about, by the Federal Government, haven’t you,
Dr. Thompson?

A. Two or three years ago, I read the summary. I read
the other volume because, to be perfectly frank with you,
I knew Dr. Caliver, and I didn’t agree with him on educa
tional philosophy, and I knew about what he would put in
the summary. I was interested in the basic facts so that
I might draw my own conclusions rather than have his con
clusions.

Q. Let me read another one.
‘ ‘ Changes in the social structure—of which the educa

tional system is a part—must come slowly if disorgani
zation is not to result.”

A. I agree with that.
Q. Then, in order to solve this problem that we have here,

as you have testified about, in your opinion, in this State the
problem that you have testified about as having existed in
past years, don’t you believe that the only way to solve it
is by a gradual change, a gradual change from failing to
furnish equal educational opportunities to a system, setting
[fol. 453] up those equal educational opportunities by State
supported schools?

A. If I may answer it this way, I would have answered
the first part of your question yes, but the latter part forces

273

me to say no. May I explain? I think I know wliat the
question that yon started out—I won’t put it that way. I
think I know what you are driving at.

Q. You answer what you think I am driving at, and if
you don’t get it, I will come back.

A. What you are saying in so many words is this, is what
I think you were saying, assuming that this thing ought to
be done gradually, the change ought to be made gradually.

Q. I am not saying it. I have read from Dr. Caliver here,
and I asked you did you agree with him.

A. You gave me a question.
Q. Yes, I did. Go ahead.
A. Do you want me to answer your question, or Dr.

Caliver?
Q. Go ahead and answer what you understood I am driv

ing at.
A. What I understand you to be driving at is this; that

where we have certain customs in the south, and to change
overnight would cause disruption of one sort or another, you
are saying gradual change, that is more or less authentic, it
seems to me. You have got to start somewhere. This is the
first time I have been to Texas. I have been in practically
all of the southern states, and was born in the south, but I
[fol. 454] have been very much impressed with it since I
have been to Texas, by both the white people and the Negroes
in Texas. I think you are a very progressive community. It
is my opinion that the time is ripe to start with professional
and graduate work. I think it could very easily be done in
law, and then work gradually. That is what I mean by a
gradual change. Of course, if you tried to change the system
overnight from the kindergarten through the University,
you might have more disruption than otherwise; and yet, I
don’t know whether the disruption would be so much at that.

I think, to answer your question, to b e begin with the law
school and graduate school, and then the college and high
school and so forth, that that would be a gradual change,
and I think most people would agree that is gradual.

Q. Whatever the State should do to accomplish the pur
poses we have both been talking about, whatever should he
done, don’t you believe should be first taken into considera
tion the desires of the Negro citizens of this state, if that
is what they want, the general desires of the Negroes as to

18—725

274

what they want? Just answer yes or no so that we can
speed along.

A. I don’t want to speed along and answer it wrong.
May I answer and qualify it?

The Court: You may answer and explain it.
A. The thing that has surprised me; I have been pleas-

[fol. 455] antly surprised to see that Negroes really want to
go to the University of Texas.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. That isn’t responsive to my question at all.
A. I am merely explaining.
Mr. Daniel: I ask that it be stricken.
The Court: I doubt if it is responsive to the questions.
A. Very well, Your Honor.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You are acquainted with the facts and figures as to

the number of northern Negroes who come to southern sepa
rate schools for education, are you not?

A. In a general way, yes.
Q. I will ask you if this statement by Dr. Caliver, in your

opinion, from your studies, is substantially true?
“ While southern Negroes often go north for graduate

work, there are large numbers of Negroes resident in
northern states who go south to attend Negro colleges.
Moreover, even in northern colleges and universities
there are often, if not usually, special problems which
confront Negro students regardless of their places of
residence or previous training.”

A. I think that is true.
Q. I will ask you to state whether or not you are ac

quainted with this survey and the conclusion drawn from it
[fol. 456] by Dr. Caliver, making the survey of eight north
ern universities where negroes were admitted. This is from
page 13.

“ Whereas very few southern Negroes were attending
these eight northern universities in 1939-40; in the
year preceding, nearly 4,000 northern negroes attended
Negro colleges. Almost three thousand of this number

275

attended colleges in southern states. The majority of
these Negro students were residents of eight northern
states which rank high in economic resources. Thus,
instead of the northern states carrying an undue burden
in the higher education of Negroes, it appears that
institutions located in those states which have the
least wealth are providing educational facilities for
Negro residents from more economically favored re
gions.”

Do you agree with that?
A. I think the facts stated in the first part of the state

ment are correct. I think the implications may not be.
Q. In other words, the majority of your northern Negroes

who have available to them institutions that they can attend,
a majority of the northern Negroes attending colleges
actually elect to go to separate Negro schools?

A. No, that isn’t true. Dean Caliver said they studied
eight institutions. The 4,000 students came from all over the
[fol. 457] north, is that correct?

Q. Yes. Do you have the figures on how many Negro
students are attending college, northern Negro students?

A. We made a survey—Dr. Jenkins, who was a member
of the Bureau of Educational Research, made a survey
this fall.

Q. Could you get that for us by morning?
A. I might have it here. I don’t know. I will look and

see. I haven’t—let’s see, in 1945, there was something like
five or six thousand Negroes attending school in the north,
and the estimate now is that about twice that many, be
cause of the G. I. Bill and things of that sort.

Q. Suppose you try to get me those figures overnight?
A. All right.
Q. Have you read the conclusion by Dr. Caliver as to

what is the best thing to be done for the Negroes who want
to have equal educational opportunities in both the north
and south, contained in this summary, or survey you have
been testifying about here today, under Chapter 6, pages
40 through 50? Have you read that? Are you acquainted
with that?

A. I probably read them, but as I said a moment ago,
I don’t put much weight on the conclusions, because Dr.
Caliver and I don’t have the same educational philosophy.

Q. You don’t find anything in his conclusions which wouid

276

indicate that it was necessary to do away with separate
schools in order to give equal opportunities'?
[fol. 458] A. I don’t remember his conclusions, but I douht
seriously if he put that in print, being in the Office of Educa
tion.

Q. That is the conclusion that he has on that matter. Is
that one you disagree with him on? You know what his
conclusion is?

A. His public conclusions and his private conclusions may
be different. You are talking about his public conclusions.

Q. You tell us you know his private conclusions, and you
disagree with them. Isn’t it true his private conclusions are
like his public conclusions here, that separate schools, if
established on an equal basis, can solve the problem as far
as giving equality of educational opportunity to the Negro
students ?

A. I have come to the conclusion from discussions with
him that his private conclusions are not that, but his public
conclusions are probably motivated by the fact that we
have separate schools, and if a Negro is going to get an
education, he has to go to them until we get an integrated
situation.

Q. You are not positive about his private conclusions?
A. No.
Q. You wouldn’t undertake to tell this Court the man has

signed and printed something for the Government other
than what he actually believes about it, would you?

A. No, I wouldn’t do that.
Q. Now, as I understand, all of your testimony as to what

[fol. 459] you have examined in the way of funds available
for Negro students as. compared with white students, up
to the pending bill over here in the Legislature for this
session, and Senate Bill 140, which is already enacted, had
to do with past years, what had been done for Negroes in
past years, as compared with white schools; is that correct?

A. Up to 1947.
Q. Up to 1947?
A. That is right.
Q. The school year 1946-1947 ?
A. I might correct that. I was talking about H. B. 246,

and it was ruled out this morning. I have gone into those
proposals, and that was ruled out, and I didn’t go into it.

277

Q. Up to that time, and Senate Bill 140 that has passed,
all of your testimony has been what has happened in the
past?

A. Yes.
Q. You have read Senate Bill 140, the provisions setting

up the new Texas State University for Negroes, have you
not?

A. Yes, I have read it. I wouldn’t want to have to quote
it, or give the substance of it.

Q. You have, I suppose, in making your survey as to
what is available down here in Texas for Negroes, you have
made a survey of Houston College in Houston for Negroes,
have you not?

A. No, I haven’t. You mean a personal survey?
[fol. 460] Q. Or the kind of survey which you made from
the books of all of the other schools you have testified
about?

A. Houston College was included in some of the material
which I gave. For example, I gave the number of students
who had Master’s Degrees and doing graduate work at
Houston College.

Q. I heard you mention Houston College once. When you
were figuring the funds the State put into State schools
for Negroes in Texas, you didn’t include any money spent
by the State on Houston College, did you?

A. Yes, ’43 or ’44.
Q. On Houston College. You have not examined those

facilities of Houston College, the buildings and the 53
acres of land, have you ?

A. No, I have not.
Q. I believe the amount of money that you gave as having

been appropriated by Senate Bill 140 to maintain the new
university and its various branches as one million dollars?

A. For current expenses, it was five hundred thousand
dollars for two years, which would make one million dollars.
I believe that is correct.

Q. Did you read the text of the bill where other funds
were made available?

A. Yes, I took that into account. As I counted it up,
there were $3,350,000.00 made available for various and
sundry purposes for Negro higher education.
[fol. 461] Q. Actually, then, it was $1,350,000.00 for main
tenance and support, instead of one million, wasn’t it?

278

A. There were some items in there about Prairie View,
something about some other institutions. It was scattered
so through the bill it was practically impossible to tell
exactly where the money was going, or how it was to be
used.

Q. You mean impossible for you to tell?
A. Yes, for me to tell.
Q. You could tell the bill provided for two million dollars

for the establishment of the University?
A. Yes, and I took that into account.
Q. At the beginning didn’t you say Prairie View was the

only separate Negro College maintained by State funds
in Texas?

A. I think I did that.
Q. And wasn’t quite a bit of your testimony based on

Prairie View being the only State supported Negro college
in Texas?

A. Not throughout.
Q. But quite a hit of it?
A. Here is what I understand, if I may explain. Up

until 1945 I understand the Houston College for Negroes
was a municipally owned and controlled institution. Around
1946, I understand it changed to some other status, which
I couldn’t find. I have taken into account the State’s ap
propriation to Houston College for Negroes up until that
time.

Q. In giving your total amount of money appropriated
[fol. 462] by the State for 1945-1946 school years, that
was a figure of $72,790,000.00. You itemized it; look at
your figures there. Did you put Houston College in it?

A. No, sir.
Q. You allowed no money in there for Houston College?
A. No, nor did I have any for Texas Tech or the Univer

sity of Houston.
Q. I asked you about Houston College. You can get that

in some other way.
A. Pardon me.
Q. You can make a note of it so that you can ask him.

Do you know whether or not these amounts of money
appropriated to Negro schools in Texas were sufficient to
operate those schools in accordance with the number of
students who applied to go to them? Do you know that of
your own knowledge or not?

279

A. Looking at Prairie View—how about Prairie View?
The amount of money that Prairie View had, or even if you
gave them all of the money appropriated under S. B. 140,
it wouldn’t be sufficient to operate it on the basis on which
it is supposed to operate.

Q. Do you have the total figures on how many white
students attended college in Texas during the years you have
testified about on Negro students?

A. You mean total students?
[fol. 463] Q. Total number of white students attending
Texas colleges during the years you have testified about on
Negro students?

A. I think I have Negro students.
Q. I am talking about State supported schools.
A. 19—what is it, 1945-1946, that we are talking about

now?
Q. You gave several years. Let’s take that one to begin

with. You gave the total number of Negro students?
A. At Prairie View there were 1,576 students in 1945-

' 1946.
Q. And how many students were attending all of the

other State supported schools for whites?
A. I could not tell you that. I can tell you some of the

other institutions.
Q. You have the available books for that, do you not?
A. I suppose you could get it from the catalogue, or

some place of that sort. All of them aren’t available.
Q. In other words, you have drawn no comparison as to

the total number of white students as compared to the total
number of Negro students in making your financial com
parisons, have you?

A. No.
Q. The ratio you have used is strictly a ratio of State

funds appropriated as compared with population of Ne
groes compared to the total population of the State; right?

A. That is correct, and------
[fol. 464] Q. That is the ratio you testified about here
under your point number one on the amount of funds, and
the ratio you have used all along here' in determining the
percentage that the Negro Schools would have been entitled
to under said ratio; right?

A. Yes.
Q. You have not applied in this case the ratio of students

280

attending, white students attending, as compared with Ne
gro students actually attending school in the State, have
you?

A. Yes, but not all of the State, if I may explain, Your
Honor.

Q. Let me get my question. As I understood it a minute
ago, you haven’t even drawn the total of the white students
attending State supported institutions for any one year
you have testified about, have you!

A. That is right.
Q. Then you have not arrived at the ratio of expenditure,

a ratio fixed by the number of white students attending
school, total number attending State institutions as com
pared with the total number of Negro students attending,
have you?

A. No.
Q. You mentioned a minute ago on direct examination

Meharry Medical School in Tennessee, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You offered Meharry as an example of a medical

school in Tennessee which was operating, and caused the
[fol. 465] State of Tennessee to be far ahead of the State of
Texas in the number of doctors and dentists per Negro—
per so many hundred Negro population; right? Meharry
is a separate Negro school, is it not?

A. Yes.
Q. Are you acquainted with the—what is the name of that

senior college survey that you have in your pocket?
A. The Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas.
Q. May I borrow it a minute ? Are you acquainted with

the Chairman of the Committee of this study, Dr. T. S.
Montgomery, professionally?

A. No, I am not.
Q. Are you acquainted professionally with the reputation

of Dean Pittenger?
A. I know his reputation.
Q. Is he a recognized authority in the same field in

which you work?
A. You mean in racial comparisons?
Q. No, as an educator. You know his standing in the

field of education, do you not?
A. He is the Dean of the School of Education at the

University of Texas.

281

Q. You quoted several places from this book, from this
study made by that committee, the Biracial Committee
which studied senior colleges for Negroes. I will ask you
[fol. 466] if, in your opinion that committee was, working
over the long period of time that it worked to compile this
volume, I will ask you if you do not believe they were in a
better position to find out what is best for equality for the
Negro students of this State, and in better position than
you are from your short study of this particluar State ?

A. I doubt if I could answer that. As I said a moment
ago, I have given five or six weeks of intensive study to
this subject. I don’t know how much time they gave to the
study which is involved there.

Q. I would like to read you a conclusion from that study,
and ask you whether or not you agree with it. On page 83
of the study that you have been reading from :

“ Admission of Negroes to existing State universities
for whites is not acceptable as a solution of the problem
of providing opportunity for graduate and profes
sional study for Negroes, on two counts: (1) Public
opinion would not permit such institutions to be opened
to Negroes at the present time; and (2) even if Negroes
were admitted they would not be happy in the conditions
in which they would find themselves.”

I will ask you whether or not, first, you feel like you are
in a position to agree or disagree with the conclusion
therein drawn after having made only five weeks’ study of
[fol. 467] the matter in Texas?

A. I should say that I do not have enough facts to
evaluate that opinion. I would want to know, have you
made a poll of opinion of the people in Texas, number one.
I would question the assumption underlying the statement,
namely; that even if the poll showed that the opinion might
be different, or it might be divided 60 to 40, or something of
the sort, I don’t think that is sufficient justification in itself
in arriving at this conclusion, so I am not in a position to
agree with the opinion, because you do not have enough
facts stated there.

Q. In other words, that is the point I am going to get to.
The men who have made a longer study, and have more
facts at hand on which to arrive at the opinion as to what

282

can best furnish equality in Texas on this subject are
certainly in a better position than you to judge the matter.

Mr. Marshall: The question assumes that they had more
opportunity, and had more facts.

The Court: I think it is rather sustaining himself, or
failing to sustain himself, anyhow. He is probably going
to recommend himself, if he testifies. I would.

Mr. Daniel: I doubt that he will.
The Court: An answer to that would either be to say

that what you have been saying is well founded or it
isn’t well founded.
[fol. 468] A. Well, what I have been saying is well
founded.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. In your opinion?
A. In my opinion.
Q. You read from this book here on several occasions,

did you not, as to the study made by these men?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Aren’t you willing to admit, Dr. Thompson, that from

the long study that they made on this matter over a period
of years, if the evidence shows it took them a period of years,
won’t you admit they are in better position to judge what
is best for the equality of opportunities?

A. I don’t want to appear immodest, Mr. Attorney Gen
eral, or facetious, but I doubt it seriously. I have been in
this field of race relations for some 25 years. Most of the
difficulties involved in the situation are this; that we imagine
things will happen. There has been no test to determine
whether or not—in fact, there has been a test, I understand,
if you will allow me to give a hearsay example.

Mr. Marshall: No.
A. The attorney says no, but there has been no test to

determine whether or not the time is ripe or not, as they say.
I think so, coming in the State from other states, and that
sort of thing, but I wouldn’t say at all that I have any more
basis for my opinion than they have for theirs.

Q. I will ask you again whether or not you are willing
[fol. 469] to admit these gentlemen, after years of study, if
the evidence shows they have had years of study, would be

283

in a better position to arrive at conclusions than you, after
your five or six weeks in Texas'?

A. I would have to know what they studied.
Q. I thought you had been reading it?
A. Yes, I picked out facts, and not conclusions.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr'. Thompson, you were questioned about this con

clusion in this study of senior colleges for Negroes in
Texas that “ even if Negroes were admitted they would not
be happy in the conditions in which they would find them
selves.” You have already testified you were born in
Mississippi. Is that right?

A. That is right.
Q. Subsequent to that time you went to the University of

Chicago, after attending a Negro school in Richmond, Vir
ginia; is that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. And the University of Chicago has all races; is that

correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were in classes with other students of other races?
A. That is correct.

[fol. 470] Q. What I want to ask you is, did you find that
you “ would not be happy in the conditions in which you
found yourself?”

A. No, I wasn’t more unhappy; in fact, I was happier at
the University of Chicago than I was at Virginia Institute.

Q. You can testify to that of your own knowledge, can’t
you?

A. That is correct.
Q. The faculty at Howard University, is it restricted to

one race, or is it all races?
A. All races.
Q. Is there any unhappiness among them?
A. Well, I don’t suppose any more than the average fac

ulty, in any university.
Q. On these studies showing that Negroes in the north

who attend southern universities, is there any showing as
to how long those Negroes were in the north before they
went back south?

284

A. I don’t know of any—I can’t recall any information
now.

Q. What is your experience at Howard University as to
students who come from most of the separate Negro
schools in the south, as to their ability to shape up!

A. They have pretty weak backgrounds, on the whole. I
mentioned a case this morning, in the case of chemistry,
where one of the chemistry departments of the Negro college
doesn’t have physical chemistry. They come to Howard
University to take graduate work, and they have to take a
[fol. 471] year of physical chemistry before they can begin
the graduate work. You face deficiencies in any of them.

Q. Isn’t it true that many of the Negroes from southern
schools are ineligible to attend a northern university;
isn’t that true?

Mr. Daniel: You are asking a leading question. We ask
that you not lead him

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Are there any Negro schools in the south that are un

accredited f
A. Yes.
Q. Can you get into an accredited university in the north

if you come from an unaccredited school!
A. You can get in, but you are conditioned.
Q. Does a condition mean that you have to do more work?
A. Yes. My own personal experience bears that out. I

got a Bachelor’s Degree at Virginia University, and when
I went to the University of Chicago, I had to do more work
to get another Bachelor there.

Q. And you had already been to some kind of an academy
in Mississippi, hadn’t you?

A. That is right.
Q. Now, as to your experience in examining the relation

ship between the education in white and colored schools, on
the question that was asked you on cross-examination as to
one applicant to a law school, I want to ask you if, in your
[fol. 472] opinion, what, in your opinion, would be the same
viewpoint of a governmental agency as to that one pupil
applying for a law school------

Mr. Daniel: We object to that. That would be a con
clusion of the witness.

285

The Court: I don’t see what a governmental agency would
have to do with it.

Mr. Marshall: I am speaking of the University of Texas,
with the University of Texas, with one Negro student ap
plying for the law school, and the duty of the University to
conserve the funds of the taxpayers.

A. I believe it would be the same answer that I gave the
Attorney General when he asked me the same question a
while ago in a different form. It seems reasonable the
student should be admitted to the University of Texas.

Q. The question was asked whether or not Meharry was a
Negro school. You testified on direct examination as to
both Meharry and Howard. I now ask you whether or not
Howard is a mixed school, or a Negro school?

A. Howard University has no restrictions as to race.
In fact, we have all types of races at Howard. At least, they
have had during the 20 years that I have been there.

Q. Getting back to this question of comparing the schools,
the population of schools, is the population of the school—
[fol. 473] what determines the number of students a school
can accom-odate?

A. Well, there are a number of things. Of course, your
physical plant, the things I enumerated this morning,
physical plant, the number of teachers you can get, the num
ber of facilities that you can offer.

Q. Even assuming that they are doing no better job than
they are doing right now, could Prairie View accom-odate
any more students?

A. I doubt it. I was there last week, and I understand
they are overcrowded.

Q. As to library facilities, you did compare Meharry as to
individual schools and student body?

A. Meharry?
Q. I mean Prairie View.
A. Yes.
Q. And are you familiar with the approximate size of the

State of Texas—are you not?
A. I thought I was until I came here. I doubt it.
Q. What relationship to the number of students attending

college is it to the fact that in one instance you have eleven
schools scattered all over the state and in the other instance
you have one school at the far—one of the far sides of the
state?

286

A. Of course, geographically, it would be difficult, if
[fol. 474] Negroes lived on the other side of the state, and
would have to come to the other side of the state.

Q. Does that have some determinative hearing as to the
number?

A. It probably would.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: We will take a recess for a few minutes.
Court was recessed at 3 :15 p. m., until 3 :40 p. m., May

15, 1947, at which time proceedings were resumed as fol
lows :

Mr. Daniel: It is agreed that the following publications
may be marked by the Court Reporter and left with him,
and that he shall place in the record excerpts from such pub
lications that may be requested by either of the parties.

Mr. Durham: We want to be bound only by what portions
we offer.

(Thereupon, the following publications were marked for
the purposes above stated as:)

(Exhibit A, 16th Census of the United States, 1940.)
(Exhibit B, Accredited Higher Institutions, 1944, Bulletin

1944, No. 3, U. S. Office of Education.)
(Exhibit C, General Studies of Colleges for Negroes,

Misc. No. 6, Yol. II, U. S. Office of Education.)
[fol. 475] (Exhibit D, Directory, Colleges and Universities
offering Graduate Courses leading to Master’s and Doctor’s
Degrees, 1940-1945.)

(Exhibit E, Federal Government Funds for Education,
1944-1945 and 1945-46, Leaflet No. 77.)

(Exhibit F, Biennial Survey of Education in the United
States, 1942-44, Statistics of Higher Education, 1943-44.)

(Exhibit G, Biennial Surveys of Education in the United
States, 1938-40 and 1940-42, Statistics of Higher Education,
1939-40 and 1941-42.)

(Exhibit H, Biennial Survey of Education in the United
States, 1942-44, Statistics of State School Systems, 1943-44,
Chapter II.)

287

(Exhibit I, Federal Security Agency Biennial Survey of
Education, 1936-1938.)

(Exhibit J, Statistics of Land Grant Colleges and Uni
versities, year ended June 30, 1944.)

Mr. Daniel: We wish to take one in this group from
which we read excerpts in the case.

Mr. Durham: We object, first, that it hasn’t been certified
to, and that nobody has identified it as being the official
document.

The Court: Well, I think I will let him offer it, as the
Doctor has testified from it.

(Said instrument, the same being National Survey of the
Higher Education of Negroes, a Summary, Misc. Vol.
[fol. 476] IY, was admitted in evidence as Respondents’
Exhibit No. 15.)

Mr. Daniel: Number sixteen will be the Report of Senior
Colleges for Negroes. We will get that from Dr. Thompson
tomorrow.

(Said instrument, being “ The Senior Colleges for Negroes
in Texas,” was admitted in evidence as Respondents’ Ex
hibit No. 16.)

D onald G. M ubbay , a witness produced by the Relator,
having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as fol
lows :

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give your full name.
A. Donald G. Murray.
Q. And your address ?
A. 424 Y Court, Baltimore, Maryland.
Q. Your present occupation?
A. Attorney.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. Amherst College.
Q. Where is that?
A. Amherst, Massachusetts.
Q. When did you finish Amherst?

288

A. 1932.
[fol. 477] Q. And did you apply for admission to the
University of Maryland Law School?

A. I did.
Q. First; and what happened to your application?
A. It was refused.
Q. On what grounds ?
A. On the grounds it was against the policy of the State

of Maryland to admit Negroes to the University of Maryland
Law School.

Q. What happened thereafter?
A. I consulted briefly with attorney Thurgood Marshall.

Mr. Daniel: We object to that as being irrelevant and
immaterial, as to how he got in the school.

The Court: Tell me your purpose of it. I don’t quite see.
Mr. Marshall: The whole purpose of it is that in the State

of Maryland they have segregation statutes similar to the
State of Texas. He was refused admission, and a lawsuit
was filed, and they said if he was admitted to the school it
would wreck the University, and he was admitted, and
everybody got along fine.

The Court: How is he going to prove what the State said
except by hearsay?

Mr. Marshall: We have here a document from the Court
of Civil Appeals, and motion to advance a case, signed by
[fol. 478] the Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney
General, from the State of Maryland. That is the only piece
of evidence we are going to introduce in evidence as to what
the State of Maryland said.

The Court: Might not that be the attorney’s contention?
Mr. Marshall: He was representing it as the official attor

ney of the State of Maryland.
The Court: I will let you have it on your bill. You can

offer it on your bill.
Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Was a lawsuit filed as a result of your case?
Mr. Daniel: We object to that.
The Court: It is on his bill.
Mr. Daniel: The records would be the best evidence.
The Court: He can say whether it was filed or not.

289

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Did the Court of Appeals of Maryland in a decision

reported in the official documents of the Court of Appeals
of Maryland, and reported in the Atlantic Reporter, the
title of which was Pearson against Murray, decide upon the
case of which you were speaking !

A. Yes, it did.
Q. Now, I ask you as to whether or not you were admitted

to the University of Maryland prior to the decision of the
[fol. 479] Court of Appeals of Maryland!

A. Yes, I was.
Q. And prior to the decision of that case, I will ask you,

did the Attorney General in Maryland, Herbert R. O’Conor,
and the Assistant Attorney General, Charles T. LeViness,
III, tile a certain document with the Court of Appeals of
Maryland concerning your case!

A. Yes, they did.
Mr. Daniel: As I understand it, all of this is going into

his bill of exceptions!
The Court: That is right.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I show you this document entitled Raymond A. Pear

son, President, and other names, versus Donald Murray,
in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, with the certification
from the archivist of the State of Maryland, and ask you
if you can identify it!

A. Yes, I can.
Q. What is it!
A. It is the notice to advance the hearing in the Court of

Appeals of Maryland on the case Pearson, et al. vs. Murray.

Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please—you still have your
objection to it!

Mr. Daniel: Yes, my objection is already in, and the
Court sustained it.

The Court: Yes, and it is coming in on the bill of excep-
[fol. 480] tion.

(Thereupon counsel for relator had the Reporter mark
said instrument above referred to as Relator’s Exhibit

19—725

290

No. 7, and same was admitted for the purpose of the Bill
of Exception as such exhibit.)

Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.
Q. Mr. Murray, the sum and substance of the relator’s

Exhibit No. 7 is the request to the Court of Appeals of
Maryland to advance the hearing in this case from the Octo
ber term on the theory that if you were admitted that dire
results would come about at the University of Maryand; is
that not correct!

A. That is correct.
Q. You were admitted in September, 1935, were you not!
A. That is correct.
Q. Will you tell briefly to the Court what, if anything,

happened to hear out the predictions of the Attorney Gen
eral of Maryland!

A. Absolutely nothing happened.
Q. Were you ostracized in any way!
A. No, I was not.
Q. Were you segregated in any way!
A. No, I was not.
Q. Were you mistreated in any way!
A. No, I was not.
Q. What was your experience, briefly!

[fol. 481] A. My experience, briefly, was that I attended
the University of Maryland Law School for three years,
during which time I took all of the classes with the rest
of the students, and participated in all of the activities in
the school, and at no time whatever did I meet any attempted
segregation or unfavorable treatment on the part of any
student in the school, or any professor or assistant pro
fessor.

Q. Where is the University of Maryland Law School
located!

A. Baltimore, Maryland.
Q. Are the public schools there mixed or separate, accord

ing to race!
A. Separate.
Q. Are housing conditions mixed or separate!
A. Separate.
Q. Are eating facilities mixed or separate!
A. Separate.

291

Q. With the exception of the separation of races on buses
and trolley cars here in Austin, do you find any item of
segregation that is not present in Baltimore, Maryland?

A. As far as I have observed, I have observed none.
Q. Attorney General Herbert O’Conor signed this motion

to advance, did he not ?
A. Yes.
Q. Who gave you your diploma when you graduated

from the University of Maryland?
[fol. 482] A. Governor O’Conor.

Q. The same man?
A. Yes.
Q. And Charles T. LeViness, III, signed that motion as

Assistant Attorney General?
A. Yes.
Q. Who gave you your first job when you left the law

school?
A. Charles T. LeViness, III.
Q. How did that come about?
A. I applied for a position as inspector with the Board

of Liquor License in Baltimore City. At the time Mr.
LeViness was the Chairman of that Board, and in charge
of the hiring of applicants. I applied and was accepted
and worked for about eight months with him.

Q. And then you went to the Army?
A. No, I went in private practice.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether other

negroes have attended the University of Maryland since
your time?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. About how many are in there now?
A. Nineteen.
Q. Has there been any trouble of any kind since you have

been there that you know of?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Your witness.

[fol. 483] Mr. Daniel: That is on the bill of exception. No
questions.

(Witness excused.)
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we desire to offer a portion

of the cross interrogatories of the witness L. E. Angell, and

292

I will ask Mr. Nabrit to read the answers as I read the
questions.

(Mr. Durham read the following cross interrogatories,
and Mr. Nabrit read the answers, from Deposition of E. L.
Angell.

E. L. A ngell (Deposition):
Q. 3. How much money was expended in setting up this

Law School for Negroes in Houston?
A. 3. I do not know.
Q. 4. Were books, equipment and supplies for this Law

School for Negroes in Houston purchased for cash or by
State requisition or vouchers?

A. 4. They were purchased by Prairie View University
using their funds.

Q. 5. If purchased for cash, who paid for them and out
of what fund was the money secured and on whose authority
was the payment made ?

A. 5. They were paid for from funds of Prairie View
[fol. 484] University and on the authority of the Principal
of the Prairie View University.

Q. 20. How many rooms were there in this building or
in these housing facilities and what was the floor area of
each?

A. 20. There was a suite of three rooms, but I do not know
the floor area.

Q. 30. State what was the academic rank of each of these
teachers in the faculty of the Law School.

A. 30. I do not know.
Q. 32. How many lecture rooms or class rooms were pro

vided in this building or in these housing facilities and what
was the floor area of each? For identification purposes,
number this room or rooms.

A. 32. I do not know the disposition to be made of the
suite of rooms that was rented.

Q. 33. Was an office for the Dean provided in this building
or in these housing facilities? If so, what was its floor area
and its approximate distance from the lecture rooms!
For identification purposes, number this room.

A. 33. I do not know.
Q. 34. Was an office for the registrar provided in this

building or in these housing facilities? If so, what was its

293

area and its approximate distance from the lecture rooms?
For identification purposes, number this room.

A. 34. The registrar for this court was the Registrar at
[fol. 485] the Prairie View University, and I do not know
if they provided any space in Houston for him or not.

Q. 36. Into how many rooms was this Law Library
divided and what was the floor area of each? For identifica
tion purposes, number each of these rooms.

A. 36. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 37. "What was the floor area of the main reading room

in the Law Library? For identification purposes, number
this room.

A. 37. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 38. What was the floor area of the cataloguing and

receiving room of the Law Library? For identification pur
poses, number this room.

A. 38. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 39. Was there a librarian’s office in the Law Library,

if so, what was its approximate distance from the main
reading room?

A. 39. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 40. What was the approximate distance of the Law

Library from the lecture rooms, the Dean’s office and the
registrar’s office?

A. 40. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 41. When was this library purchased and what was

its purchase price?
A. 41. Some 400 basic reference law books were made

[fol. 486] available by the Texas A. & M. College library,
and it was ascertained that books for first year law students,
a list of which, was furnished by the Dean of the Law School
of the University of Texas, could be delivered on short
notice, and the authorities of Prairie View were ready to
purchase these books if a student registered in the law
course.

Q. 42. How many library stacks or book cases were ac
quired and what kind?

A. 42. These were to be furnished by the library of Prairie
View University.

Q. 45. Give the name and qualifications and salary of
each of these officers of the Law School for Negroes in
Houston: (a) Dean; (b) Registrar; (c) Librarian.

294

A. 45. The Dean and Registrar were officials of Prairie
View University and Prairie View University was to furnish
Librarian services at the Houston establishment.

Q. 48. Give the budget for the Law School in Houston for
Negroes for the first year. Itemize as follows:

(a) Salaries—Instruction.
(b) Library.
(c) Operation and maintenance.
(d) Travel.

[fol. 487] (e) Publication.
(f) Equipment.
(g) Supplies and expenses.
(h) Administration.
(i) Scholarships and student aid.
(j) Annuities.
A. 48. No specific budget was approved, it being under

stood that if a student registered for the law course that the
officials at Prairie View would then submit a budget.

Q. 50. State whether announcements of the new school,
its curriculum, its schedule of classes, its organizations, ex
penses and program was made. If written announcements
were made, attach copies of the same to this deposition.

A. 50. The only announcement that I know was made by
the press.

Q. 51. If oral, who issued them and how were prospective
students to become aware of these verbal announcements?

A. 51. I do not know.
Q. 52. What officer of the Law School for Negroes in

Houston made these announcements ?
A. 52. I do not know.
Q. 53. Did the faculty of the School of Law for Negroes

in Houston prepare the curriculum, schedule the classes
and otherwise conduct the general educational work of the
Law School?

A. 53. It was understood that they would follow the course
[fol. 488] offerings of the University of Texas.

Q. 54. How many meetings did the faculty of the Law
School for Negroes in Houston hold. Attach copies of the
minutes of these meetings to this deposition.

A. 54. I do not know.

295

Q. 55. Who was the Secretary of the Law School for Ne
groes in Houston. State the qualifications of the Secretary.

A. 55. Prairie View University was to furnish secretarial
assistance for the law course in Houston. I do not know
the qualifications of the personnel.

Q. 56. Attach copies of the application blanks or forms
for admission to the Law School for Negroes in Houston
to this deposition.

A. 56. I have no copies, blanks or forms.
Q. 57. Attach copies of each of the registration forms,

blanks or cards used by the Law School for Negroes in Hous
ton.

A. 57. The registration forms would be those of Prairie
View University. I haven’t these forms available.

Q. 58. Is this Law School for Negroes still in existence in
Houston?

A. 58. The facilities were rented until the 1st of March.
It was understood that if no student registered that the
authorities of Prairie View would discontinue the offering
of the course and made disposition of the equipment.
[fol. 489] Q. 59. If not, when was it closed and upon whose
authority was it closed?

A. 59. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 58.

J. B. R utland , a witness produced by the Relator, having
been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give your full name, please.
A. J. B. Rutland.
Q. And your address?
A. 4112 Duval.
Q. And your occupation, sir?
A. Director of Education for Negroes, State Department

of Education.
Q. And do you also have a position with the Scholarship

Committee for Negroes?
A. Executive Secretary of the Scholarship Committee.
Q. And what is the Scholarship Committee for Negroes?

296

A. It provides for out of state scholarships, scholarships
to out of State institutions for Negroes in subjects that are
not offered at Prairie View.

Q. And when was that committee set up?
A. In 1939.

[fol. 490] Q. And how much money did it have to operate
on the first year?

A. Twenty-five thousand.
Q. And was that all for scholarships, or was part of that

for administration?
A. Part of it for secretarial.
Q. Approximately how much was available for scholar

ships?
A. About twenty-four hundred the first year.
Q. Twenty-four hundred?
A. Twenty-four thousand the first year.
Q. And was that all contributed?
A. I am not sure about the first year. I wasn’t in the

office at that time.
Q. When did you take over?
A. 1945.
Q. 1945?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have the records there for the previous years ?

Will you look at those records and let us know how much
was actually expended in 1939 ? I am wondering if we might
shorten this by giving him time to consider each year. The
thing I am interested in is the amount of money and the
number of subjects that were covered by the students, and
the students for each year, and then he could present that.
Do you have it ?

A. I have it for 1945-46 here.
[fol. 491] Q. We wanted it back a little ways, if we could.
Do you have any other years there? Well, I think, if Your
Honor please, I might ask one more question, and I might
save you some time there. Is this 1945-1946 about the way
it has been running since you have been there?

A. Since I have been there, it is.
The Court: That is the one since you have been there,

isn’t it?
A. Yes.

297

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Do you have a copy of the rules and regulations for

the issuance of scholarships that you mail to the pupils?
A. No.
Q. Is this it?
A. That is right.
Q. That is it. May we have these two marked?
A. 1943 and 1944 there was $24,000.00 spent.
Q. How many law school students were included in that

year?
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we would like to make the same

objection to this line of testimony that we made to the
previous testimony about other schools. The relator; here
is asking only the Dean and the Registrar and the Board of
Regents of the University of Texas to get into the Univer
sity of Texas. He isn’t concerned at all with out of state
scholarships, didn’t want one, and didn’t apply for one. We
[fol. 492] think it is irrelevant and immaterial to this case.

The Court: We will hear the testimony.
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Can you tell me how many law school students went

in the year 1944-1945?
A. Three.
Q. And the previous year, can you go back?
A. The total up to now is 11, since we have started.
Q. The total is 11 in law schools?
The Court: Altogether.
A. Altogether since the work started.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. When was the first year you had an applicant for a

law school scholarship?
A. In this 1939 to 1943 report we have eight law students.
Q. You have eight law students in that report. You

don’t know what years they applied, do you ?
A. No, except during the years 1939 to 1943.
Q. All right. Can we have the—is that a mimeographed

copy, or is that the only one ?
A. I have only the one copy.

298

Mr. Marshall: Any objection?
Mr. Daniel: The same objection we made to all of them.
Mr. Marshall: We are introducing as Exhibit 8 the report

of the Scholarship Aid Fund for Texas Negro Graduate
and Professional Students, 1945-1946.

[fol. 493] (Said instrument was admitted in evidence as
Relator’s Exhibit No. 8.)

Mr. Marshall: And Relator’s Exhibit No. 9, from the
office of the Executive Secretary of the Texas Scholarship
Aid Committee, State Department of Education, statement
of policy and procedure. That is applicable, of course, to
the Negro Scholarship Fund.

(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator’s
Exhibit No. 9.)

Mr. Marshall: That is all.
Mr. Daniel: No questions.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Durham: Your Honor, the relator rests at this time,
with the understanding, because of the order in which the
testimony has been put on, he reserves the right to rebut any
further testimony, under the agreement.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, I want to exchange the smaller

picture for a larger picture, more equal to the size of the
picture of the University Law School introduced hy the
relator, for this little picture we introduced yesterday.

Mr. Marshall: We only object on the ground there is too
much sky in it.

Mr. Daniel: For the record, in reply to that last remark,
[fol. 494] we tried to take it about the same distance as the
one introduced hy the relator of the Texas Fniversity Law
School.

Said photograph was marked by the Reporter as Re
spond-'rt s' Exhibit No. 14. and same s sv.rst'.rr.tee. tor the
instrument originally introduced as such exm.mt.

299

H e n r y D oyle , a witness produced by the Respondents,
having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as fol
lows :

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. State your name.
A. Henry Doyle.
Q. Where do you reside!
A. 1205 Leona Street.
Q. Austin, Texas!
A. Austin, Texas.
Q. Did you reside here in Austin during the months of

February and March of 1947!
A. I did.
Q. Were you acquainted with the opening of a Negro Law

School here in Austin on March 10, 1947?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you, pi’ior to March 10, 1947, consider entering

[fol. 495] that law school!
A. I did.
Q. Did you on the Saturday before March 10, 1947, at

tend a meeting in Dallas, Texas!
A. I did.
Q. Were other members of the Negro race at that meet

ing?
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, the relator objects as to

whether a meeting was held, or ten thousand meetings were
held, unless it is shown they were held at the request and
instance of relator.

The Court: We will see how it develops.
Mr. Durham: Will you note our exception?
The Court: Well, I haven’t ruled on it yet.
Mr. Durham: All right, Your Honor.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Do you know Maeeo Smith?
A. I do.
Q. What position, if any, does he b oM with the National

Association of Colored People.
Mr. Dmshamz Y*mr Honor, we oltjeet to that. Asfmm-

m eam :a :a >. wCh the LV.ional Asw^at/vn for Coiotei

300

People would not be binding, and any action he did would
not be binding upon this relator.

The Court: I believe we will let him pursue it a little
further.

A. State the question again.

[fol. 496] By Mr. Daniel:
Q. What position does he hold with the National Asso

ciation for the Advancement of Colored People?
A. I am not familiar with his title.
Q. Is he an officer in the Association!
A. I am not sure. I know he works with them, but

whether he holds an office or not, I don’t know.
Mr. Durham: We object to the last statement as not re

sponsive.
The Court: Yes, just answer the questions.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Was he at that meeting attended by you in Dallas on

the Saturday before March 10, 1947?
A. He was.
Q. Did he make a talk or report of any kind at that meet

ing in Dallas the Saturday before March 10, 1947?
The Court: I am still holding that in abeyance.
A. Again, will you ask it again, please?

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did—first, let’s get this. Maceo Smith, was he at

the meeting in Dallas?
A. He was.
Q. Did he make any kind of talk or report there at the

meeting?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Were discussions held at the meeting by------
Mr. Durham: Your Honor------
Mr. Daniel: I withdraw it.
The Court: I think it would be hearsay.

[fol. 497] By Mr. Daniel:
Q. How long did you stay there at the meeting in Dallas?
A. I am not sure, approximately two hours.

301

Q. Were other officers of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People there?

Mr. Durham: We object to that as assuming that he
knows them.

The Court: Unless he knows of his own knowledge.
Mr. Durham: We object to it for the reason that he pre

supposes that he knows, and it is an assumption not based
upon any facts.

A. I do not.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You do not know. What was the name of the group

that held that meeting?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as assuming that he

knows.
The Court: If he knows.
A. I do not know.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Who notified you to come to the meeting?
A. I was notified by circular letter.
Q. Prom whom?
A. I don’t recall the signature.
Q. Was the support of this lawsuit pending* here by the

National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People mentioned at that meeting by anyone?
[fol. 498] Mr. Durham: AVe object to that.

The Court: Of course, it would not be admissible unless
the relator was there, and unless he made it.

Mr. Durham: And unless it was by his authority, and
we object to it as not being binding upon the relator, unless
he shows that connection.

The Court: That is right.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did you see Heman Marion Sweatt there?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you see Air. Durham, the man that just made the

objection, any time during that meeting?
A. I saw him.

302

Q. Did he appear before the meeting!
A. He did.
Q. Before that meeting concluded, did you announce to

that meeting that you would not enter the law school, Negro
Law School on March 10, 1947?

Mr. Durham: We object to that as being irrelevant and
immaterial as to what he would do.

The Court: I believe I will let him answer it, in view of
our prior rulings of that. We may strike it all later.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did you make such statement to the meeting before it

adjourned?
A. I said I was seeking information relative to making

up my mind whether or not I would enter the law school,
[fol. 499] Q. Did you announce before the meeting was
over that you would not enter the law school the next Mon
day morning?

A. I did not.
Q. Didn’t you tell me that you did?
Mr. Durham: We object to him arguing with his own

witness.
The Court: That is right.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did vou enter the Negro Law School on March 10,

1947?
A. I did not.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Durham: That is all.
The Court: I think the testimony is perhaps not rele

vant.
Mr. Durham: We ask that it be stricken.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.

(Witness excused.)
Mr. Daniel: That is all of me witnesses we have here

now. Your Honor. We have two for in the morning.
That is all we know about.

303

The Court: Then we will recess until nine o ’clock in the
morning.

(Court was recessed at 4:20 p. in., May 15th, 1947, until
9 :00 a. m., May 16, 1947.)

[fol. 500] Morning Session, May 16, 1947, 9 :00 A. M.

A. W. W alker, Jr., a witness produced by the respond
ents, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as
follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Greenhill:
Q. Will you please state your name?
A. A. W. Walker, Jr.
Q. What is your occupation, Judge Walker?
A. Professor of Law at the University of Texas Law

School.
Q. Would you please give us your educational back

ground for that teaching?
A. I received my B. A. Degree from the University of

Texas in 1921 and my LLB in 1923. I took work at some
other schools, graduate work at the Yale Law School, some
extra graduate work at Columbia Law School.

Q. Do you belong to any professional societies?
A. Yes, the Association of American Law Schools,

American Judicature Society, Texas Bar Association.
Q. Have you been admitted to the practice of law in

Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. When were you admitted?
A. I was admitted in 1923.

[fol. 501] Q. State whether or not you have engaged in the
private practice of law?

A. I have.
Q. When did you engage in the practice ?
A. I practiced in Dallas, Texas, from 1923 to 1925.
Q. Would you state whether or not you have written any

legal articles or books on the subject of law*
A. I have written quite a few articles published in law

reviews and some in trade magazines.

304

Q. Would you please name some of the articles in the law
reviews ?

A. I wrote a series of articles on the subject of the law of
oil and gas which were published in The Texas Law Review,
one in the Mississippi Law Review, and various articles also
published in the Oil & Gas Journal, and other trade pub
lications.

Q. In what courts are you licensed to practice?
A. The Supreme Court of Texas, the Supreme Court of

the United States, the Federal Court for the Northern and
Western Districts of Texas.

Q. What subjects have you taught in the law school?
A. That is quite a long list. My teaching has been pri

marily in the real property fields. I have taught courses
in personal property, real property, conveyances, called
future interests, oil and gas, domestic relations, wills, ad
ministration of estates.
[fol. 502] Q. What courses are you now teaching?

A. At the present time I am teaching oil and gas and a
real property seminar.

Q. What system of law instruction do you use in your
classes?

A. The case book system.
Q. How long have you been using that system?
A. Since I have been teaching law, which is about 22

years.
Q. Would you please describe briefly the nature of the

case book system?
A. The case book system is designed to cause your stu

dents to go to the primary sources of law, rather than to
secondary sources of law for their information. In other
words, they go to the decisions of the courts and study those
and be prepared to recite upon them in class, and then to
discuss them and the conclusion, with all questions that
might be raised in regard to those cases.

Q. In addition to the—is there any additional feature of
the system in addition to the recitation and discussion?
Is there any other part of the case book system which you
use?

A. I don’t know that I understand your question.
Q. I mean, do you ever lecture to the class?
A. Oh, yes. I would not call that a part of the case hook

system, but frequently there is material that you don’t think

305

that requires the detailed attention that the case book sys
tem necessitates, which you want the students to have, but
[fol. 503] where you can cover the situation by simply a
lecture covering that particular topic.

Q. I will ask you whether or not in your opinion the case
book system is flexible?

A. A very flexible system.
Q. How many students are in your classes, Judge

Walker?
A. Well, in my class in oil and gas at the present time,

there is something over a hundred students. In my seminar
class, it is restricted to fifteen.

Q. How often does an individual student get called upon
to recite in a class of a hundred?

A. I would say that in a class of 100, for being called
upon to recite on a case, that the average would not be
called upon to recite more than one case.

Q. In what period of time?
A. During a course.
Q. Three and a half months?
A. Yes, about 100 cases. Possibly you might cover more

than a hundred cases, but you wouldn’t cover probably as
many as 200 cases.

Q. So, as I understand you, an individual student would
be called on-------

A. About one and a half cases.
Q. One and a half times in a four and a half months

course?
A. That is right.

[fol. 504] Q. Have you taught any smaller classes than
100?

A. Yes. Of course, at the present time I am teaching a
seminar class which has fifteen students. In the past, before
our law school got so large, in the summer time I suppose
we had an attendance of about 150 students on the average,
and the classes were relatively small. I have taught some
of those classes where there were around 20 students to the
class.

Q. And what system of teaching did you use in those
classes?

A. The case book system.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you think such system is

adaptable to a small class?
20—725

306

A. Yes, I think it is adaptable to a small class.
Q. Could it be used by a class of ten?
A. I think so, without question.
Q. Would the students in that class receive the same or

similar experience and education as those in the class of
100?

A. In my opinion, they would receive better.
Q. Would you please explain that answer?
A. For the reason that they would be called upon more

frequently. They would take a more active part in the
discussions. In a class of 100 students, many of them,
realizing that under the law of averages their chances of
being called upon are rather remote, are inclined^ not to
take an active part in the discussion. There is always a
certain group of such students. In a class of ten, all of the
students are on their toes all the time, because they realize
[fol. 505] they are apt to be called upon next.

Q. Are you familiar with The Texas Law Review?
A. Yes.
O. Have you been connected with the publication offi

cially?
A. Yes, I was the first student editor in chief, and I have

acted as faculty adviser on two different occasions, of the
publication of the review.

Q. Do you know the nature of the legal existence of The
Texas Law Eeview?

A. It was organized in cooperation with the Bar of Texas
as a corporation, and stock was sold, and it exists as a
separate legal entity, a corporation.

Q. Does it have any official connection with the School
of Law?

A. Not officially, no.
Q. Who decides what articles may be published in the

Texas Law Eeview?
A. The faculty adviser.
Q. I will ask you if in the past, and at the present time

articles have been accepted by The Texas Law Eeview
which have been written by students other than of the
University of Texas, and faculty members of the University
of Texas f

A. Yes. I assume that it is considerably more than half
of the articles. We make a distinction in the Review in
[foL 51*6] what we call articles and comments and case notes.

307

Of the leading articles, more than half of them are pre
pared by outsiders. As to the comments, largely they have
been prepared by our own students, but occasionally com
ments have been submitted by students of Baylor and
S. M. U.

Q. Do you know whether or not Baylor has a law review
in connection with its law school?

A. The last information I have on it, they do not have.
I feel reasonably sure they have not organized it.

Q. Do you know whether or not the Baylor Law School is
an accredited Law School?

A. Yes, it is an accredited law school.
Q. Now, if a member of the Negro Law School should

prepare and submit an article to the Texas Law Review, of
merit, I would ask you if there is any reason why that should
not be published in the Texas Law Review?

Mr. Durham: We object to that as to whether or not
there is any reason or not. It is too speculative, and not
binding upon this relator. It has no bearing upon any issue.

Q. I will withdraw the question. Do you know of any
rule of The Texas Law Review or society which would
prohibit its use in the law review?

A. No, there is no such rule.
Q. Did you hear the testimony of Dean Harrison, from

the stand?
[fol. 507] A. Yes, I heard it.

Q. Did you hear that portion of his testimony in which
he cited with approval some sort of review, or otherwise,
which divided law schools into large, medium size, and
small?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear that portion of his testimony which in

timated that the smaller schools would consist of schools
wherein the student population was between 50 and 150?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear that portion of his testimony that the

so-called smaller schools would be inferior in that they
would not be in a position to offer equal educational ad
vantages with larger or medium size schools?

A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you know of any of the

schools, law schools, that have a population of from 50 to
150 in their class rooms?

308

A. Yes, there are quite a few.
Q. Would you name some of those!
A. I couldn’t give you the figures of their enrollment at

the present time. Most of them, of course, as you realize,
are crowded because of the present situation. Prior to the
war, schools like Duke University and North Carolina Uni
versity had on the average about 100 students. Stanford
[fol. 508] University had approximately 150, I believe 148
in 1941—in 1940-41, was their attendance.

Q. Do you know the general reputation of these law
schools!

A. The three schools I have named are outstanding law
schools with very high reputations.

Q. Are they at least of equal reputation with the Univer
sity of Texas!

A. Yes.
Q. Your witness.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Professor Walker, in stating the courses which you

have taught and which you now teach, you stated that you
have taught real property courses primarily!

A. That is correct.
Q. Personal property, conveyances, and one of oil and

gas, administration of estates, and similar courses, and that
in teaching those courses you used the case method of
teaching!

A. That is right.
Q. You also stated that in your class of a hundred you

called on each student probably once during the semester!
A. I said I called on them once for a principal case, once

and a half, on the average, I would say.
Q. And you stated that you have approximately 100

principal cases during the------
[fol. 509] A. No, it would — a little larger than that, one
and a half times, about a hundred and fifty cases, I would
say.

Q. Yes. Now, is not one of the attributes of the case
system that, as used by professors of law, that most of these
principal cases are not covered by calling on the students,

309

but rather by, especially in the larger classes, by having the
students volunteer? Don’t you have that in your classes?

A. That isn’t my system.
Q. Your system is to go by the roll on each principal case?
A. I call on a specific student for a case.
Q. Do you ever call on a student out of order?
A. I don’t have a roll. I have a class seating chart with

their names, and I skip from one seat to another, and the
name of the student is there, so I never call on them in
order.

Q. You skip about over your chart?
A. Over the room, yes.
Q. Do you have some number or some method of indicat

ing when you have been in that particular spot last?
A. That is right.
Q. After you have called on that particular student, let’s

say student “ A ,” for a principal case, let’s assume first
that “ A ” gives the case. Then do you throw that case open
for discussion, or do you make your comment? Give us
what procedure is next.
[fol. 510] A. Of course, a generalization is all you can do
here. It depends on the case, largely. Sometimes it may
be a relatively simple case, and the student may have han
dled it satisfactorily, and you may not get any further dis
cussion. Normally, however, the subject will be thrown
open for general discussion, and the students will ask
questions and raise points and take different viewpoints
about the case, and general discussions.

Q. So that if the student has some idea which he wants
to present, or some question which he wishes to ask about
that case, after this one student has given the case, he has
that opportunity?

A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you, in the second place, in your courses, is

each student supposed to brief these cases? I put it “ sup
posed” because we understand then he is supposed to brief?

A. That is correct.
Q. So that if he has done that, and if he is called on he

may recite from his brief ?
A. I try not to let them recite from the brief.
Q. Let’s say from his recollection of his work in briefing

the case.
A. That is right.

310

Q. So that we have these 100 students supposedly having
[fol. 511] done that spade work before they come, and one
is chosen, and all participate?

A. That is right.
Q. Isn’t one of the basic virtues of the case system just

this, that spade work which all of the students do in pre
paring the case, and this wide discussion of getting the view
points of persons in the class who have a viewpoint. In
future interests that may not be true, but over in oil and
gas—that may not be true. Let’s take personal property
or domestic relations. There might be a wide variety of
opinion. Isn’t that one of the virtues of the case system,
that comment and explanation and oral argument about
the case?

A. Unquestionably that is one of the virtues, and the
larger the class the more essential it is to have that, because,
otherwise, you don’t know whether your students are under
standing the subject.

Q. That is right. Now, if you had one student in a class,
obviously that student would have to do his spade work
every day or he couldn’t come? AVe agree to that, don’t we?

A. He would get a very intensive course.
Q. So that he would get that side of his law training

thoroughly examined every day?
A. Yes.
Q. But he would miss the discussion of other class mem-

[fol. 512] bers, would he not?
A. He would. I think so, and it would be the province

of the instructor to try to supply that by asking questions
himself.

Q. But he begins to lose some of the merits of the system
itself when he can’t have this discussion which goes on in
the class?

A. There is a certain value to that.
Q. Yes. Now, let’s go from that just a moment to this

law review at the University of Texas which has been—do
you consider the law review at the University of Texas an
extraneous and unimportant feature?

A. If I understand your question, extraneous—do you
mean foreign to teaching in the law school?

Q. No, I mean as one of the assets of the University and
a part of its reputation, and a part of its value to the
student.

311

A. 1 think work on the law review is of value to the student.
Q. It is of such recognized value that it is a distinction

to the student to state after he has graduated that he was
a member of the law review staff, is it not!

A. That is correct.
Q. In the school it is an honor also to be known as one

of the law review staff, is it not, for the student?
A. That is correct.
Q. Obviously, from the catalogue, the law review at the

[fol. 513] University is incorporated, and I understand you
to say that is a private corporation. Nevertheless, in your
opinion, to all intents and purposes, is not the law review
at the University of Texas under the supervision of the
faculty and students at the University, in fact?

A. It is so long as the corporation permits it.
Q. I am assuming that they have not forbidden your

supervision. It is to all intents and purposes under the
supervision of the faculty and students?

A. That is true of the content that goes into the review;
the financial end of it, no.

Q. I am just speaking of the control and operation of the
law review as a legal publication, not as to its expenses or
things of that sort. It is under the control and supervision
of the faculty and students?

A. That is correct, although there is a Board of Editors
of outstanding lawyers who are appointed each year.

Q. Yes.
A. By the stockholders.
Q. Yes.
A. Who would have, if they cared to exercise it, complete

authority, I assume.
Q. Yes, but isn’t it a matter of fact that they don’t, they

consider it an honor to be on there, and they leave it to the
faculty?
[fol. 514] A. That has been the practice.

Q. There is nothing strange at the University of Texas
in operating The Texas Law Review from the way it is
operated at other institutions, is there ? By that I mean all
other institutions, or most of the institutions, the students
write the case notes and comments. You have some other
comments and you might have some other professors writ
ing case notes for articles by members of the faculty and
by distinguished lawyers and jurists all over the state;
isn’t that the way the Texas Law Review operates?

312

A. That is correct. It is different in that its set up is
independent.

Q. I am not talking about the corporation; I am talking
about your testimony that most of your leading articles,
a great many of them, were written by lawyers and dis
tinguished men in the legal profession who were not at the
University of Texas, and that those comments were solicited
from other persons than the students and faculty. That
is not strange in law reviews, is it?

A. No.
Q. It is an accepted practice?
A. That is particularly true of our articles. I don’t know

that we have solicited any comments from outsiders, al
though they have been submitted and accepted. They were
not solicited.

Q. So that it operates just like the Columbia Law Review
where you were, as far as that goes?
[fol. 515] A. I don’t know what the policy of the Columbia
Law Review on accepting outside articles is, or what is the
students’ portion.

Q. I don’t mean the students’ portion. You have just
stated the students would keep their portion, hut Columbia
accepts leading articles ?

A. Yes, articles.
Q. So that you did not intend to give the impression that

there is something peculiar about the way the Texas Law
Review operated in that matter of articles ?

A. No, not in regard to articles.
Q. Did you intend to give the impression about case

notes*
A . Case notes. I think there is a difference there, and I

use the word ‘ ■think*" because I am not qualified to speak on
the roles that the law review; have in that respect, but we
do on occasions accept contributions for what we call the
student;* portion of the review, to the comment and ease
note section from outside sources. As a matter of fact, we
accept them from our own students who are not on the edi
torial staff of the review. In that respect. I don't know
what the policy of other reviews has been, but that has been
onr policy. YTe have accepted contributions from students
at S. M. U. and students at Baylor.

Q. You spoke of Baylor a moment ago. "What is the size
of the law school at Baylor?

313

[fol. 516] A. At the present time?
Q. Yes.
A. They closed down during the war for want of students,

and it was only reopened this fall. I am not sure what those
figures are. It would he purely a guess.

Q. Would you mind guessing!
A. I would say 150 students.
Mr. Daniel: We object to the guess, Your Honor, because

it is so far from the facts.
The Court: Of course, the guess wouldn’t help any.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. In your opinion, Professor Walker, the law schools

with 50 and 100 students, from your knowledge, do any of
those law schools possess law reviews?

A. Well, the three schools I named all possess law re
views, Duke and North Carolina and Stanford. I haven’t
checked to see ■whether there were others. I did check
those three schools.

Q. As a professor of law you are familiar with most of
the law reviews, are you not ?

A. I am familiar with most of the law reviews, but I
wouldn’t be familiar, offhand, with the number of students
in the various schools.

Q. So you just know of these three schools?
A. I simply checked those, because I happened to know

those were small schools, and did have good law reviews,
[fol. 517] Q. Do you know how those law reviews operate.
of your own knowledge ?

A. No, I don’t.
Q. Now, your experience with your seminar of 15 stu

dents, you don’t teach a seminar in the same way A width
yon teach your regular classes, do you?

A. No, I don’t.
Q. So that it would not illustrate the case system1
A. lYeH, seminar courses are very flexible.
Q . Yes.
A. On so'oe days we have two hour se-seisne. if needed

of the class. and sometimes we use the case book system t
certain tope, ant o*ner cay.- v e nave etndear.e wr'-mir.-
tber m seeearant tasevsMWu It w ie* fix® vj
hates, -toe eten we use..

314

Q. In your opinion, and as a law professor, would you
advise a prospective law student to attend a law school
where he would be the only student?

A. That depends, of course, on the law school, and the
set up.

Q. This law school would be one that was just opening.
A. I would say that he would have an opportunity to get

a wonderfully intensive course of study, being one student.
Q. After you said that, what would you advise him, as a

law professor?
A. I believe I would.
Q. You would advise him?

[fol. 518] A. I believe I would. I don’t know of any stu
dent that would ever have that much care and attention
given to his education.

Q. You are assuming the care and attention. You don’t
think there is any value in having upper classmen in the law
school, and you don’t think it is of any value that he have
discussion with fellow classmates?

A. There are values and values, and you have got a lot of
balancing to do. In a large law school the student misses a
great deal. There are a great many disadvantages in a
large law school, a large class. There are certain ad
vantages. In a small class there are many advantages, and
there are certain disadvantages. I would say you would
have a balance there. I don’t think that a one-man class
would be a very desirable class from the teacher’s stand
point, but I think from the student’s standpoint he would
have a wonderfully intensive course of instruction.

Q. Well, you stated that it would not be advantageous
for the teacher, and the teacher is the stimulating influence
in a one-man law school, isn’t he ?

A. Well, a lot would depend on your instructor. He could
make it very, very interesting, if the instructor had the
ability to do so.

Q. We raise a lot of suppositions.
A. You have to adjust your teaching to the size of the

[fol. 519] class. You don’t teach a 15 or 20 man class the
same way you would teach a 100 or 150, and in some cases,
I believe I have had over 200.

Q. To teach a one-man class in a one-man law school
would be a lot of adjusting from that, wouldn’t it?

A. Yes, it would be a rather marked adjustment.

315

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr, Greenhill:
Q. Judge Walker, would you please state whether or not

in your opinion the preparation in a small class for class
room recitations would be as great or smaller than in a large
class?

A. The preparation—are you talking about the students’
preparation?

Q. On the part of the student, yes.
A. You mean on the average?
Q. On the average, yes.
A. Yes, I think it would be, because the chances of being

called upon are just that much greater.
Q. In other words, they would be greater?
A. There would be more pressure on the student to keep

his daily work up.
Q. And if the student realized he was to be called on that

day, he would probably bone a little harder, would he not?
A. That would be the natural tendency.

[fol. 520] Q. Judge Walker, in the case book system, are
all of the questions asked by the students ?

A. Oh, no, the instructor asks many.
Q. Why does the professor ask questions?
A. For many reasons. One, frequently, just to provoke

discussion. Sometimes to feel out the class to see whether
or not they understand the case. In other words, the
instructor has had a report only from one student. He has
99 other students. He doesn’t know just how much they
know about that case, and frequently he will sample the
class by questioning to bring- out additional points, per
haps, and also to find out how well the class as a whole has
understood the discussion.

Q. Did I understand you to say that you had used the
case book system in small classes?

A. Yes.
Q. Has that been used satisfactorily?
A. Satisfactorily from my standpoint. As a matter of

fact, I would much prefer to teach a small class than a large
class.

Q. And would you use the case book system?
A. Yes.
Q. Professor Walker, would you please state whether or

316

not first year law students at the University of Texas are
eligible to write for the law review!

A. No.
Q. Do you know any reason why a Negro law school could

[fol. 521] not establish a law review!
A. No.
Q. Judge Walker, I will ask you whether or not you think

it would be reasonable to assume that had the relator or
some other student who was only one of 12 to 14 inquiries,
had enrolled, that there would have been other students in
this law class!

Mr. Durham: We object to his reasoning and assump
tion, as not being binding, or as not being based upon any
hypothesis.

Mr. Greenhill: I want to further qualify that question by
saying if there had not been some outside influence to keep
students from coming in.

The Court: I think there is no evidence of that, and
I think it would be speculative on the part of the witness.
He can state the effect of this man enrolling.

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. Have you noticed enrollments generally in the law

schools!
A. Over the United States!
Q. In Texas!
A. Yes, generally.
Q. Do you have any idea of the number of actual appli

cants, or the relation that bears to the number of inquiries
you have, that is, if you have, say, 14 inquiries, how many
of those students would probably attend!
[fol. 522] Mr. Durham: We object to that. We don’t mind
the witness testifying. We certainly don’t want the As
sistant Attorney General testifying. We object to it as
being leading and suggestive.

The Court: Let’s let him answer.
A. I don’t know that I could answer that accurately.

Normally a student doesn’t inquire unless he is interested
in enrolling. That is our experience in our Law School.

317

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. You would assume if 14 people made inquiry at the

law school at least four or five of them would enroll ?
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, that is the assumption again.
The Court: I think that is an assumption again.
Mr. Greenhill: That is all.

Kecross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Professor Walker, are you aware of the fact that

under the present crowded conditions of law schools and
educational institutions that former G. I . ’s, that have the
benefits under that act, write to a large number of schools
asking about the courses offered? Are you aware of that?

A. I have personal knowledge of only one or two in
stances.

Q. Do you handle enrollment at the University of Texas
Law School?

A. No.
[fol. 523] Q. So that you are not in a position to state what
the statistical experience is as to the number of inquiries
and the number------

A. I am not.
Q. Do you know of a law school in the United States with

one student?
A. No, I don’t know of any law school like that.
Q. Do you know of a law school in the United States

with 10 students?
A. Not at the present time. During the war there were.
Q. During the war was abnormal, too, was it not?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, so far as a student is concerned, Professor

Walker, is it not true that if he is to do the assignment of
the instructor, he prepares as hard, under the case system,
for his particular work as if he were in a class with 600?
That is, that is true as far as each student is concerned; is
that not true ? That is, all he can prepare is what the assign
ment was, and excess work which he wishes to do, is that not
true ?

A. That is true as far as preparation of the case is con
cerned, but------

318

Q. That is what I mean, just preparation of the cases.
A. In other words, there is a certain amount of work in

preparing a case, if that is------
Q. An “ A ” student does that, if he does the professor’s

[fol. 524] assignment?
A. Assuming he does.
Q. All right. If he doesn’t have the incentive to do it,

and the instructor doesn’t give him the incentive to do it,
then he doesn’t do it; is that not the fact?

A. Well, assuming all of your points, yes. There are
other factors.

Q. I am going to get to the other factors. You are postu
lating the proposition that the pressure of facing the pro
fessor every day with nobody to look around at to take that
burden off of him will make him do more work. I am giv
ing you a hypothesis that the discussion of his class mates
will provoke viewpoints that he himself did not have the
experience and capacity to bring forth. Do you agree that
both of those are present in considering the case system of
study?

A. I agree to the raising of questions by the students and
the discussion. I don’t agree that you have to have a large
class.

Q. I didn’t get to that yet. I am coming to that. Now,
let’s go to that. What would you suggest from your ex
perience as the ideal size class in law under the case book
system or method?

A. That would be a difficult question to answer. It would
be less than 25. I think after—my experience has been after
you get above 25 your class is getting a little bit unweildy
[fol. 525] Q. Unweildy. Do you mean that the ability
to properly instruct them is declining in inverse proportion
as the numbers accelerate or increase?

A. The amount of attention that you can give to the stu
dent, and the kind of work he is doing, and you get to the
feeling you don’t know what the individual students are
doing when the class gets large.

Q. Are you saying as the classes at the University of
Texas increase, the amount of training they get diminishes
in quality?

A. I think that is true of a considerable number of stu
dents.

Q. Of the 886 out there, what percentage of those?

A. The top ranking students would get a good legal edu
cation under almost any circumstances.

Q. So you are talking about the bottom ranking students!
A. Not necessarily the bottom, but those below the top,

at least.
Q. So that the best------
A. There is a grade in between there.
Q. The best students at the University of Texas Law

School are going to get a good legal education, no matter
how poor you teach them, or how large the classes get!

A. I am inclined to think that is virtually true.
Q. You can have him.

[fol. 526] Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Greenhill:
Q. Judge Walker, these thought provoking questions

that counsel is asking you about; I will ask you whether
or not it is not often that the professor himself asks those
questions!

A. Oh, yes.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.)

319

D b . B en jam in F loyd P ittengeb, a witness produced by
the Respondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn,
testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Greenhill:
Q. Will you please state your name!
A. Benjamin Floyd Pittenger.
Q. What is your profession!
A. I am Professor of Educational Administration at the

University of Texas.
Q. What is your educational background, Dean Pitten

ger!
A. Well, I was educated in the public schools in Michi

gan, took my Bachelor’s Degree, Bachelor of Arts Degree,
from the Michigan State Normal College at Ypsilanti, in
1908. A Master of Arts Degree from the University of

320

Texas in 1912, and my Ph. D. from the University of Chi
cago in 1916.
[fol. 527] Q. Dean Pittenger, in your class room experi
ence at Ypsilanti and the University of Chicago, would you
state whether or not those classes were exclusively white,
or exclusively colored, or mixed.

A. I recall one Negro in the class which I attended at
Ypsilanti and I recall two or three classes in which there
were several colored persons at the University of Chicago.

Q. How long have you been in the teaching profession,
Dean Pittenger?

A. Well, with the exception of the years spent in college,
and two years in the Army, since 1904—since 1902.

Q. Where have you taught ?
A. In the public schools in Michigan, in the University

of Illinois, in the University of Minnesota, at the Univer
sity of Michigan, at the University of Colorado, and, of
course, the University of Texas, Teachers College in Colo
rado. That is all that I recall for the moment.

Q. What positions have you held at the University of
Texas?

A. I came as what was then known as adjunct professor
in the School of Administration and Education, and after
two or three years in that service, after I came back from
the Army, I became an associate professor of Education
and Administration, and I was then advanced in a year or
two to a professorship. In 1926 I became Dean of the
School of Education, and I served in that capacity until
[fol. 528] February first of this year. I also continued my
professorship when I was Dean, and on February first I
retired to my professorship.

Q. When did you come to Texas?
A. In 1911, for the first time.
Q. That was after you had received your Bachelor’s De

gree, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. So that when you came to Texas from Michigan, would

you state whether or not you had an open attitude as to the
Negro question at that time, as far as education is con
cerned ?

A. Well, I think that I could say that I reflected pretty
much the attitude that had developed in Michigan in that
community, and later in Kansas where I taught for three

years at Fairmont College. I forgot to mention that a while
ago, preceding my coming to Texas.

Q. Did you teach any colored students in your classes,
Dean Pittenger, at any of the places you taught?

A. The only place I recall is the University of Colorado.
Q. Are you a member of any professional societies in

education ?
A. Yes, sir; I am a member of the American Association

of Administrators, which is a branch of the National Edu
cational Association, and a member of the Texas Teachers
Association, and a life member of the Texas Association of
School Administrators, and during the time I was Dean
I was ex-officio member of the Association of Colleges and
[fol. 529] Departments of Education.

Q. Is that a national association?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hold any office in that organization?
A. I was President of that for three years.
Q. Have you ever held any office in the Texas State Teach

ers Association?
A. I was Chairman of the Committee on Finance for that

organization for the period of probably 12 years, ending
about 1936, and I was President of the Association in 1941
and 1942.

Q. Have you had any dealings or association with higher
education for Negroes in Texas?

A. Yes, I have had.
Q. What experience have you had?
A. I think my first experience was as a member of the

Board of Trustees, a local Board of Trustees of Tillotson
College. Bight after the war I participated in several school
surveys. I do not recall that there were higher institutions
involved, however, in the public schools, which would bring
me in contact with Negro education. I visited one or two
of the Negro colleges in Texas. I recall Bishop College
at Marshall, at the instance of the American Medical Asso
ciation. That was probably 20 years ago. I consulted
with the group at Prairie View during the development of
[fol. 530] the graduate program of that institution. Dur
ing the past summer, I was a member of a committee ap
pointed by the Southern Association of Schools and Col
leges to visit five, I believe it was, of the Negro colleges
in Texas, to consider the continuation or the raising of the

21—725

321

322

accreditment level which those colleges had with the Asso
ciation.

Q. Is Tillotson College a colored institution!
A. Yes.
Q. What Negro institutions did you visit in your tour

for the Southern Association!
A. Tillotson College, Wiley College, at Marshall, Jarvis

College, which is in a rural community north of Tyler, Texas
College, I believe it is caused, at Tyler, and Prairie View.

Q. Now, are you acquainted with any of the leaders of
Negro education in Texas!

A. Yes.
Q. Would you name some of those with whom you are

familiar !
A. Well, I think my acquaintance probably is—that I

know best of all former Principal Banks of Prairie View.
I also have known President Rhodes for a number of years.
My recollection for names, unfortunately, is not very good.

Q. Have you participated in discussions with those men
on the subject of education for Negroes in Texas!

A. Yes, I have. I don’t recall that I participated in con
versations with them as individuals to any great extent,
[fol. 531] but in conferences at which they were present, and
in which a number of other Negroes were also present.

Q. I will hand you a pamphlet entitled “ The Senior Col
leges for Negroes in Texas,” and ask you to examine it. Did
you participate in the preparation of that booklet in any
manner ! That is, did you have anything to do with the exis
tence of the book, in the first place!

A. Yes.
Q. What connection did you have with it!
A. I was Chairman of a committee that was called a

Steering Committee of the Biracial. Conference on Negro
Education, and this committee set up a survey, of which this
is the report, and chose the persons who participated in the
survey and in making the report.

Q. Who called, or who assembled that group which you
have mentioned there!

A. Governor Stevenson. You mean the conference!
Q. Yes, sir. Now, were the members of the conference

there of mixed races!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you name some of the people on that committee

there!

323

A. Well------
Q. And identify them as to white or colored, white or

Negro?
A. Dr. T. D. Brooks, Dean of the Graduate School of

Texas A. & M. College, white; Principal W. R. Banks, of
[fol. 532] Prairie View, colored; President J. J. Rhoades, of
Bishop College at Marshall, colored; Mrs. Joe E. Wessen-
dorf, past President of the Parents-Teachers Association,
white; Dr. Thomas W. Currie, of the Austin Theological
Seminary, white;—Dr. Currie died shortly after the com
mittee was set up, and became active, and Dr. T. S. Mont
gomery, head of the Department of Education of Sam Hous
ton took his place, white. Dr. R. P. Hamilton, physician
and surgeon in Dallas, was originally appointed. Dr. Ham
ilton was colored. He requested to be relieved because of
his health, and Dr. H. E. Lee, of Houston, took his place, and
Mr. Gordon Worley was Secretary of this Committee and
was Director of Special Problems for Negro Education at
that time.

Q. Did you write the foreword to this booklet?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you to state whether or not you have been

interested in the development and improvement of Negro
education in Texas?

A. Very much.
Q. In your experiences in visiting the Negro colleges, and

those colleges at which Negroes and whites attend, have you
had the opportunity to observe the educational opportuni
ties and advantages offered by these institutions?

A. I have.
Q. In your experience as an expert in the field of educa-

[fol. 533] tional administration, assuming the facilities of
both colleges are equal, is it possible for a Negro to receive
an equal education in a separate college ?

Mr. Durham: We object to the part of the question “ is it
possible.” We have no objection to him expressing his
opinion.

The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. In your opinion, Dean Pittenger?
A. If by equal you do not mean exact duplicate, yes.
Q. It would be substantially equal!

324

A. That is right.
Q. Assuming otherwise equal facilities or substantially

equal facilities, would the mere fact that the college is com
posed exclusively of colored students, of itself, mean an
inequality?

A. With the same interpretation of inequality, it would
not, in my judgment.

Q. Now, in your judgment, are there advantages to the
Negro in being taught in a separate institution?

A. Yes.
Q. What are they?
A. Well, the reason that I made the statement that I did

with respect to equality appears at this point. I think that
the educational value of—that the value of an education to a
student at any level is determined by the total college situa-
[fol. 534] tion in which he carries on his college work. It
isn’t merely a question of class room teaching and study,
or of laboratory activities or of library activities, but I think
that a very large part, and an increasing part of the value
of eduction at any level is in the total influence, the influ
ence of the total contact of the student with the institution.

Q. I will ask you whether or not you think the Negro stu
dent would have the same opportunity to develop leadership
in a mixed institution, or at a separate institution?

A. I think that normally, ordinarily, he would have a
better opportunity to develop leadership in a separated
institution than in a mixed institution, and I make that
statement because the whole life of the institution would
then be open to the Negro’s participation. My judgment
is that particularly in the south, that the Negroes’ oppor
tunities in institutions patronized in the great majority by
whites would be limited to the class room facilities, and the
regular educational activities almost wholly.

Q. Now, Your Honor, I want to ask him the next question
simply in rebuttal to testimony developed by the relator. It
is our understanding that we did object to this line of testi
mony, but since it has been put in, we want to ask this ques
tion in reply to those statements of relator’s witnesses. I
will ask you, Dean Pittenger, in your opinion as an expert
[fol. 535] in the field of Educational Administration, whe
ther or not you think it would be to the best advantage of
the State of Texas and of students to continue the policy of
segregation in the schools and colleges of Texas?

325

Mr. Durham: Just a minute. Now, Your Honor, they
have objected to that form of testimony. I don’t want to
object to it, if I have got a right to reopen my testimony.
I won’t object, if I have got a right to tender certain testi
mony that the Court excluded yesterday.

The Court: Of course, if it is the same, if this is admis
sible in rebuttal, testimony on your side would be admis
sible.

Mr. Durham: No objection.
Mr. Greenhill: Mr. Reporter, would you read him the ques

tion, please!
(The Reporter read to the witness the last question set

out above.)
A. All of the consequences considered, I think so.
Q. Would you please state your reasons for that answer!
A. Part of it was included in the statement I made a mo

ment ago that I believe a part of the value, a great part of
the value of higher education, especially in the identification
and development of leaders, gives more opportunity for
participation in all of the activities of college to the extent
that those are restricted to that extent, that essential value
of higher education is lost, but my fundamental feeling
[fol. 536] about the matter rests in what I conceive to be the
effect of the elimination of segregation on the higher level
upon segregation upon the lower level. Let me say that my
experience as professor of school administration, and my
training and my teaching have directed my attention more
toward the public school level, the elementary and secondary
level of teaching, than toward the higher level.

I function in a higher institution of learning, but my prin
cipal interest, and my principal work has been to try to
advance and improve public education in Texas, especially
in the elementary and secondary levels. So, I have been
concerned with the school administration that functions
at those levels.

I am unable to see how segregation could be constitution
ally maintained below the college level and be unconstitu
tional at the college level, and so my feeling is that the—
my principal fear of the breakdown of segregation on the
higher level is what I conceive to be the breakdown, the
influence upon segregation in the lower level. I believe that
the—I believe that the development of the public school sys
tem in Texas historically was pretty much—was pretty much

326

aided by the early appearance of segregation in this state.
To put it definitely, I think that the progress of public edu
cation in Texas would have been much more retarded than
it is if we had not had segregation. I think that the reasons
[fol. 537] that justified, as I say, the segregation in those
days, still obtain. The public educational system of Texas
is a long way from having reached anything like the national
standard as a whole, and we are still in the formative period.

My judgment is that is segregation were abandoned in
the lower level, that it would become as a bonanza to the
private white schools of the State, and that it would mean
the migration out of the schools and the turning away from
the public schools of the influence and support of a large
number of children and of the parents of those children,
and that those migrants and their parents are necessary
because there would be additional tuition involved coming
from a group of citizens who are the largest contributors to
the cause of public education, and whose financial and moral
support is necessary for the continued progress of public
education.

Now, the south has had to fight against the private school
tradition since the beginning. Public education started
later in the south, in the main, and advanced more slowly in
the south, and it is today more backward in its development
than elsewhere in the country, and that was due to the plan
tation system, of course, of economy, and to the English
tradition that, with respect to education, the tradition that
education was the prerogative of the home and the school.
That was held by the influential people of that day. Now,
[fol. 538] the fight for public education in this State has
been to a very large extent the matter of the converting of
people with that background to the support of public schools,
and to the patronage of public schools.

The matter counts in another way, I think. There are
some nine or ten thousand colored public school teachers in
Texas. If segregation were abandoned, I can’t help asking
myself what would become of that body of Texas teachers,
our colored teachers in Texas. If these teachers moved with
the pupils into the public schools, it seems to me that that
would mean that we would not only have the colored and
wdiite together as students, but that we would have rather
indiscriminate assignment of teachers to classes, wholly
irrespective of the merits of the feeling that exists and oper
ates here as a fact. I believe that that bringing of colored

327

teachers in the class rooms for white students would accen
tuate this movement of public schools.

However, that question, I have no means of knowing, but
I think it is reasonable to believe that at the present time
the attitude of Texas people being what it is to a very con
siderable degree, that the effect of the abandonment of seg
regation on the lower level would set back the public school
movement in this state, and as one who has devoted his life
to an attempt to improve it, I can’t regard that with equa
nimity. If the teachers are not moved with the students,
then what becomes of the colored teaching profession in
Texas'?
[fol. 539] The great majority of the colored teachers are
employed in the colored public schools, both in Texas and
elsewhere. Teaching is a principal outlet of service for
the educated colored man and woman. There are some
where between seventy-five and a hundred thousand colored
teachers, I would estimate, in public schools in the south,
and the implications of segregation for that group, in my
judgment, are serious. Now, I think that that not only
affects the question of segregation on the higher level, in
that it would seem to me that the breaking of segregation
on the higher level would move in that direction, but I think
it also affects the efficiency of the education of the colored
and white students in preparation for higher education.
So, I think it has a double relation, and in my judgment, it
would at least in that way come back and affect higher edu
cation adversely in this state.

Those, I think, are my principal reasons for the statement
that I made.

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, we have waited
as we have been doing all along, to see just where the
testimony was going. At this time we move to strike every
thing said about lower schools. The reason I do, sir, is that
although Dr. Pittenger is an expert in the field, I think his
original statement was assuming that you can’t have un-
constitutionality at the graduate level without affecting the
[fol. 540] lower level, and he isn’t a legal expert, and he
doesn’t have a right to draw that conclusion.

The Court: He doesn’t have a right to draw a conclusion
as to constitutionality.

Mr. Marshall: All of his testimony was based on that,
and we move to strike it.

328

Mr. Greenhill: Their witness yesterday on the stand
testified that in his opinion——

The Court: Are you abandoning your theory that it is
only higher education and only one man involved in this
easel

Mr. Greenhill: Oh, no, sir.
The Court: Then, this would not be admissible.
Mr. Greenhill: Sir I
The Court: This would not be admissible as to the others,

would it?
Mr. Greenhill: On the stand yesterday, over our objec

tion, their witness testified that the time was ripe now to just
throw off segregation entirely from the graduate school to
the kindergarten.

Mr. Marshall: No, he didn’t. He said just the opposite,
that the time was ripe for the graduate school.

The Court: That is what I understood, was for the gradu
ate school.

Mr. Daniel: Yesterday we objected to all of the testimony
[fol. 541] concerning schools in general.

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: That was overruled, and we preserved a

bill. We offer this simply in rebuttal to that, in case the
Court allows that yesterday to stand.

The Court: In so far as any evidence has been received
here affecting the secondary schools or less than graduate
schools, I am not considering it.

Mr. Greenhill: We certainly do not waive our point that
the case should he limited to the two schools in question.

Q. Now, Dean Pittenger, I will read you a portion of this
pamphlet from which relator’s witness testified yesterday,
entitled “ The Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas,” on
page 83, which is in the nature of a summary from all of the
•statistics drawn in this pamphlet.

Mr. Marshall: We object to any reading of conclusions
from that pamphlet. The witness can testify as to his con
clusions.

Mr. Greenhill: I am going to ask him if these are his
conclusions.

Mr. Marshall: All right.
The Court: All right.

329

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. (Beading.)

“ Admission of Negroes to existing State Universities
[fol. 542] for whites is not acceptable as a solution of
the problem of providing opportunity for graduate and
professional study for Negroes, on two counts: (1)
Public opinion would not permit such institutions to
be opened to Negroes at the present time; and (2) even
if Negroes were admitted they would not be happy in
the conditions in which they would find themselves. ’ ’

I will ask you to state to the Court whether or not these
viewTs are your views?

Mr. Marshall: We object, if Your Honor please, because
the testimony offered yesterday in the form of Donald Mur
ray was directed to the point as to whether or not there was
validity in the fact that if you attend a school you will be
unhappy, and was stricken on the motion of the Attorney
General. Either that goes in or nothing.

Mr. Greenhill: We wmuld be very happy for all of the
evidence offered throughout this book on all the State
institutions and appropriations and their faculty to be
stricken.

The Court: We are not concerned with that. The only
question here resolves itself into legal administration of
schools, and it is difficult for us to determine the condition
of one’s emotions when he enters any school, so I think we
are concerned as to whether or not the first part of that is
[fol. 543] his opinion, that it is to the best interest for this,
for the abolition of segregation.

Mr. Greenhill: Did you sustain his objection?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Greenhill: Note our exception.
The Court: Yes, sir.
Q. Relator also brought over this “ General Study of

Colleges for Negroes,’ ’ a publication, I believe, prepared
by Mr. Caliver, in which it was stated, “ negro students
in northern universities do not, as a rule, participate fully
and freely in the life of the institution.’ ’ You having been
educated in a northern school, and having taught there, do
you believe that is a correct statement?

332

The Court: He asked if he observed it. I will let him
answer it.

A. I didn’t observe any participation------
Mr. Durham: We ask------
A. —outside of the class room.
Mr. Durham: —that that be stricken as not responsive.
Mr. Greenhill: Read him the question.
(The Reporter read to the witness the question last set

out above.)
A. No.
Mr. Durham: We ask that it be stricken because he didn’t

ask him if he observed. If the Court please, he asked,
“ your observations,’ ’ assuming he had observed.

The Court: I believe I will let it stand.

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. Dean Pittenger, I will ask you whether or not in your

opinion as an expert in the field of Educational Adminis
tration, whether or not a Negro student can receive sub
stantially an education, substantially equal, in a colored in
stitution to that which he would receive in a white insti
tution, or mixed, provided the facilities of both schools
were substantially equal?

Mr. Durham: We object to the word “ can” , and sub-
[fol. 547] stantially.

The Court: Does he have an opinion, is what we want.
You can amend it by saying, does he have an opinion.

Mr. Durham: Further, we think any testimony should
be upon his conclusions, and not a conclusion of law that is
the issue in this case.

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. What is your opinion on that point, Dean Pittenger?
A. I confess that am a little confused by the status

of the question now. Will you clear me up on that?
Q. I will ask you whether or not, based on your experience -

as an expert in the field of educational administration, as
suming equal facilities in the schools involved, whether or
not a Negro student can and will or could receive, I will say,
could receive------

The Court: Has the opportunity to receive.

333

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. Does he have'the opportunity to receive an equal edu

cation in a school exclusively colored, as compared with
that of mixed colored and white?

A. That is one I am puzzled about. May I ask about
that?

The Court: Yes.
A. I am unable to think for the moment of colored

institutions and white institutions which do have equal
facilities with which I have been associated.

By Mr. Greenhill:
Q. I understand that, Dean Pittenger. I am asking

[fol. 548] you to assume equal facilities.
A. And then you ask me does he— >—
Q. Did he have the same or equal opportunity?
A. In my judgment, yes. He would have equal opportu

nity, as I defined equal opportunity a while ago, a total
opportunity, but not the same.

Q. That is all.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dean Pittenger, this Negro principal from Houston

who was in Colorado when you were teaching; you testi
fied that he didn’t participate in any of the outside activities.
I want to ask you a question as to how wide was your knowl
edge of what he did when he wasn’t in class ?

A. Only what I got through conversations with him.
Q. Only through conversation?
A. That is right.
Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please, may we have that

answer stricken?
The Court: He didn’t answer anything.
Mr. Marshall: I mean his original answer, not that

answer.
The Court: It was based on his observations, and rather

goes to the weight than to the admissibility.
[fol. 549] Mr. Marshall: All right, sir.

Q. Do you know of any institution for college training—
I am speaking of college training, public or private, in the

334

State of Texas, to which Negroes are admitted which is
equal to any of the State supported schools operated exclu
sively for white students?

A. There is only a range of merit in both. I believe that
in total Wiley College is comparable with some of the
smaller colleges for whites in Texas.

Q. First of all, I will ask you, Wiley is a private institu
tion, is it not?

A. I beg your pardon?
Q. I wanted to get that clear.
A. It is. That is right.
Q. Wiley College, in the first place, isn’t a university, is it?
A. No.
Q. It is a mere four year college. Now, does, in your

estimation, does Prairie View—first of all, let me ask you
this. Is Prairie View, to your mind, a university?

A. No.
Q. What is the highest classification you could give it,

as an expert, as of today?
A. Well, I think it is more than a college, and there is no

intermediate term, so far as I know. I think I interpreted
[fol. 550] your question. I don’t regard Prairie View as a
university in the sense that I would conceive of an efficient
university. It is more than a college.

Q. What makes it more than a college?
A. The fact that it has graduate work. It offers graduate

work.
Q. But it has no professional schools?
A. No.
Q. Is not usually the term “ university” applied to schools

—professional schools?
A. Graduate work is generally regarded as professional.
Q. Are there any other universities in the country that

have only graduate work, and no professional work? By
professional work, I mean law, engineering, dentistry,
et cetera?

A. I don’t know of any. I could not answer that.
Q. Can you name two State supported schools of higher

learning, from college level up, that you compare Prairie
View favorably with, in Texas?

A. I think so.
Q. Which ones?

A. I believe that, in total, it would compare with one or
two of tbe teachers colleges in Texas.

Q. Could you give us any one of them?
A. Well, a statement of this sort sounds derogatory, but

I think that in total it is comparable for the purpose which
it serves with perhaps the Teachers College at Alpine.
[fol. 551] Q. Are you familiar with the fact that the
physical plant at Prairie View is less in value than any
of the teachers colleges?

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we want, just for the purpose
of the record, to renew our objection to all of this line of
testimony as to other schools.

Mr. Marshall: Your Honor, he said it was equal to------
Mr. Daniel: I want the record to show the point.
The Court: All right, you can save your point.
A. No, sir; I have not compared the values of the plants

of two institutions, but I have thought that that was prob
ably the case.

Q. When you say ‘ ‘ equal, ’ ’ what do you mean by ‘ ‘ equal ’ ’ ?
A. Well, I mean in the total educational value of the

services of the institution. Now, the institution at Prairie
View is much more many-sided than the institution in Al
pine, or almost any other of the Texas Teachers Colleges.
It offers a much more varied program and much more
varied opportunity to the Negroes of the State than does—
than do several of the teachers colleges, perhaps all of them,
to the whites of that area. It is not—so far as the.equip
ment that it has, piece by piece, building by building, it is
not the equal. There is more of- it, and it serves a greater
variety of purposes.

Q. In your teaching of education and school administra-
[fol. 552] tion, and your general knowledge in the field, is
it correct in educational, rather, in approved colleges you
give credit for A. B. Degrees for mattress making in a
college?

A. No, I don’t think it is.
Q. Or for broom making? Do you know of any institution

other than Prairie View where that is done? As a matter
of fact, in your teaching, do you not teach, and in your
administration, do you not recognize the fact that that is
not a proper subject for credits in a college?

A. I think that that might be a proper subject of instruc
tion in a college which serves the functions of Prairie View.

335

336

We have a great deal of vocational work offered in our
white colleges for the services of people with different voca
tional objectives, and I would want to know more than I
know about the quality of the work done, and the length of
the course, and the things involved in a course of instruction
of that sort.

Q. Isn’t it just general that such vocational subjects are
usually taught in vocational high schools and regular high
schools ?

A. No, they are becoming increasingly,—it depends on
the level of the work, and the quality of the work. That is
the reason I say I would like to know more about the course,
because I don’t know.

Q. I see. In going back to our comparing the quality of
[fol. 553] the type of education offered at Prairie View,
isn’t the amount of money available to the school a value
in arriving at the equality of the facilities offered?

A. That is one measure, yes.
Q. Isn’t it true that Prairie View gets less operating

funds than any of the other operating schools in the State?
A. It did at the time this survey was made. I can’t an

swer that question as of today.
Q. Didn’t your survey also point out the fact that because

of its lack of money, Prairie View lost many of its good
teachers?

A. Yes.
Q. Many with Ph. D.’s?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that we then get to the faculty of the school. Isn’t

that a basis for comparison?
A. That is right.
Q. As of the time your survey was made, did you find that

the level of the faculty at Prairie View would compare with
the other schools?

A. Not on the average, no.
Q. Now, isn’t library facilities and library books, number

and quality, a valid basis of comparison?
A. Yes, that is right, and it would not compare.
Q. It would not compare with any of the schools, would it ?

[fol. 554] A. That is right.
Q. If you compare it item by item, isn’t it true that Prairie

View is below any of the other schools; isn’t that true?
A. If you leave out the scope of its work, the scope of the

institution, and take it up piece by piece and compare with

other institutions, I tliink that is true. I think that it was
true at that time.

Q. Dr. Pittenger, you testified as to the college and gradu
ate level to the effect that if Negroes were admitted to the
University of Texas, or one of the other State supported
schools, to sum it up, it wouldn’t work; isn’t that correct?

A. I think that I testified that I didn’t believe that the
Negro would have the opportunity to participate in the
activities of the school to the extent that he would have in
a segregated school.

Q. Is that based on your opinion as to what the students,
the attitude the other students would take?

A. Yes, in part.
Q. Has anybody polled the students of the University of

Texas to find out how they feel?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Your opinion is just based on your own personal

knowledge ?
A. Personal knowledge, yes; based on thirty years of

contact.
Q. Thirty years of contact. Do you know anything about

the student body of the Law School?
[fol. 555] A. Very little.

Q. Is there any factual basis you have for your opinion
as to what would happen if a Negro was admitted to the
Law School of the University of Texas?

A. The only factual basis I have is what we—would bo
the knowledge and understanding that I have of the atti
tude of the people in this section of the world.

Q. You are aware, are you not, of the fact that members
of the Bar of the State of Texas do not suffer from any
segregation after they once pass the bar; are you aware
of that?

A. Yes.
Q. What reason do you have that would make it so con

trary to that principle to have the students to go to school
together a week before they pass the Bar Examination?

A. I don’t think I understand that question.
Q. Well, I started with the question that when they passed

the Bar, the white and Negro lawyers practiced together.
There is no friction at all among them. They take the Bar
Examination together. What I am asking you is that why
is it that if they can take the Bar Examination together and

22— 725

337

338

try cases together, that you make the assumption that they
can’t sit down in a class room one week before that, before
they take the Bar Examination together?

A. I think there is a difference between an experience of
that sort and a three or four year association.
[fol. 556] Q. I would be very interested in the difference,
sir.

A. Well, in the first place, you have, by the time you get
to the Bar Examination, you have your more serious stu
dents selected. In the second place, there is the interest of
the group at that time, all very definitely centered on a final
project, that of taking the Bar Examination. Over a three
year college course you don’t have the same selection of
students. You have the activity going on on a general
campus where there are not only law students, but thousands
of others, and you have the opportunity for the cumulative
feature.

Q. What I am trying to get at is that the Law School is
in a separate building from the rest of the campus?

A. Yes, it is.
Q. It has its own library there, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it not true that by the time you reach the stage

of going to the Law School, you have a pretty staid objective
then, don’t you?

A. I think so, more so than the usual college freshman.
Q. Isn’t it also true that there is, as I understand your

testimony, there is just three years’ difference in this mat
ter. For example, do you think anything would happen,
or any of the results you have testified would occur if a
Negro transferred and entered for the first time the third
year of Law School of the University of Texas, which is
[fol. 557] less than a year before the time we were talking
about ?

A. May I,—I think that you have a wrong impression of
my testimony, if I understand your question. I have not
been intending to intimate that I thought something would
happen.

Q. I didn’t mean that. I meant exactly what you testified
to, to the effects of it on the students.

A. My statement was, if I recall, that I thought that the
opportunity of the colored student to participate in the
activities, the total life of the mixed institution would be

339

limited as compared with the opportunities on a segregated
campus.

Q. Get back to our question, then; since I understand you.
A. Yes.
Q. If the Negro was admitted to the third year law class,

having gone to school in some other approved school for
the other two years, would there be any effect on the stu
dent as to campus activities or anything else?

A. I would think he would have less opportunity then
than if he had gone in and spent three years.

Q. Is there anything that you can name that would stand
in the way of a Negro entering the Law School in the third
year that would affect that student’s legal education?

A. I am not a professor of law.
Q. I am just judging, on your other assumptions, as to

what they wouldn’t get in outside community life, as to
[fol. 558] that part of it.

A. But, if I understand you, you have restricted your
question to legal education?

Q. Yes, sir; that is what I was trying to do.
A. And I started out with the assumption of education

on every level, on the subject matter of education. It is the
opportunity that the student has to mix and to develop in
the whole college situation that must be considered, and it
was from that point that I was talking. I can’t answer a
question with respect to legal education.

(Court was recessed at 10:45 a. m., until 10:55 a. m., May
16, 1947, at which time proceedings were resumed as
follows:)

Mr. Marshall: Your witness.
Mr. Greenhill: We have no further questions.

(Witness excused.)
Mr. Daniel: Before the State rests, we would like to be

just understood, or have the right to at some time this
afternoon before the case closes completely, to again present
to the Court the testimony of Henry Doyle, and present to
the Court certain authorities under which we believe that
part of his testimony is admissible as circumstantial evi
dence as to the participation of the N. A. A. C. P.

340

[fol. 559] The Court: I would be glad to hear any proposi
tion you have to make.

Mr. Daniel: We rest, with the understanding we may pre
sent that a little later on.

Mr. Durham: As I understand, the only matter the Attor
ney General will be permitted to present or bring up is the
Doyle testimony!

Mr. Daniel: And any rebuttal testimony that we might
have to your rebuttal testimony.

Mr. Durham: X think we have a right to close this case.
The Court: You close, ordinarily.
Mr. Marshall: At this time, for the purpose of the record,

I want to first make a statement that as to the testimony
of Donald Murray yesterday, and prior to that time, and
the witness today, have both quoted from a statement, and
his testimony is all to the effect that if a Negro is admitted
to a Law School or to a University in the south that the
student body will withdraw and go to private schools, and
that is exactly the type of testimony that was given by Mr.
Murray yesterday; that in an exactly similar situation, the
exact statement made, that that didn’t happen, and the
students didn’t withdraw and go to private schools, and we
would like to re-tender that evidence which we put on in a
bill of exception.
[fol. 560] The Court: I am not going to consider either of
those bits of testimony myself.

M alcolm P. S harp , a witness produced by the relator,
having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as fol
lows :

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Will you give your full name, please!
A. Malcolm Pittman Sharp.
Q. Your address!
A. 5329 Greenwood Avenue, Chicago.
Q. What is your present occupation!
A. Professor of Law, University of Chicago.
Q. Will you state briefly your legal education and your

qualifications in general, in the field of law!

341

A. 1 received my A.B. at Amherst in 1918, A. B. in Eco
nomics at the University of Wisconsin in 1920, L.L.B. at
Harvard Law School in 1923, Doctor’s Degree, Harvard
Law School, in 1927. I did some teaching while I was still
in college. Then I have been teaching law since 1925, at
Iowa, Wisconsin, and the University of Chicago; a member
of the New York Bar,—counting a period for establishing
residence, I practiced in New York City for about two
[fol. 561] years, served in various advisory capacities in
Wisconsin and Washington during the past years.

Q. And are you a member of the Association of American
Law Schools?

A. I am.
Q. And have you recently held any position on any com

mittees of that association?
A. I was Chairman of the Curriculum Committee that re

ported in 1942. Our work was somewhat disorganized by
the war.

Q. What was the purpose of that committee?
A. The committee is appointed annually to consider the

curriculum of member schools, recommend changes, im
provements, make suggestions to member schools.

Q. Now, as a result of your studies and your teaching
experience, along with your experience in the Association
of American Law Schools, would you state briefly the recog
nized purposes of a law school as of today?

A. The purpose of a law school is, of course, first; to
train for practice of the profession in the familiar way.
The second purpose has been becoming more and more im
portant, as all of the leading schools have recognized, train
ing for positions of public service, as lawyers are called
on to fill, to a marked extent, administrative agencies, the
bench, legislative positions. The schools are paying more
and more attention to training for that purpose. Of course,
[fol. 562] the training of teachers and scholars in the field.

Q. In the several items you have mentioned, what type of
student body do you need in order to best accomplish that
purpose?

A. You need more than anything else, what I should call,
a stimulating student body.

Q. What is that?
A. Where competition is great, lively; people from all

walks of life. It is more important than your faculty.

342

The most important thing a faculty does, perhaps, is to
attract a stimulating, large student body.

Q. Speaking of the student body, your testimony is that
you need all walks of life. Are there any other factors you
need as to individual students ?

A. You need to he well prepared, I should say, in so far
as the group of students came from educational institutions
whose standards were not up to the best that the others have.
They would be a less stimulating group, to that extent.
Their native capacity, and their training would not have
been up to that of the other students.

Q. What method do you use in teaching in the University
of Chicago?

A. We use the case method.
Q. Will you explain that briefly?
A. I agree with much of what Professor Walker and

Dean Harrison have said. We have our individual differ-
[fol. 563] ences. The case system is designed to, in the
first place, to bring out clearly the rules of law, partly by
making discussions clear, working over discussions in class
room; partly by practicing the application of the principles
applied to cases.

I should say those particular advantages in a controlled
situation starts the students off to what they are to do all
through their careers at the bar. Of course, with practical
problems, they have, perhaps they have heard of them in
law school, and developed capacity for judgment, which is
the mark of a good lawyer. I think in these days a very
important addition to the case system is the seminar sys
tem which has been considered, and again, we give the stu
dents a chance to develop, present their own individual
work, differ perhaps, and present it to the class mates for
criticism, and hashing over in small groups.

Q. Do you believe the seminar method can be used in a
first year law class?

A. I think it can be.
Q. Under what conditions?
A. This is a rather odd notion of my own. As a matter

of fact, I think not many law teachers would agree with me,
but we have had some success in our tutorial work in our
first year students, not for the first year students to work
right away at problems, if you are talking about the familiar
[fol. 564] first year class. The use of the case system would
be better than the most likely alternative, lecture. Seminar

343

is theoretically possible for first year students, but as far
as I know, it isn’t used anywhere, and I haven’t heard that
that was suggested here in connection with the proposed
new school.

Q. Dr. Sharp, the other question I wanted to ask was—
first, I will ask you, is it possible to use the case system in a
one-man class, with one man and a professor?

A. Well, as a matter of words, but it wouldn’t be wbat
I call the case system.

Q. And is it—which system is the recognized system for
teaching a law school today?

A. The case system.
Q. And as used in the progressive law schools of the coun

try today, is it possible to use that same system with a one-
man class?

A. Not really, no, I think not.
Q. Doctor, as a matter of fact, wouldn’t it come mighty

close to the lecture method?
A. I think there would be a great danger that it would.
Q. Do you believe that—well, in your experience—let me

ask you this question. Assuming that the proposed Negro
Law School is equal in all other respects to the Law School
of the University of Texas, except in respect to the size of the
[fol. 565] student body, and further assuming that the pro
posed Negro Law School has a student body which consists
of one student; in your opinion, would the Negro Law School
offer to that Negro student a legal education equal to that
offered to any student at the University of Texas which has
a student body of more than 800 students?

A. Certainly not.
Q. With the same hypothetical question put as to the

Negro Law School, inserting the word “ ten” for the word
‘ ‘ one ’ ’ student, would that change your answer at all ?

A. It seems to me still very clearly that the education
there wouldn’t be in any sense equal.

Q. In your opinion, would it offer to that Negro student a
legal education substantially equivalent to that offered
to the students at the University of Texas ?

A. As far as I can visualize the situation, it would not.
Q. Assuming that the Negro Law School is equal in all

respects to that of the University of Texas, and had a sizable
number of students, but all restricted to the Negro race,
would that school give an education equal to that at the

344

University of Texas, which accepts all students of all groups
and all nationalities, other than Negroes'?

A. I do not see how it could, for many years, at least.
Q. Will you give your reason for that?
A. You are hack to that point about competition. Not

[fol. 566] only does it give you argument and give you the
examination of the issues that you get in the class room,
and having a pretty good class, some size, some opportunity
for competition, but a great deal of the student’s education
occurs outside the class room, as we all know. There has
been a saying in the teaching profession for some time that
students at Harvard Law School got a good deal of their
education by arguing on street corners and in restaurants,
and bickering back and forth among themselves. The best
thing a teacher can do is start that sort of arguing going,
and let it go on all day, with intervals out for briefing cases;
a good deal of discussion back and forth.

In view of the testimony that has been given about the
character of Negro education at the lower levels——

Mr. Daniel: We object to that. That isn’t responsive.
The Court: I think not.
Mr. Marshall: Very well. Go right ahead.
A. Unless the education of the Negro group at all lower

levels is equal to that of the white group, we can’t expect
the competition of the Negro Law School to be as stimu
lating as the competition in the white law school, which we
have assumed to be equivalent in other respects. I should
think that one very important function of legal training
would be neglected in the Negro school. That is the function
[fol. 567] of preparing law students for positions of responsi
bility as lawyers in Government. The experience of three
colored lawyers whom I know particularly well——

Mr. Daniel: We object to that.
Mr. Marshall : I was going to ask him that anyhow.
Q. Doctor Sharp, the University of Chicago, as to race,

is the faculty of its law school mixed, or is it separate?
A. It is mixed. We have just called back one of our

colored graduates to take a position on our staff as Associate
Professor, and Research Professor.

Q. What about the student body?

346

A. It is mixed. The first time I had had occasion to
count the Negroes, I found we had 13 in a student body of
about 300.

Q. You mentioned the fact of the purpose of the law
school to develop men and women for public service to the
country. Well, in your experience at the University of
Chicago, can you name any students who happen to be
Negroes who have graduated from the Law School, and of
your own personal knowledge, gave themselves to public
service to the country!

Mr. Daniel: We believe that specific instances are irrele
vant and immaterial. He has drawn his conclusions from it.

The Court: Yes. I think the conclusions are well taken,
but I doubt if the special instances would assist us any.
[fol. 568] Mr. Marshall: May we have an exception!

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Durham: You will have to let him answer the ques

tion.
The Court: To make the bill, he can answer the ques

tion.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Answer for the bill of exception.
A. There are a number of such cases. Three or four

come to mind, particularly. Mr. Ming, who has just come
back on our staff, has had a career of public service. Mr.
Truman Gibson has had a distinguished public service
career.

Q. Would you mind giving that!
A. I am coming back. I was just selecting. Judge Hastie

is not one of our graduates, is one of the best I know.
Q. Do you know which school he is from, law school!
A. He is from Harvard; a different generation from

mine, but I know of his career. Earl Dickerson, one of our
graduates, served on the Council in Chicago. Mr. Charles
Houston, a year ahead of me at the Harvard Law School,
and on the Harvard Law Review with me, is a bills and notes
expert. I can say a word about the career of two or three
of these men particularly that seem to illustrate the im
portance of the point. We naturally think teaching is im
portant. I see no reason for losing talent to the teaching
profession on account of color. We are glad to have Mr.
[fol. 569] Ming back with us, and it is an advantage to us

346

and to the school that he was not trained in a separate
school. He is an American, working on the problems of
the State, public utility problems, in which he has had special
experience, on cases of problems relating to the regulation
of business by Government, which is an increasingly im
portant problem for lawyers, and it is important, it seems
to me, that he should be trained to think as a member of
the total community. Particularly, he should be trained
to think professionally as a member of the total community.

Mr. Gibson is a striking example. He was Special Assist
ant to the Secretary of War during the war, and was given
a medal for his services, and is a member of the President’s
distinguished committee on public military training. He is
a member of the National community, and it is of utmost
importance that he was not trained at a segregated school.

Mr. Houston, another schoolmate at Harvard, is working
in the field of labor, Government regulation and industrial
regulation, working on problems of seniority in the law.
He is sometimes able to point out the effects and the abuses
of the labor organization practice.

Judge Hastie had a very distinguished career in the field
of law------

Mr. Daniel: We will agree in their bill of exception they
[fol. 570] can write all of that out in there. We can agree
they can write up everything he would have testified to
about it.

Mr. Marshall: We have just a few more.
The Court: Maybe you can conclude it here now.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Will you give Judge Hastie’s present position?
A. Governor of the Virgin Islands.
Q. In your experience with these and other students, do

you believe that those students, excluding Hastie, whom you
do not know personally, from personal contact with him,
could any of those men you have named obtained their in
formation that they have used for public service, in a seg
regated law school ?

A. That question of “ could” again troubles me. There
are distinguished graduates of Howard, which is not strictly
a colored law school, but it is largely colored. I wouldn’t
want to be that sweeping in my statement.

Q. Do you believe you can get equal value with training
of other students, in a segregated law school?

A. Other things being equal, I most emphatically do not.
Q. You testified a while ago about the more competi

tion—
Mr. Durham: We tender this as testimony outside of the

bill of exception.
The Court: All right. I will give you your bill.
Mr. Daniel: That is the end of the bill?

[fol. 571] Mr. Durham: Yes.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. In your opinion, is it possible for one student or ten

students entering the first year law class in the proposed
Negro Law School that you have heard testified about here
where there are no upper classmen, second and third year
students, to secure equal or substantially equivalent of legal
training to that received by first year law students at the
University of Texas where there are hundreds of upper
classmen?

A. I think it is not possible for them to receive equal
training.

Q. Will you give your reason?
A. What has been said about the competition among

classmates, the emphasis has been on the competition of
classmates so far. What has been said about that applies
to the stimulation a man gets from the upper classmen, and
the guidance. Sometimes loose guidance is very healthy,
worried about one thing and encouraged about another, and
the stimulus which comes from having a full complement of
classes and full complement of upper classmen is a matter
of first rating in any school. It is essential to the existence
of what I should call an operating school.

Q. Do you consider a law review as extraneous to a legal
education?

A. Certainly not. One of the most important devices,
[fol. 572] most important instruments of legal education in
a modern law school is the law review.

Q. Is it of any value to a first year student ?
A. It is, in so far as the competition for that outstanding

honor, as it is in most schools, makes itself felt all the way
down the years. It sets the tone. The law review men are
the people that set the tones.

347

348

Q. Do you believe the Order of the Coif and other honors
are extraneous to a legal education?

A. No, I do not.
Q. What do you classify them as, in your mind?
A. Actually, I think those awards are next important to

the law review. The law review is of first-rate impor
tance, but all awards which recognize attainment help in
the process of stimulating friendly competition. Competi
tion and friendly association are not by any means incom
patible. In fact, they go together, a part of the business
in preparing people to deal with the community as a whole.
All of these awards step up competition in what I regard as
a healthy manner.

Q. In your opinion, do you believe—first of all, you know
about the University of Texas and its accreditation?

A. It is a thoroughly accredited school, a first-rate school
in excellent standing, of course.

Q. Do you believe that a Negro student could get an equal
education in a law school that started in Houston, Texas in
[fol. 573] February of this year, moved to Austin in March
of this year------

Mr. Daniel: We object to that part of the statement,
because it is not in accordance with the facts of the case.
They are entirely separate schools, Your Honor. There
is no move of that school to Austin.

Mr. Marshall: I will change the question.
The Court: I believe I will let you—I believe I had bet

ter sustain his objection as to its moving.
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Q. Do you believe that a Negro could get a legal educa

tion in a law school which had been previously established
in Houston, Texas, in February of this year, and was closed
the same month, and another law school opened in Austin
in March of this year, and the record further showing that
that school would be moved to Houston in August of 1948;
do you believe that a law school student, whether he be white
or colored, could get an adequate education in a school, law
school of that type?

A. I don’t see how he possibly could.
Q. Well, of what importance is the stability of a law

school?
A. Well, it has a human importance which we all recog

nize. If you settle down to study, you want to stay at least

349

a year, certainly at least a semester. Normally, wlien you
start in, you plan to finish your course in the school that
[fol. 574] you select, go right through. Occasionally there
are occasions for moving, sometimes there are advantages.
Certainly, the normal law student settles down to complete
a course, and he can look three or four years ahead, depend
ing on whether it is a three or four year course.

Q. Is the reputation of a law school of any value to the
student, its reputation in the legal field?

A. To the student while he is a student!
Q. To the student while he is a student?
A. I think it is; it gives him confidence, pride, interest;

it is a good deal of difference to the student if he feels he
is in a good school, running well.

Q. Is the reputation of a law school of any value to the
student after he graduates ?

A. Well, we all know it may be of importance getting a
job for a time. As one builds up a practice it may become
of less importance, rank of the schools from which they
come. Certainly, in the earlier stages of the lawyer’s
career, it may make a good deal of difference.

Q. You have heard the testimony about the so-called
Negro Law School. I will ask you if a school which opened
on March 10th in a—the ground floor of a building which
had been leased for a period of one year, and in which there
were three part-time professors to teach, and a library con
sisting solely of a hundred or two text reference books, could
[fol. 575] give a Negro an education equal to that at the
University of Texas?

A. May I ask one question there?

The Court: Yes.

A. May I ask what you mean by “ opening” ?

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. It opened on—that the doors were opened, and there

was a person to register other students?
A. That is all you mean?
Q. Yes, that is all.
A. I don’t see how it could, possibly.
Q. Then, I will ask you the next question. Is it possible to

get a legal education equal to that at the University of
Texas in a law school consisting of one student?

350

A. No, I should think not.
Q. In a law school consisting of ten students?
A. I think not.
Q. In a law school consisting of a hundred students?
A. One hundred students, how selected ?
Q. One hundred Negro students?
A. No, certainly not.
Q. Well, would that type of school with one, ten or a hun

dred Negro students give a legal education substantially
equivalent to that obtained at the University of Texas?

A. I should think not. I am a little troubled by your one
hundred case, if you can imagine such a case, conditions
[fol. 576] would be a good deal changed, but nothing I can
visualize now would give substantial equality in any of the
cases you supposed.

Q. Dr. Sharp, assuming a law school established in the
basement of a building, ground floor, rather, of a building,
and with a library of ten thousand volumes, assuming that
they met the requirements of the Association of American
Law Schools, and with three part-time professors, and from
one to ten students, would that give education substantially
equivalent to that at the University of Texas,—Negroes
only?

A. I should think not.
Q. Dr. Sharp, a law school established in-a building with

three floors, assuming that the three floors are adequate
in space, adequate in space to accom-odate ten students, and
assuming further that a total budget of a hundred thousand
dollars is spent for reconditioning and stacks, et cetera,
would that type of law school give an education sub
stantially equivalent to the Negroes there as that given
other students at the University of Texas?

A. I think I have lost the trend of the question.
Q. The difference between the two questions is that one

we have one floor and the other we have three floors, plus a
library of ten thousand books, plus a budget of a hundred
thousand dollars.

A. That budget is for repairs?
[fol. 577] Q. It is for everything.

A. Salaries?
Q. Including books, salaries, and everything else.
A. I should think not, by any means.

351

Q. Would your answer be changed if we added that there
were four full-time professors there, and all Negro students,
in the same situation?

A. Well, if you got four most eminent professors in the
United States, about whose names I would have to think a
little before I decided who they were, it is perhaps con
ceivable that this select group of Negroes would get an edu
cation that was at any rate comparable to that which the boys
got, sizable classes with competition and so forth, at Texas,
but I should think even then it unlikely, and I suppose no one
school can hope to have the four greatest teachers in the
United States, least of all, a new school, and least of all,
one established under these conditions.

Q. Even with those circumstances, could you get the total
community thinking in a school of that type ?

A. I wouldn’t think so. It would take extraordinary
teachers, indeed.

Q. That is all.

Cross-examination.

Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Sharp, would your answer to the questions just

[fol. 578] asked you be changed if in the same situation
you had two law schools, one for Negroes, one for whites,
both law schools had exactly the same faculties, exactly the
same facilities; by that, I mean the men of equal prominence
and ability, and both of them had the same courses, the same
number of students, the only difference between the two
law schools being that the student body of one was made
up of Negroes, the student body of the other made up of
white students, the student bodies, however, being equal,
I will ask you if, in your opinion it would be possible that
the school for the Negroes would furnish substantially equal
opportunities for training in law and procedure as the one
for the whites?

A. May I ask about one of the conditions?
Q. Yes.
A. Where does the faculty have their offices?
Q. In exactly the same in one school as in the other?
A. I don’t understand that.
Q. Sir?
A. Where do they do the most of their work?

352

Q. The same in the Negro school as in the white school.
I am asking you a hypothetical question along the lines that
you have had hypothetical questions on direct examina
tion. In my question, everything concerning one school is
the same as the other, identical, the only difference being
that one is made up of white students, the other made up of
[fol. 579] Negro students'?

A. Well, I can answer the question, but I have still a doubt
in my mind as to the conditions. As a teacher, I visualize
certain things about that condition. I can’t imagine operat
ing from two offices equally.

The Court: It would probably be different teachers of
equal standing.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Yes, sir, different faculty, but the total of the faculty

such that even you would say that one was absolutely as
good as the other?

A. Well, I should still say no.
Q. In other words, it is your opinion it is an absolute im

possibility to set up a separate law school for Negroes, no
matter how good a faculty, no matter how good a building,
and no matter how good a library that would be equal to
exactly the same kind of institution set up for whites?

A. No, I think I have avoided saying that. I recognize
that some point of extraordinary faculty, and perhaps ex
traordinary equipment, might turn the balance. It is a point
that hasn’t been suggested to me in any realistic way by the
questions.

Q. Where the faculty amounts to the same, you don’t be
lieve that the Negro school could furnish substantially equal
opportunities as the white school, everything else being
equal except that they are separate schools!
[fol. 580] A. No, for the reasons I have already explained.

Q. Then I will ask you if it is also your opinion that on
the basis of the reasons that you have testified about, that
in higher education that a separate school for girls can
furnish, being exactly with the same faculty and all fa
cilities, can furnish substantially equal educational oppor
tunities as exactly the same but separate schools set up for
men?

A. I thought you were—you asked me about co-education.
I haven’t answered.

353

Q. I believe that is the word.
A. Are you asking me about new colleges? You asked

me to contrast women’s schools with co-educational colleges.
Q. We are asking for the same opinion along the same

lines we have been asking you about here this morning,
where you have exactly equal facilities, as good a faculty,
and all, in a separate women’s college, separate from the
men, whether or not in your opinion it would be possible,
based on the reasoning that you have given here, for that
school for girls to offer substantially equal opportunities
for higher education as the separate school for men?

A. That is, they are both segregated?
Q. Segregation on each side.
A. You are not asking me to compare co-education?
Q. I am asking about separate.
A. Everything else being equal, I see no reason why the

[fol. 581] separate school for girls should not have the same
advantages and disadvantages that the separate school for
men has. I happen to think this; co-education, other things
being equal, is better.

Q. Let’s take co-education. In your opinion, the mixed
school, in so far as men and women are concerned, co-educa
tional schools, in your opinion, can the separate schools for
men and women furnish equal opportunities with the co
educational schools?

A. First, of course, they can and actually do, because you
have cases where we know like Harvard and Bryn Mawr,
very distinguished staff, and where work is done on a very
high level. Other things being equal, I should prefer the
situation in Chicago. It has the advantages of a non-
segregated school. I should prefer the situation like we
have in Chicago, where we have co-education.

Q. I am not asking what you prefer. I was asking if in
your opinion substantially equal educational opportunities
could be furnished in the separate school for women as
could be furnished in co-educational schools, with all having
the same type of faculty and facilities ?

A. Other things being equal, I should think not, not as
desirable.

Q. I asked yon whether equal educational opportunities
could be furnished. Is your answer the same on the oppor
tunities that are afforded for equal education?

354

[fol. 582] A. Yes, other tilings being equal, the oppor
tunities would not be equal in the segregated school as com
pared to the co-educational school.

Q. Have you ever taught school in Texas or any other
southern state?

A. No.
Q. Have you ever gone to school in the south?
A. I trained in the south during the last war, taught

flying in Miami, a teaching assignment.
Q. I mean in schools of higher learning?
A. No.
Q. Have you made any study of the schools of higher edu

cation in the south?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you made any study of the attitudes of the people

of the south on the question of segregation, regardless of
the merits of those attitudes, or how they came about ? Have
you made any thorough investigation of what those atti
tudes, good or bad, are?

A. It depends on what you call study, or what you call
thorough investigation. I haven’t made the kind of study
Dr. Thompson has made.

Q. You are not, then, fully acquainted with the attitudes
as they relate to the possibility of mixed schools, are you,
in the south ?
[fol. 583] A. Not in the sense Dr. Thompson has.

Q. You don’t feel qualified as an expert on whether or
not the social attitudes in the south, good or bad, are such
that mixed schools would work better than the separate
schools, are you?

A. You are talking about schools at all levels?
Q. I am talking about higher levels, colleges; whether

or not you are acquainted with those attitudes, or have
made any study of those attitudes for the purpose of deter
mining whether or not they would work better in the south,
better in the separate schools, or in the mixed schools? In
other words, are you willing to qualify as an expert on it?
Do you feel like you have made the study necessary to give
an expert opinion on that question?

A. I think I have made enough study of law schools and
have spent enough time in them so that my opinion about
mixed or segregated law schools------

Q. In the south?
A. South or north.

355

Q. I am talking about whether or not you have made any
study of the attitudes of the people of the south, if you have
made a thorough enough study to be acquainted with those
attitudes and the influence they would have on the success
of a separate law school?

A. I think I have some acquaintance, but I have not made
[fol. 584] the kind of technical study Dr. Thompson made.

Q. You would not attempt to give this Court an expert
opinion on that question today?

A. The question of education generally.
Q. The question of the attitudes of the people of the south

as applied to the possibilities of the mixed schools being as
successful as separate schools in higher education and fields
of training?

A. If—I don’t mean to fence with you, or be facetious,
but I have not made any special study of race relations in
the south.

Q. Back to your point as to a stimulating student body
being one of the requirements for, in your opinion, for a
good law school, I will ask you, Dr. Sharp, if you will not
agree that the attitudes of all of the members making up
that student body, social attitudes, whether they be good or
bad, or regardless of where they came from, if those social
attitudes will not have some bearing on the stimulating
study body that you are talking about ?

A. Surely.
Q. Will those not also have some bearing on whether or

not the student in a mixed school would have the same
encouragement or help from upper classmen as he would
receive in a separate school ?

A. Surely.
[fol. 585] Q. You will agree also that the attitudes, whether
good or bad, of course, will have some bearing on the sup
port of the institution involved in a southern state, won’t
you, the State support given to them, and the support of
individual citizens?

A. I think you have disqualified me to testify in this
crowd. I am not an expert------

Q. I will ask you if you don’t know enough about it in
general to know that the social attitudes in any state will
have some bearing on the support given a mixed school in
that state?

A. I do not know more about this subject than—it is the
same sort of general acquiring of knowledge that I have

356

about race relations in the south. If you want me to speak
about it on the same sort of qualifications, I am willing to,
but I am not willing to leave the other question and------

Q. I will withdraw that question. Now, you talked about
the various benefits of the case system, one of them being
the chance, the opportunity for the student to recite, to
report on the work that they have done on the particular
cases assigned. That is one of them, is it not?

A. One of them, only one.
Q. Only one. Beginning with that one, all other things

being equal, I will ask you if it isn’t true that in a class
made up of 125 students, that a smaller percentage of the
[fol. 586] students will have an opportunity to recite and
report on each case than in a class made up of ten students
during a one hour period, the same period of time?

A. In a very mechanical sense, that is true.
Q. And is it not true that a greater percentage in the

smaller class will have an opportunity to discuss and
criticize the case and be heard from on the case than in the
larger class?

A. I would rather say no, not necessarily, but. in a me
chanical sense, it is conceivable, if you divide up the minutes
you will get some such result as that, but I don’t think that
touches the real point.

Q. On that one point, regardless of what you would rather
say, the truth is that you would have to say yes, as far as
the greater percentage of students having a chance to, the
time in which to comment on each of the cases assigned?

A. May I explain my qualification?
Q. As soon as you answer the question.
A. In a mechanical sense, yes.
Q. Yes.
A. But I don’t know how you could with 30 or 40 fellows

all wanting to be heard, which happens in a good class.
They can’t all talk. When you have a good class, you see
all sorts of people ready to say something all at once. Of
course, they can’t all talk. That is the kind of class that
goes well.

Q. In a class of 125, they can’t all talk, can they?
[fol. 587] A. No, but they can all be ready to, in a really
good class.

Q. They can all be ready to in a really good class. In a
class of ten they can all be ready to, can’t they?

357

A. Yes, they can, but I am not so sure it is likely.
Q. It is possible they can all be ready?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is possible to call on more of them than in a

class of 125 during an hour’s class?
A. In a mechanical way, yes. It is a very good feeling

for them all to want to talk.
Q. From the standpoint of the professor?
A. And the standpoint of the student.
Q. You mentioned that with first year students you had

found tutorial work to be successful?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by tutorial work?
A. Work which is conducted with us by a special staff of

younger men in the preparation of papers on problems, the
examination of those papers by the tutorial staff, and in
struction in the art of writing, using language, as well as
in the art of legal research, building up a case, doing some
productive work on one’s own.

Q. Derived from the old tutor system of instruction?
A. It has been used very successfully in the English uni

versities.
[fol. 588] Q. And that system is applied to the individual
student ?

A. Yes.
Q. The tutor works with the individual student?
A. Yes.
Q. You have found that quite successful, you say, with

first year students?
A. In this form, this form of promoting the development

of individual skills and talents and capacities by the assign
ment or awarding pieces of work.

Q. That system, that tutor system that you have spoken
of as being successful with first year students, comes much
nearer to operating that law school with one student than
any other system you have described here today, does it not?

A. Oh, I think not. I think what I said about the value
of competition in the class room, and outside the class room,
applies to this sort of thing. Boys get together. We don’t
prohibit them from talking over their papers together.
We desire it sometimes by groups.

Q. In a law school with one law student, the type of in
struction will be nearer the tutorial type than the lecture
type, wouldn’t it?

358

A. Not necessarily, at all.
Q. It could be, though, you will agree!
A. I don’t see any special likelihood of it. There is an

equal likelihood that the student would begin to lean on the
[fol. 589] one professor. It is quite as likely to develop into
a rather casual lecture. It is easy to lecture one student.

Q. It would be similar to your tutorial system with the
one student?

A. I think it would be very different. Our tutorial sys
tem depends on the work over an extended time, with partic
ular problems, developing skills in a school of some size
where there is enterprise. I see no real similarity between
the essential character of the tutorial system and a school
with one student.

Q. No connection. On your question a minute ago, and
your answer about a law school moving, you don’t mean to
state to the Court that in your opinion that if Harvard Law
School moved to another city in the State of Massachusetts
that that would cause any inequality to a one year law
student who had been there only the year before the move,
do you?

A. If the move is in the middle of the year?
A. No. At the end of the year.
A. The question was about the middle of the year.
Q. Did you think Mr. Marshall’s question a minute ago

about the move of the proposed Negro Law School, that he
meant that it would come in the middle of the year, school
year ?

A. It came in a month, as I recall it, which is normally
in the school year.

Q. And your assumption is that that date was in the mid-
[fol. 590] die of the school year; right?

A. Yes, sir, on that, but I don’t think that is the only
factor in my answer.

Q. Now then, if the Harvard Law School moved at the
end of the school year, the student who had been there
during his first year’s work, only his one year, do you feel
it would be any inequality to him at all if the school hap
pened to move to another city in Massachusetts where he
was allowed to continue his work under the same direction?

A. I can hardly imagine such a move being made for any
thing but a good reason, and I don’t imagine it would do
the student any harm.

359

Q. The same would be true of any other good law school
that made a move at the end of the year, all other things
being equal, that would cause no particular disadvantage
to the student f

A. The same thing would be true of any first-rate school.
Q. I said, substantially equal.
A. It is hard to visualize, but I can’t imagine such a case.
Q. We will imagine such a case. Is it your answer it

would do him no harm, or furnish no inequality by such a
move?

A. Harvard goes from Cambridge to Northampton, Mas
sachusetts, leaving the University. It is a hard case to
think of, but— —

Q. We have already effected the move. I am asking you
about a move of any law school substantially equal to Har
vard Law School, if it moved at the end of the school year
[fol. 591] to another location, whether or not in your opin
ion that would cause any disadvantage or inequality to the
first year law students who had been enrolled in that school ?

A. I suppose it would cause some inconvenience, all right,
but no disadvantage.

Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Sharp, if Harvard should move this year, it would

be after how many years at the same stand?
A. About 120 years.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Daniel: That is all.
(Witness excused.)

The Court: We will resume at two o ’clock.
Court was recessed at 12 o ’clock noon, May 16, 1947, until

2 o ’clock p. m., May 16, 1947.

360

A f t e r n o o n S e s s io n

May 16, 1947
2 :00 P. M.

[fol. 592]

Mr. Daniel: You have rested?
Mr. Durham: Yes.

P r e s e n t a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t i e s

Mr. Daniel: Now, Your Honor, I would like to present the
authorities I have mentioned before going hack to Henry
Doyle’s testimony. I do apologize for asking the Court
to change its ruling on the matter, hut I would like for the
Court to consider the purpose.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Daniel: In the first place, it hears on the point that

there are no students in the school. We really believe, Your
Honor, that the relator has made quite an issue of the fact
that no students are in there, and especially the situation
where there is only one student there, all through this case.

We also think that there is no question that the evidence
shows the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People are giving active assistance to relator, hut
I would like for the record certainly to show that we make
no objection to it, and think that it is only proper that they
do render that help, if they think relator’s case is right.

The only thing we point out about the National Associa
tion for the Advancement of Colored People, and the chain
[fol. 593] of evidence being in the attempt to show the dis
couragement given by that association to students in the
school, given not only by the association, but by the attor
ney for relator, whose acts certainly do have a bearing, him
being in that position with relator.

Now, we have direct evidence in the case, Your Honor,
showing this. We have direct evidence in the case by the
relator himself that when he received his notice about the
school being open, that he didn’t make up his own mind
about whether he would attend, but went to his attorney
in Dallas to make the decision. His attorney in Dallas testi
fied that he did not make any investigation of this school
down here, but he called Maceo Smith, and Maceo Smith
was shown to be the Secretary for the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People here in Texas.
That upon the report received within four or five days from

361

Maceo Smith, Mr. Durham and the relator made up their
minds that he would not enter. Therefore, we have the
direct evidence of at least some influence.

We could not go into what the report was, but some influ
ence of the association bearing on at least one student not
going to the school, the relator here himself. We feel that
any other evidence as to another prospective student, the
fact that he was mentioning going, and he didn’t go, even
though it is circumstantial evidence, it would certainly
have a hearing in this case.
[fol. 594] Yet, Your Honor may not consider any of that
evidence. If this case is appealed by whichever side loses
the case, I am just thinking about if some other court might
not wonder what about other students. We at least have
one on whom we offer circumstantial evidence.

I would like to read from about three authorities on cir
cumstantial evidence in cases of this kind. In the first place,
quoting from two Texas cases by the Supreme Court of
Texas, the general rule stated in those two cases is as fol
lows :

‘ ‘ As a general rule, in the absence of direct evidence,
evidence of any circumstance, however slight, which
conduces or tends in any degree to establish a material
fact, or which affords fair presumption or inference to
the question in dispute is relevant and admissible.”

And from Texas Jurisprudence I quote:
“ It is not necessary that the fact sought to he proved

should have direct reference to the main issue and how
ever remote from the main issue, it is proper to submit
such issue if the evidence refers to a fact relevant to
a fact in issue.”

And then Duke v. Houston Oil Company, a recent case,
this statement:

“ Generally, any conclusion may be based upon cir-
[fol. 595] cumstantial evidence, and fact that evidence
is circumstantial does not render it incompetent.
Where it is sought to prove an ultimate fact by a chain
of circumstances every circumstance should he con
sidered.”

362

And them I quote from McCormick and Ray on Evidence:
“ A design, plan or intention may also be evidenced

circumstantially by conduct showing it. The kinds
of conduct usable for this purpose are infinite in va
riety, but the decided cases deal with comparatively
few of them. In general, however, it may be said that
any act which under the circumstances and in the light
of experience would indicate a probable design, is ad
missible.”

We admit readily that we do not have direct evidence
from Henry Doyle that the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People persuaded him to make up
his mind not to enter the law school on March 10th, but we
do feel like his evidence contains certain circumstances
such as this that are important. First, for instance, where
he resides, and that he was considering prior to March 10,
1947 this new law school, and entering it. That while he
was still considering this school he attended a meeting of
others of his race, including Maceo Smith, the Secretary—
shown by the evidenec to be Secretary of the N. A. A. C. P.,
ffol. 596] in Dallas, while still considering whether or not he
would attend this school, at that meeting. Mr. Durham,
attorney for the relator, appeared before that meeting, and
that the witness, Henry Doyle, on March 10th, did not enter
the school. No direct evidence, but Your Honor, it does
show that in making up his mind he was in a meeting with
the same people, Mr. Durham and Maceo Smith, that made
up the mind or helped influence one student not to go
to the school, and we think those circumstances are at least,
maybe only slight, but they bear in a way in explaining at
least what one prospective student did in making up his
mind, and the fact that he did not finally enter the school;
that that conduct in the meeting in Dallas is admissible for
the purpose of showing at least what one other student who
did not enter did about considering the matter.

The Court: And you re-tender the evidence of Doyle ?
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir, we re-tender the evidence of Doyle,

that particular portion of it that is on the point that I have
outlined here to the Court. Some of it is not admissible,
of course, but only the points that are not objectionable on
some other ground.

The Court: I think I will give you your bill.
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.

363

The Court: Have you anything further?
Mr. Daniel: That is all, Your Honor.
Mr. Marshall: We are through.
Testimony closed.

[fol. 597] R e s p o n d e n t s ’ E x h i b i t No. 1

Standards of the American Bar Association
(1) The American Bar Association is of the opinion that

every candidate for admission to the bar should give evi
dence of graduation from a law school complying with the
following standards:

(a) It shall require as a condition to admission at least
two years of study in a college.

(b) It shall require its students to pursue a course of
three years’ duration if they devote substantially all of
their working time to their studies, and a longer course
equivalent in the number of working hours, if they devote
only a part of their working time to their studies.

(d) It shall have among’ its teachers a sufficient number
giving their entire time to the school to insure actual
personal acquaintance and influence with the whole student
body.

(e) It shall not be operated as a commercial enterprise
and the compensation of any officer or member of its teaching
staff shall not depend on the number of students or on the
fees received.

(f) It shall be a school which in the judgment of the
Council of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar
[fol. 598] possesses reasonably adequate facilities and

maintains a sound educational policy; provided, however,
that any decision of the Council in these respects shall be
subject to review by the House of Delegates on the petition
of any school adversely affected.

364

[ f o l . 5 9 9 ] R e s p o n d e n t s ’ E x h i b i t N o. 2

Resolution

Minute Order No. 203-46

E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f L a w C o u b s e f o b N e g b o S t u d e n t s

On motion by Mr. Buchanan, seconded by Mr. Reese,
and approved by a majority vote of the Board, the following
resolution is adopted.

Whereas, by Senate Bill No. 228 of the 49th Legislature
the name of Prairie View State Normal and Industrial Col
lege at Prairie View was changed to Prairie View Univer
sity; and

Whereas, the act further provides that whenever there
is any demand for same the Board of Directors of the
Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is authorized
to provide for a course in law at Prairie View University
substantially equivalent to that offered at the University of
Texas; (Other courses not pertinent to this order were
also authorized.) and

Whereas, the Board of Directors of A. & M. College in
cooperation with the University of Texas named a joint
committee to study the obligations of these institutions in
connection with Negro education and made a report to the
Governor in connection therewith, said, (Minute Order
No. 124-46), being attached to and made a part of this
order; and

Whereas, the Board of Directors of the A. & M. College
[fol. 600] of Texas stongly reaffirms the position taken in
the recommendations made to the Governor, particularly
that part which urges the establishment of a first-class
University for Negroes, preferably at Houston, Texas,
under the supervision of the Board of Regents of the Uni
versity of Texas; and

Whereas, it has been brought to the attention of the
Board of Directors that at this time there is pending an
application for admission to the University of Texas by
one or more colored youth seeking to enroll in the School
of Law, and this Board has been requested to make arrange
ments for these young men to embark on their legal studies
pending final action by the Legislature on the recommenda
tions made or to be made to its 50th session; and

365

Whereas, the Board of Directors has by investigation
determined that arrangements may be made for standard
courses of first-year law to be given in Houston, Texas with
qualified Negro lawyers as teachers:

Therefore, be it resolved
1. That if the applicant and/or similar other applicants

for first-year courses in law offer themselves to the Regis
trar at Prairie View University, bringing with them a suit
able transcript and a certificate from the Dean of the Law
School of the University of Texas that they are scholasti
cally prepared for a course of law equivalent to that given
[fob 601] at the University of Texas, they will be admitted
to Prairie View University for the semester begining Feb
ruary 1947.

2. The course will be offered in Houston, Texas and will
be substantially the same approved course as is now offered
by the University of Texas School of Law for entering stu
dents, and the qualifications of the personnel to teach the
students will be determined by the State Board of Law
Examiners, and they will be judged acceptable by it before
instruction begins.

3. The Board of Directors of A. & M. College, through
Prairie View University, will provide instruction in ac
cordance with the requirements of the Supreme Court of
Texas and the American Bar Association, and will provide
or make available to the students such books or library
material as are needed for the first-year course in which
they will be enrolled. The Governor will be asked for a
deficiency appropriation to provide the cost of instruction.

Certificate
I, E. L. Angell, certify that the foregoing is an exact copy

of Minute Order No. 203-46 passed at the meeting of the
Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical
College of Texas held at Austin, Texas on November 27,
1946.
[fol. 602] In witness whereof, I have hereunto affixed my
hand and seal of the said institution this 4th day of Decem
ber 1946.

(S.) E. L. Angell, Secretary, Board of Directors,
Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas
(Seal.)

366

[fol. 6 0 3 ] R e s p o n d e n t s ’ E x h i b i t No. 3

Resolution Adopted by tlie Board of Regents of the
University of Texas

Re: The Texas State University for Negroes

Adopted February 28, 1947

Resolution—Re: The Texas State University for Negroes

Chairman "Woodward presented the following resolution
re The Texas State University for Negroes, as was proposed
in Senate Bill No. 140, 50th Legislature of Texas, which
resolution was adopted unanimously by the Board upon
motion of Mr. Bullington, seconded by Mr. Kirkpatrick.
The roll call reflected the following vote:

A ye : N o:
Judge Woodward
Mr. Bullington
Mr. Kirkpatrick
Dr. Scherer
Mr. Schreiner
Mr. Tucker
Mr. Warren

Whereas, Senate Bill No. 140, being an Act to establish
a University of the First Class to be styled “ The Texas
State University for Negroes” has been passed finally by
[fol. 604] both Houses of the Legislature of the State of
Texas now in Session, and

Whereas, it is anticipated that said bill will be signed
forthwith, and will, by its terms, become immediately effec
tive, and

Whereas, Section 11 of the said Act provides that “ The
Board of Regents of The University of Texas is authorized
and required to forthwith organize and establish a separate
school of law at Austin for Negroes to be known as the
‘ School of Law of The Texas State University for Negroes’
and therein provide instruction in law equivalent to the same
instruction being ottered in law at The University of
Texas ; ’ ’ and

Whereas, The Board of Regents of The University of
Texas desires to cooperate fully and immediately in carry

ing out in good faith all of the duties imposed upon it by
said bill, and

Whereas, The Dean and the Members of the Staff of the
School of Law of the University of Texas have signified
their willingness and desire to cooperate fully in the estab
lishment and conduct of said School of Law of The Texas
State. University for Negroes to the end that the instruc
tion therein given may be in all respects equivalent to that
currently and heretofore offered in the School of Law of
The University of Texas; and
[fol. 605] Whereas, The Registrar of The University of
Texas has signified his willingness and desire to cooperate
in the organization and conduct of the School of Law of
The Texas State University for Negroes as contemplated
in said bill, now, therefore,

Be It Resolved, That the Board of Regents of the Univer
sity of Texas hereby assumes and undertakes to discharge
promptly and in full compliance with the letter and the spirit
of Section 11 of said bill all of the duties and responsibilities
imposed upon or delegated to it by the terms thereof; and

Be It Further Resolved, That the Chairman of the Board
of Regents of The University of Texas be, and he is hereby
authorized, immediately upon said law taking effect, to
take all steps necessary to acquire in the immediate vicinity
of the State Capitol at Austin, Texas, quarters fully ade
quate for the conduct of the School of Law of The Texas
State University for Negroes and to do all other acts and
things, including the employment of necessary personnel,
the acquisition of furniture and other facilities and utilities
necessary to the full equipment and operation of said school;

Be It Further Resolved, That the first semester of said
school begin on Monday, March 10, 1947, which is hereby
designated as the final date for registration therein and that
[fol. 606] such semester extend through June 28, 1947, and

Be It Further Resolved, That the Dean of the School of
Law of The University of Texas be, and he is hereby, re
quested and directed to discharge the duties of Dean of the
School of Law of The Texas State University for Negroes.

Be It Further Resolved, That there shall be offered for
students entering such school the identical courses now
being taught the same classes in the Lav*- School of The Uni
versity of Texas, which courses shall be given by the same
instructors or instructors of equivalent experience and

367

368

ability with those now giving such courses in the Law School
of The University of Texas;

Be It Further Resolved: That the Registrar of The Uni
versity of Texas be, and he is hereby, requested and directed
to discharge the duties of the Registrar of the School of Law
of The Texas State University for Negroes and in that ca
pacity to distribute forthwith to all persons who may be in
terested therein bulletins covering the work to be offered
in the semester opening March 10, 1947, which bulletins
shall contain the information customarily contained in
bulletins issued by The University of Texas and which may
be compiled by incorporating by reference material con
tained in the bulletins heretofore issued by The University
of Texas;

Be It Further Resolved, That the Chairman of The Board
[fol. 607] of Regents of The University of Texas be, and
he is hereby, authorized and directed to purchase for the
account of The Texas State University for Negroes a
library with necessary cases and appurtenances sufficient to
meet the requirements of the American Law School Associ
ation and of the American Bar Association;

Be It Further Resolved, That pending receipt and instal
lation of such library, the Dean of the Law School of The
University of Texas be, and he is hereby, authorized to sup
ply on a loan basis books from the Law Library of The Uni
versity of Texas which may be needed in the efficient con
duct of the School of Law of The Texas State University
for Negroes;

Be It Further Resolved, That the Chairman of the Board
of Regents be, and he is hereby, authorized to negotiate
with the personnel of said proposed school such arrange
ments as may be required for its immediate organization
and conduct, which arrangements shall be reported to the
next meeting of the Board of Regents for confirmation and
approval by it;

Be It Further Resolved, That the Board of Regents of
The University of Texas extends to the Board of Directors
of The Texas State University for Negroes, when it shall
have been duly constituted, its best wishes and assurances
of cooperation for the success of the undertaking committed
to its care.

369

[ f o l . 6 0 8 ] T h e S t a t e o f T e x a s
County o f T r a v i s

I, Betty A. Thedford, Secretary of the Board of Regents
of The University of Texas, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and correct excerpt from the minutes
of a regular meeting of said Board of Regents held in
Austin, Texas, on February 28 and March 1, 1947, at which
a majority of the members were present and voted favor
ably on the motion contained therein.

Executed under my hand and the seal of The University
of Texas this the 18th day of March, 1947.

(S.) Betty A. Thedford, Secretary of the Board of
Regents of The University of Texas.

(Seal of the University of Texas.)

T h e S t a t e o f T e x a s
County of Travis

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day per
sonally appeared Betty A. Thedford, Secretary of the Board
of Regents of the University of Texas, known to me to be
the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing in
strument, and acknowledged to me that she executed the
[fol. 609] same for the purpose and consideration therein
expressed, and in the capacity therein stated.

Given under my hand and the seal of office this the 18th
day of March, A. D. 1947.

(S.) Maryvenice E. Stewart, Notary Public in and for
Travis County, Texas. (Notary Seal.)

[ f o l . 6 1 0 ] R e s p o n d e n t s ’ E x h i b i t No. 6

School of Law, The University of Texas

Full-time faculty members:
Bailey, E. W.—Professor of Law. B. A. 1920, LL. B. 1928,

S. J. D., 1942. At University since 1930.
Davis, Kenneth C.—Professor of Law. A. B. 1931, LL. B.

1934. At West Virginia 1935-40, at U. T. since 1940.
Fritz, W. F.—Asst. Professor of Law, B. A. 1935, M. A.

1938, LL. B. 1946. Taught seven years in Texas High
Schools, at U. T. since 1946.

2 4 — 7 2 5

370

Hodges, Gus M.—Professor of Law, B. B. A. 1930, LL. B.
1932. At U. T. since 1940.

Hudspeth, C. M.—Assistant Professor of Law. B. A. 1940,
LL. B. 1946. At U. T. since 1946.

Huie, W. 0.—Asst. Dean and Professor of Law. B. A.
1932, LL. B. 1935. At U. T. since 1936.

Leary, Leo W.—Associate Professor of Law. B. A. 1940,
LL. B. 1945, LL. M. 1946. At U. T. since 1946.

McCormick, C. T.—Dean and Professor of Law. B. A.
1909, LL. B. 1912. At U. T. 1922-26. At North Carolina
1926-31. At Northwestern 1931-40. At U. T. 1940.

Morris, Clarence—Professor of Law. LL. B. 1925, LL. M.
1926. At Hniv. of Wyoming 1926-40. At U. T. since 1940.

Moriss, S. T.—Assistant Professor of Law, LL. B. 1946.
At U. T. since 1946.

Stayton, R. W.—-Professor of Law. B. A. 1907, LL. B.
1927. At U. T. since 1925.
[fol. 610a] Stumberg, G. W.—Professor of Law. B. A.
1909, LL. B. 1912, J. D. 1924. At Louisiana State Univ. Law
School 1919-25. At U. T. since 1925.

Wade, John W.—Visiting Professor of Law. A. B. 1932,
LL. B. 1934, LL. M. ’35, S. J. D. 1942. At Univ. of Missis
sippi 1936-46. At U. T. 1946-47.

Walker, A. W., Jr.—Professor of Law. B. A. 1921. LL. B.
1923. At U. T. since 1925.

Williams, Howard R.—Associate Professor of Law. A. B.
1937, LL. B. 1940. At U. T. since 1946.

Williams, Jerry S.—Associate Professor of Law. A. B.
1938, LL. B. 1941. Instructor in Law Univ. of Iowa 1941-42.
Asst. Prof, of Law, Univ. of Denver 1946. At U. T. since
1946.

Woodward, M. K.—Associate Professor of Law. B. A.
1933, M. A. 1940, LL. B. 1943. Teacher in Texas Public
Schools 1935-41. At U. T. since 1946.

Part-time Faculty Members:
Hargrave, Miss Helen—Instructor of Law and Law

Librarian. LL. B. 1926. At U. T. since 1930.
Patterson, W. W.—Director of Legal Aid Clinic. LL. B.

1936.

371

Ynsfran, P. M.—Lecturer in Law. Bachill'er en Ciencias
y Letras, Escribano Publico. Lecturer in Law at IT. T.
part time since 1945.

(Fall of 1946—Tisinger, D. L.—Lecturer in Law. A. B.
1935, LL. B. 1939. (Lecturer in Law part-time since 1944.))

[fol. 611] R espondents ’ E x h ib it No. 7

Announcement of Courses for the Spring Semester, 1947,
of the School of Law of the Texas State University for
Negroes
The School of Law will begin its program of instruction

March 10, 1947. It is located in the building at 104 East
13th Street, Austin, Texas, adjoining the grounds of the
State Capitol.

For beginning students, the courses for the Spring
Semester will be as follows:

C o n tr a c t s , six hours per week. Instructor, Leo W. Leary,
Associate Professor of Law, The University of Texas (A. B.,
LL. B., University of Wisconsin.) Casebook: Grismore’s
Cases on Contracts.

T o r t s : six hours per week. Instructor, Starling T. Mor
ris, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Texas,
(LL. B., The University of Texas). Casebook: Thurston
& Seavey, Cases on Torts.

L e g a l B ib l io g r a p h y , one hour per week. Instructor,
Chalmers M. Hudspeth, Assistant Professor of Law, The
University of Texas (A. B., Rice Institute; LL. B., The
University of Texas.) Casebook: Brandt, How to Find the
Law.
[fol. 612] All of these instructors are teaching or have
taught the same courses in The University of Texas School
of Law during the current school year, and the program of
courses is identical with those offered to beginning students
in that school who entered February 1,1947.

Registration day for the Spring Semester is March 10,
1947. Classes will begin on that day. The semester ends
June 28. Programs of work for the summer session and
for the fall and subsequent semesters will be announced
later and will conform, generally, to the programs and
offerings of the Law School of The University of Texas.

372

The State Library, which includes the Library of the
Supreme Court of Texas, located in the State Capitol, is
for the time being designated as the Library of the School.
This contains about 44,000 volumes of legal material and
includes all of the statutes and reports of decisions of all
the states and of the United States.

The reference books needed for immediate use in the
classes are available in the school building, and any other
books which may be required, if not available in the State
Library, will be furnished as needed from the Library of
the School of Law of The University of Texas. A collection
of 10,000 carefully selected volumes meeting the require
ments of the Association of American Law Schools, to con-
[fol. 613] stitute the nucleus of the permanent library of the
School has been ordered.

Requirements for admission, fees, and regulations relat
ing to the classification of students, class-work, and exami
nations, grades and credits, standards of work required,
and degrees awarded, are the same as those contained in the
attached Catalog of the School of Law, dated August 1,1945,
which is the latest published catalog of that school.

For further information apply to Charles T. McCormick,
Dean or E. J. Mathews, Registrar, School of Law, Texas
State University for Negroes, Austin, Texas.

[ fo l. 614] R espondents ’ E xh ibit No. 13

The School of Law of The Texas State University for
Negroes

Box E, University Station

Austin 12, Texas,
March 3, 1947.

Mr. Heman Marion Sweatt, 3402 Delano Street, Houston,
Texas.

D ear Sir :

Since our last correspondence concerning your applica
tion for admission to the University of Texas Law School,
the Texas Legislature has authorized the Board of Regents
of the University o f Texas to establish and operate a sepa

373

rate school of law equal in all respects to the University
School of Law.

I am, pleased to advise that your qualifications hereto
fore established and your application heretofore made will
entitle you to attend the new school now being opened at
104 East 13th Street, Austin, Texas.

The new school, known as The School of Law of the
Texas State University for Negroes will open March 10,
1947, and the first semester will run until June 28, 1947. A
[fol. 615] summer session is being planned which will allow
you to complete the same amount of work prior to the
semester beginning in September as would be possible at the
University of Texas.

Dean Chas. T. McCormick of the University of Texas
Law School will serve as Dean of the newly established
Law School and the courses and instructors will be identical
with those available at the University of Texas Law School.
I assure you that in accordance with the authority from the
Legislature and the Board of Begents, the newly estab
lished school will offer the students thereof equal training
and educational opportunities. The school is located di
rectly across the street from the State Capitol Building.
A library is being installed and full use of the State Library
on the second floor of the Capitol building is available for
research prior to the delivery of a complete law library now
on order. This new library will include all books required to
meet the standards of the American Association of Law
Schools and the American Bar Association.

There is enclosed a copy of the current bulletin of the
Law School of the University of Texas, which has been
adopted as the bulletin and list of courses available at the
new School of Law. The courses, texts, collateral reading,
standards of instruction and standards of scholarship will
be identical with those prevailing in the Law School of the
[fol. 616] University of Texas. Since your application is
for a first year law course, I might add that in the Uni
versity of Texas Law School first year students are eligible
to take Contracts (6 hours weekly), Torts (6 hours weekly),
and Legal Bibliography (1 hour weekly.) These same
courses will be available to you by the same instructors.

If you desire to enter the semester beginning March 10,
please advise me as soon as possible in order that arrange
ments may be made for you to interview Dean McCormick

and determine your schedule of classes and textbooks which
will be required.

Yours very ruly, (S.) E. J. Mathews, Registrar.

(Here follows 1 Photolithograph, side folio 617)

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 14

6 1 7

V
f\

375

[ f o l . 6 1 8 ] B e l a b o r ’s E x h i b i t No. 1

(Cover Title, as follows:)

Association of American Law Schools, 1945, Handbook
(From page 259 of Handbook.)

IV. Articles of Association

(From Handbook, beginning at 7th paragraph on page
260, ending last line on page 267.)

Sixth. Law Schools may he elected to membership at any
meeting by a vote of the Association, but no law school shall
be so elected unless for at least two years immediately
preceding its application it has complied with the following
requirements:

(Amended 1925: see Proceedings, 1925, pp. 6 to 12.)
1. It shall be a school not operated as a commercial enter-

[fol. 619] prise, and the compensation of any officer or
member of its teaching staff shall not depend on the num
ber of students, nor on the fees received.

(Adopted 1922; see Proceedings, 1922, pp. 64-66.)
2. (a) It shall require of all candidates for any degree,

other than special students, at the time of the commencement
of their law study, the completion, in residence, of one-half
of a four-year course of study acceptable for a Bachelor’s
degree at the State University of the state in which the pre
law work is taken, or in the event there is no State Univer
sity then at a principal college or university located therein;
except that not more than ten per cent of the credit presented
for admission may include credit earned in non-theory
courses in military science, hygiene, domestic arts, physical
education, vocal or instrumental music or other courses with
out intellectual content of substantial value.

Pre-legal work done in residence within the meaning of
Article Sixth, Section 2 (a), shall mean work done in class
in an approved college, or, if done off the campus of the col
lege, it shall mean work done in a class meeting in regular
sessions each week under the personal supervision and in
struction of a member of the instructional staff of an ap
proved college.

376

(Approved by the Association by mail vote, September,
[fol. 620] 1944.)

(b) A student’s pre-legal work must have been passed
with a scholastic average at least equal to the average re
quired for graduation in the institutions attended, and
this average shall he based on all the work undertaken by
the student in his pre-law curriculum, exclusive of non
theory courses in military science, hygiene, domestic arts,
physical education, vocal or instrumental music, or other
courses without intellectual content of substantial value.

(c) It shall require from each student admitted a written
statement as to his previous attendance at other law schools,
and as to his previous applications for admission to other
law schools.

(Amended 1927; see Proceedings 1927, pp. 9-20, 53, 54.
Amended 1935; see Proceedings 1935, pp. 11-13. Amended,
1937, see Proceedings, 1937, pp. 29-37.)

3. A school whose curriculum and schedule of work are
so arranged that, in the opinion of the Executive Commit
tee, substantially the full working time of its students is
required for the work of the school, shall be considered a
full-time school. A full-time school shall require of its
candidates for the first degree in law resident study of law
during a period of at least ninety weeks and the successful
completion of at least ten hundred and eighty hours of class
room instruction in law.
[fol. 621] A school whose curriculum and schedule of
work are so arranged that, in the opinion of the Executive
Committee, substantially the full working time of its stu
dents is not required for the work of the school, shall be
considered a part-time school. A part-time school must
maintain a curriculum which, in the opinion of the Execu
tive Committee, is the equivalent of that of a full-time school.
The action of the Executive Committee under this paragraph
shall in each instance be reported to the Association at its
next annual meeting and shall stand as the action of the
Association until set aside by a vote of a majority of all the
members of the Association.

Any school now or hereafter a member of the Association,
that conducts both full-time and part-time curricula, must
comply as regards each with the requirements therefore
as set forth in the preceding paragraphs.

377

No school shall be or remain eligible to membership if
the institution of which it is a part shall through any other
agency conduct instruction in law designed to prepare stu
dents for admission to the Bar or for Bar examinations,
save in conformity with the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs.

No school shall be or remain eligible for membership if
it accepts for credit toward the first degree in law, with or
[fol. 622] without examination in such school, work taken
in another American law school which at the time the credit
was earned was not either a member of this Association or
approved by the American Bar Association; provided, how
ever, that credit may be given for work taken in another
American Law school within the two-year period immedi
ately preceding its admission to this Association.

(Amended December 31, 1936. See Proceedings, 1936,
pp. 27-31; 91-96. Amended December 29, 1938. See Pro
ceedings, 1938, pp. 24-28.)

At the sixteenth annual meeting the Executive Commit
tee reported as follows, concerning Article VI (2 ):

“ Some doubts have arisen as to whether Article VI (2)
requires the three years’ study to be in residence. These
doubts appear to have been caused in part by certain reso
lutions passed in 1907 and 1908 before subsection 2 was
amended in its present form. In order to set at rest these
doubts the Committee oilers the following resolution:

“ Resolved, That the period of study required by Art.
VI (2) is to be interpreted as meaning resident study.”
(The foregoing resolution was adopted. See Proceedings,
1916, p. 82.)

4. The conferring of its degree shall be conditioned upon
[fol. 623] the attainment of a grade of scholarship ascer
tained by examination.

“ Resolved, That no student should be unconditionally
advanced from one class to a higher one without passing
satisfactory examination upon the studies previously pur
sued by the former class. (Adopted, Proceedings, 1902,
P - 7 . ) '

“ It was the sense of the Committee that final examina
tions under the rule should not be considered as required

378

in practice court and in courses involving tile drafting of
legal instruments, but that as to such courses as legal bibliog
raphy, a final examination might very well be expected.
The general principle was declared to be that final exami
nations should be required in all courses reasonably suscep
tible thereto.” (Exec. Com. Report, 1923.)

5. Students with less than academic credit required of
candidates for the law degree by Section 2 of this article,
may be admitted as 1 ‘ specials ’ ’ provided:

a. They are at least twenty-three years of age, and
b. There is some good reason for thinking that their expe

rience and training have specially equipped them to engage
successfully in the study of law, despite the lack of the
required college credits, and

c. The number of such “ specials” admitted each year
[fol. 624] shall not exceed ten per cent of the average num
ber of students admitted by the school as beginning regular
law students during the two preceding years.

(See Proceedings, 1927, pp. 55-59.)

In 1928 a ruling of the Executive Committee relative to
Article VI (2d) was approved, under which the require
ment of two years of college work was made to apply to
summer sessions where credit is given to any student to
ward his law degree. (See rulings and annotations to Art.
VI (2d).)

The following interpretation by the Executive Commit
tee was approved:

In estimating the ten per cent to determine the num
ber of special students that may be admitted, fractions are
not to be counted. (See Proceedings, 1927, p. 9.)

In calculating the number of special students who may
be admitted under Article Sixth, Section 5, it shall not be
necessary to include members of the bar who are enrolled in
courses without expectation of academic credit.

(Approved by the Association by mail vote, September,
1944.)

6. Commencing September 1, 1932, it shall own a law
library of not less than ten thousand volumes, which shall
be so housed and administered as to be readily available for
use by students and faculty. Commencing September 1,
1940, it shall have, in addition to the four instructors speci-

379

[fol. 625] fied in Section 7 of this Article, a qualified libra
rian, whose principal activities are devoted to the develop
ment and maintenance of an effective library service.

Commencing September 1, 1932, for additions to the
library in the way of continuations and otherwise, there shall
be spent over any period of five years at least ten thousand
dollars, of which at least fifteen hundred dollars shall be
expended each year. Commencing September 1, 1939, such
library shall include substantially the following:

1. The published reports of appellate decisions of the
state in which the school is located, together with commonly
used editions of the statutes and digests.

2. The published reports prior to the Reporter System
of decisions of the courts of last resort in at least one-half
the states of the United States with reasonably up-to-date
editions of statutes in one-fourth the states.

3. The published reports of the decisions of the United
States Supreme Court with the generally used editions of
federal statutes and digests.

4. The National Reporter System complete.
5. Leading up-to-date publications in the way of general

digests, encyclopedias, and treatises of accepted worth.
6. At least ten legal periodicals of recognized worth, com-

[fol. 626] plete with current numbers.
7. The English reports covered by the so-called reprint,

together with the law reports to date.
(Amended 1924, see Proceedings, 1924, pp. 50, 51; 1925,

see Proceedings, 1925, pp. 85-87; 1930, see Proceedings.
1930, pp. 23, 25; 1937, see Proceedings, 1937, pp. 38-44.

The 1927 recommendations of the Executive Committee,
as to content of the library, were incorporated in the Articles
at the 1937 Meeting, with two changes, (1) decreasing the
number of statutory editions required from those of one-
half to those of one-fourth the states, and (2) increasing
the number of legal periodicals from six to ten. (See Pro
ceedings, 1927, p. 7, 1937; pp. 38-44.)

7. Commencing September 1,1932, its faculty shall consist
of at least four instructors who devote substantially all of
their time to the work of the school; and in no case shall the

380

number of such full-time instructors be fewer than one for
each one hundred students or major fraction thereof.

(Adopted December 29, 1916. See Proceedings, 1916,
pp. 67-80. Amended in 1924, see Proceedings, 1924, pp.
51-64 and in 1930, see Proceedings, 1930, pp. 24, 25.)

At the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting the Executive Com
mittee made the following recommendations which w a s
adopted:
ffol. 627] “ Resolved, That the first clause of Article Sixth,
Section 7, applies in substance though not in letter to sum
mer sessions where any credit is given to any student to
ward his law degree. Resolved further, that a faculty for
any such summer session may comply substantially with the
said clause although containing fewer than four full-time
instructors, provided that no instructor is responsible for
more courses, more hours of teaching per week, or more
students than is the normal standard in the particular
school, and that no larger percentage of part-time instruc
tion is given than in the balance of the school year.”

(See Proceedings 1935, p. 17-18.)
8. Each member shall maintain a complete individual

record of each student, which shall make readily accessible
the following data: Credentials for admission; the action
of the administrative officer passing thereon; date of ad
mission ; date of graduation or final dismissal from school;
date of beginning and ending of each period of attendance,
if the student has not been in continuous residence through
out the whole period of study; courses which he has taken,
the grades therein, if any, and the credit value thereof, and
courses for which he is registered; and a record of all
special action of the faculty or administrative officers.

(Adopted December 31, 1919. See Proceedings, 1919,
[fol. 628] pp. 87, 88.)

9. It shall be a school which possesses reasonably ade
quate facilities and which is conducted in accordance with
those standards and practices generally recognized by
member schools as essential to the maintenance of a sound
educational policy.

(Adopted December 29,1930. See Proceedings, 1930, pp.
24, 25.)

Seventh: Any school which shall fail to maintain the
requirements provided for in Article Sixth, or such stand

381

ard as may hereafter be adopted by resolution of the As
sociation, shall he excluded from the Association by a vote
at the general meeting, but may be reinstated at a subse
quent meeting on proof that it is then bona fide fulfilling
such requirement.

Any member school which shall fail to be represented
by some member of its faculty at the annual meeting at
least once in any three-year period shall be deemed to have
discontinued its membership.

(Amended 1925. See Proceedings, 1925, pp. 17-19.)

Eighth. The officers of this Association shall be a Presi
dent, a President-Elect, and a Secretary-Treasurer. The
President-Elect and the Secretary-Treasurer shall be chosen
[fol. 629] from among the delegates at each annual meet
ing. The President-Elect, upon the election of his suc
cessor, shall become the President and shall serve as such
until the next election of a President-Elect. The Secretary-
Treasurer shall hold office until his successor is elected.
Provided, however, that, in event of the death or resigna
tion of the President at any time during his term of office,
the President-Elect shall immediately become the President,
and shall serve as such until the second election of a Presi
dent-Elect thereafter; and, in event of the death or resig
nation of the Secretary-Treasurer at any time during his
term of office, the Executive Committee shall have the power
and it shall be its duty without unnecessary delay, to ap
point from among the teachers in the member schools a
Secretary-Treasurer, who shall hold office as such until his
successor is elected. At the annual meeting in 1937, in addi
tion to the election of a President-Elect and a Secretary-
Treasurer, a President shall be chosen from among the
delegates and shall hold office until the next election of a
President-Elect. The President-Elect shall have power to
appoint committees and (in cases where the delegates at
round table conferences do not elect councils) round table
councils, to serve during his presidency; and he shall have
no other power except that attaching to a member of the
Executive Committee.

(Amended 1937, see Proceedings, 1937, pp. 45-51.)
[fol. 630] Ninth. At each annual meeting there shall be
chosen from among the delegates two (or, if the Secretary-
Treasurer is chosen also as the President-Elect, three) per

382

sons to be members of tbe Executive Committee, who with
the President, the President-Elect and the Secretary-
Treasurer shall form such Committee. The Secretary of
the Association shall be Secretary of the Committee.

(Amended 1937, see Proceedings, 1937, pp. 45-51.)
Tenth: The Executive Committee shall have charge of

the affairs of the Association and is especially intrusted
with seeing that the requirements of Articles Sixth and
Seventh are complied with. All complaints shall be ad
dressed to the Executive Committee, and shall be filed
at least ninety days before the annual meeting of the
Association. The Committee shall investigate all com
plaints and report its findings, with such recommendations
as it shall think proper, to the Association for its action and
shall make a report at the annual meeting. This provision
shall not, however, prevent any matter being taken up and
passed upon by the Association, except that no Law School
shall be excluded from the Association under the Seventh
Article unless the Executive Committee has given it thirty
days’ notice that it has in the opinion of that Committee
failed to comply with the provisions of the Sixth and
Seventh Article. When the Executive Committee has as-
[fol. 631] certained that a member school has failed to main
tain the requirements provided for in Article Sixth, or such
standards as may be hereafter adopted by the Association,
it may by a unanimous vote suspend such school from mem
bership until the Association shall decide at the next gen
eral meeting whether the school shall be reinstated or
definitely excluded.

(Amended 1935, see Proceedings, 1935, pp. 14-17.)
For discussion of the powers and duties of the Executive

Committee under this section see Proceedings, 1906, pp.
114-129.

As to power of Executive Committee to pay expenses
of committees, see Proceedings, 1921, pp. 136, 137.

Eleventh. Applications for membership shall be ad
dressed to the Secretary, accompanied by evidence that the
school applying has, for at least two years immediately pre
ceding complied with the requirements as set forth in Arti
cles Sixth and Seventh. The Executive Committee shall
examine the application and report to the Association
whether the applicant has fulfilled the requirements. Appli

383

cations for membership shall he made at least sixty days
before the meeting of the Association.

(Amended 1923, see Proceedings, 1923, p. 49; and 1925,
see Proceedings, 1925, pp. 6-11.)

Twelfth. The Executive Committee may conduct its busi-
[fol. 632] ness by correspondence.

Thirteenth. The officers may be re-elected and a retiring
officer may be elected a member of the Executive Committee,
but no person shall serve as an elected member of the
Executive Committee in successive years, no school shall
have an elected member of the Executive Committee in suc
cessive years, and no school shall have more than one mem
ber on the Executive Committee in any year. The term
“ elected member” in this Article does not include the Presi
dent, the President-Elect or the Secretary-Treasurer.

(Amended 1936, see Proceedings, 1936, pp. 31-36.
Amended, 1937, see Proceedings, 1937, pp. 45-51.)

Fourteenth. The annual assessment on each school shall
be sixty-five dollars, payable in advance, and any school
which shall have failed to pay its assessments during the
year shall be dropped from the Association but may be rein
stated by vote of the Association upon payment of arrears.

Recommendation of the Executive Committee, April 18,
1915: “ The committee voted to recommend that Article
Fourteenth of the Articles of Association be amended by
substituting the word ‘ twenty-five’ for the word ‘ ten’ so
that it will read: ‘ Fourteenth. The annual assessment on
each school shall be twenty-five dollars, payable in advance, ’
etc.” This recommendation was modified at the December,
[fol. 633] 1915, meeting, by making the annual assessment
twenty dollars. See Proceedings, 1915, p. 53. At the De
cember, 1920, meeting, the annual assessment was fixed at
thirty dollars. See Proceedings, 1920, p. 133. At the
twentieth annual meeting 1922, the annual assessment was
fixed at forty dollars. See Proceedings, 1922, p. 54. At the
December, 1930 meeting, the annual assessment was fixed
at sixty-five dollars. See Proceedings, 1940, p. 20.

A recommendation of the Executive Committee on Sep
tember 28, 1931, that “ the annual assessment on each school
shall be one hundred dollars ($100), payable in advance,
and any school which shall have failed to pay its assessment
during the year shall be dropped from the Association, but

384

may be reinstated by vote of the Association upon payment
of arrears. The round-trip railway fare of one delegate
from each school to the annual meeting shall be paid from
the treasury of the Association, but such payment shall not
be made for travel beyond the United States or in the
Dominion of Canada, or where no delegate has been in at
tendance” was lost, on a vote on December 29, 1931, at the
nineteenth annual meeting. (See Proceedings, 1931, pp. 31,
55-77.)

Fifteenth. These articles may be changed at any annual
meeting, the vote on such change shall be by schools, and
no change shall be adopted unless it is voted for by two-
[fol. 634] thirds of the schools represented, nor unless it is
voted for by at least one-third of all the members of the
Association; provided, that no motion for an amendment
shall be considered unless a copy of such proposed amend
ment be filed with the Secretary at least sixty days before
the meeting and a copy thereof sent forthwith by the Secre
tary to each member. (As amended 1923. See Proceedings,
p. 49.)

“ Two-thirds of the schools represented” was held to
mean, represented in the vote on the question before the
convention. (Proceedings, 1922, pp. 96-98.)

RELATOR’S EXHIBIT NO. 2

635

i i l T ! \ G P ETf e
« « E N G «N ?E° Ri U M

M J° c ba
' J

w ■ \ * , .

m m ?-.

■
m * * ; * * f f
i | * j # * * M

I ii<-h*hrt»»♦*/
1 i w m :

’«*»*** t

-**'■■*

3
8

636

3 8f>

R
E

L
A

T
O

R
’S E

X
H

IB
IT

N
O

. 3

637

387

R
E

L
A

T
O

R
’S E

X
H

IB
IT

N
O

THE SCHOOL OF LAW Of
THE TEXAS STATE UNIVlH t>ITv FOE NEGROES

Box E, U n iv e rsity S tation
A ustin 12, Texas

Recent Request®*
f f f P A i n

registered

12158

CDCO
00

388

Mr. Eeman Marion Sweatt
3402 Delano Street
Houston, Texas

R
E

L
A

T
O

R
’S E

X
H

IB
IT

N
O

R E L A T O R ’ S E X H I B I T N O . 6

391

[fol. 640] R e l a t o r ’ s E x h i b i t No. 8

Scholarship Aid Fund

For Texas Negro Graduate and Professional Students

1945-1946

Due to inadequate funds the following figures are based
on tuition and travel grants which were insufficient to cover
actual costs. For example, the tuition charged at Teachers
College Columbia University for 15 points of work is $470.00
per long session; roundtrip travel is $96.00. This, less the
tuition charged at Prairie View University and less round-
trip travel from applicant’s home to Prairie View Univer
sity, makes the differential $508.44. However, the amount
of the grant allowed is $235.00—$165.00 tuition for both
semesters and $70.00 roundtrip travel, leaving $273.44 to
be paid by the applicant.

Regular Appropriation 1945-1946:
Long Session Grants.......................................... $14,843.66
Summer Session Grants.................................... 9,559.51
Secretarial S alary .............................................. 480.25
Supplies ............................. 116.58

Total ........................................................ $25,000.00

Deficiency Appropriation 1945-1946:
Warrants issued on August 2,1946. . $5,749.75
Warrants issued on August 29, 1946 779.71
Warrants to be issued..................... 590.68

Total as of October 9,1946..................... 7,120.14

Total for the Year 1945-1946................. $32,120.14*

* The Deficiency Appropriation was made on July 26th,
1946 when it was too late for a large number of applicants
to attend school. Had the Deficiency Appropriation been
made earlier, more than $40,000.00 would have been re
quired for the year 1945-1946.

25—725

[fol. 640a] Financial Statement as of May 1, 1946

Scholarship Aid Fund

1945-1946

392

Scholarship Aid Fund.......................................... $25,000.00

Amounts Encumbered as of May 1st, 1946
Long Session Grants (1945-1946) $14,717.10
Postage, Supplies and Secretarial

Salary (approx.) ......................... 534.17

Total Amount Encumbered. 15,251.27
Balance on hand ................. 9,748.73*

* It should be noted that the balance on hand as of Janu-
ary 31, 1947 is only $8,915.33 indicating that there will be a
greater deficit this year.

Actual and Approximate Amounts Needed for Summer
Session

Old Applications completed (actual) $13,255.51
NewApplicationscompleted (actual) 4,590.68
Incomplete Applications (New &

Old Appr.) ................................... 6,752.02

Total needed for summer,
1946 ................................... $24,598.21

Total amount on hand......... 9,748.73

Deficit .................................................................... $14,849.48

[fol. 640b] Statistics Concerning Applications for Texas
Scholarship Aid

1945-46
Applications Received

Long Session............................................ 108
Summer Session....................................... 360

Total Applications 1945-1946 School Year 468

393

Committee Action ; 1
Applications Approved:

Long Session ...................................... 93
Summer Session ................................ 231

Total applications approved . 324*

* Of this number 65 withdrew their applications or failed
to attend because grants could not be assured.

Applications Disapproved
(Work available at Prairie View............... 20

Incomplete applications.................................. 124

[fol. 640c] Schools Attended by Texas Scholarship Aid
Recipients

1945-1946
Long Summer

Session Session
Atlanta University .................................. 9 11
Boston U niversity.................................... 2 4
University of California......................... 1 3
University of Southern California.......... 2 19
Catholic University of A m erica............. 1 1
Chicago Musical C ollege......................... 0 1
Chicago School of A r t ....... ................. 0 1
Chicago U niversity.................................. 2 12
Colorado A. & M. College......................... 1 0
Colorado State College............................. 0 9
Colorado University................................ 1 14
Columbia University................................. 7 30
Cornell University .................................. 0 3
University of D enver............................... 0 4
University of D etro it......................... 1 0
Fisk U niversity........................................ 0 1
Margaret Hague Maternity Hospital . . . 0 1
Howard University.................................. 12 0
Indiana State Teachers College............. 0 1
Indiana U niversity.................................. 1 1
Iowa State C ollege................................... 2 3
Iowa State U niversity............................. 4 6

394

1945-1946
Long Summer

Session Session
Kansas State C ollege............................... 2 4
Loyola U niversity..................................... 1 0
Meharry Medical College......................... 18 0
University of M ichigan........................... 5 30
Michigan State College............................. 1 0
New England Conservatory................... 1 0
University of New M exico....................... 0 1
New York U niversity............................... 2 1
Northwestern University......................... 0 9
Ohio State College..................................... 0 3
University of Pennsylvania..................... 0 3
University of Pittsburgh......................... 0 1
Robert H. Terrell Law School................. 1 0
Tuskegee Institute ................................... 3 0
Washington U niversity........................... 0 1
Wayne U niversity................... 1 2
Western R eserve....................................... 0 1
University of W isconsin ......................... 1 6
Xavier University..................................... 0 1

Total .............................................. 82 188

[fol. 640d] Subjects Taken by Texas Scholarship Aid
Recipients
1945-1946

Long Summer
Session Session

1. Art (Including Fine A rts )................. 0 2
2. Business Administration ................. 2 0
3. Education

(1) Admin. & Supervision........... 3 22
(2) Education ............................... 0 26
(3) Educational Guidance........... 0 19
(4) Educational Psychology........ 1 1
(5) Health & Physical Education 3 11
(6) Rural Education..................... 0 3

4. Languages
(1) English ..................................... 2 9
(2) French ..................................... 1 0
(3) Spanish .............................. 1 3

395

1945-1946
Long

Session
5. Library Science ................................... 3
6. Mathematics ...................................... 1
7. Music .................................................. 3
8. Professions

(1) Dentistry ................................. 12
(2) Dental Surgery....................... 1
(3) Dental Technology................. 2
(4) Engineering (Mechanical). . . 1
(5) Law .......................................... 3
(6) M edicine................................... 13
(7) Medical Techinology ............. 1
(8) Pharmacy ............................... 2
(9) Veterinary Medicine ............. 5

9. Sciences
(1) Chemistry ............................... 1
(2) Physiology............................... 1
(3) Natural Science ..................... 0

10. Social Science
(1) Economics . . ........................... 1
(2) H istory .......................... 0
(3) Psychology ............................. 1
(4) Social Science......................... 0
(5) Social S erv ice ......................... 0
(6) Social W o rk ............................. 9
(7) Sociology ................................ 2
(8) Public Health ......................... 0

11. Speech ........................................... 0
12. Vocations

(1) Agriculture ............................. 1
(2) Home Economics & Child Care 6
(3) Trade & Industries................. 0

Total ................................... 82

Summer
Session

7
5

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

3
1
1

1
7
1
1
1

14
1
7
4

9
16
1

188

396

[fol. 640e] Financial Statement as of January 31, 1947

Scholarship Aid Fund

1946-1947
Amounts Encumbered as of January 31, 1947
Scholarship Aid Fund—1946-1947..................... $25,000.00

Long Session Grants..................... $18,223.37
Withdrawals,............................... 2,429.85

$15,793.52
Secretarial Salary ....................... 227.50
Supplies ......................................... 63.65

Amount encumbered as of January 31,1947. . 16,084.67

Balance on hand ....................... ........................... $8,915.33

[fol. 641] R e l a t o r ’ s E x h i b i t No. 9
Office of Executive Secretary

T e x a s S c h o l a r s h i p A i d C o m m i t t e e

S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o e . E d u c a t io n

Austin, Texas
Statement of Policy and Procedure

Adopted by the Committee on Scholarship Aid for Negro
Residents of Texas Attending Graduate and Professional
Schools Outside the State)
I. To be eligible for scholarship aid:

1. The applicant must be a resident of Texas and must
have resided in Texas for eight years or more.

2. If desiring to do graduate study, the applicant must
hold a Bachelor’s degree from an institution approved
by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools, or by an equivalent agency.

3. If desiring to do professional study, the applicant
mast clearly meet the requirements for admission to such
professional school work. If selection is necessary, pref
erence will be given to college graduates. There are few

397

fields of study that can be considered “ professional” that
do not require some college work in preparation.

4. The applicant must file an application on blank supplied
by the Committee, and must file with it, or have sent to the
Executive Secretary complete transcripts of all college
or university work done, together with three testimonials
and a letter stating the purpose of the study; and must
complete the questionnaire form giving full details.

5. No grant will be made to applicants who plan to work
for the Master’s degree in fields in which such work, of
approved quality and standard, is provided at Prairie
View University.

6. Each applicant is required to submit, as a part of his
application, a letter from the Dean of the Graduate School
certifying that he is eligible for admission to Graduate
School with not more than eight semester hours of under
graduate work to be made up.

7. To be eligible for a renewal grant, the student must
write a letter requesting consideration for the grant and
must be certain that a transcript of the last work done by him
under the last grant of the Committee has been sent to the
office of the Executive Secretary. For a renewal grant the
student is not required to file a complete new application,
but only the letter, supplementary transcript, and question
naire form referred to above.

8. Students who are eligible to receive G. I. Scholarship
Aid or Rehabilitation Aid may not receive State Scholar
ship Aid during the period of eligibility for G. I. Scholar
ship Aid or Rehabilitation Aid.

II. The Grants:
1. Each grant will be planned to compensate the student

for the increased costs of tuition and travel necessary to
secure graduate or professional instruction, not provided
by a publicly supported institution for Negroes in Texas,
in an out-of-State school.

2. In determining the amount of the grant, the Committee
will include the following*:

a. Actual tuition charged the student by the out-of-
State institution, but not to exceed $100 for a semester
(except that in approved medical institutions the tui

398

tion may be $150 for the semester), less in each case
$25 per semester, the tuition charged residents in State
supported Texas institutions.

b. For the Long Session the cost of one round trip,
at 3 ̂ per mile, by the shortest rail route from the
student’s home to the location of the approved institu
tion, less the round trip cost at the same rate from the
student’s home to Prairie View University will be
provided.

c. The amount of travel grant to be allowed Summer
School students will be determined by the length of
time to be devoted to study.

d. An addition of not to exceed 10 per cent of the
allowance made on the foregoing bases, to cover in
cidental increased expense.
(Each applicant should note that the grants cannot
take into account other phases of expense than those
mentioned.)

3. All grants will be paid to the recipients in the following
manner:

a. A State warrant payable to the student, in an
amount determined by one-half the travel plus the
tuition for the first semester or term (each as allowed
for in the grant) with a proportionate addition as
provided in 2-d above, will be forwarded to the chief
financial officer of the institution approved for the
student, to be delivered to the student on completion
of registration.

b. In the same way, warrants similarly covering the
allowance for tuition for the subsequent semesters
or terms will be forwarded to the financial officer of
the institution just prior to the tuition payment peri
ods.
[fol. 641a] c. A final warrant covering the return
travel cost will be sent to the financial officer for de
livery to the student just prior to the close of the ses
sion or other approved period of study.
(Those who receive grants should note that no part
of the grant can be made available to them until they
have reached the institution and completed registra
tion.)

399

1. Students who receive grants from this Committee
will be required to carry a normal schedule as students.
They may accept any scholarship or employment from the
institution they attend, to which their merit may entitle
them, without reduction of the grant, provided the duties
incident to such scholarship or employment do not prevent
registration for and satisfactory completion of a normal
schedule of work.

2. Any grant made by this Committee will be terminated
after any report period in which it appears that the student
is not succeeding in his studies.

[fol. 642] Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript
omitted in printing.

III .

[ f o l . 643] A g r e e m e n t o f C o u n s e l

We hereby agree that the foregoing pages numbered
1-641, inclusive, (noting that through typist’s error pages
357-366 were skipped in numbering), constitute a full, true
and correct transcript of all of the testimony in Question
and Answer Form admitted in evidence by the Court upon
the trial of Cause No. 74,945, styled Heman Marion Sweatt,
Relator, vs. Theophilus Shickel Painter, et al, Respondents,
in the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County,
Texas.

We further agree as to the documentary evidence ad
mitted on the trial that this Volume I of the Statement of
Facts, numbered pages 1-641, inclusive, also contains copies
of Respondents’ Exhibits Numbers 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, and copy
of Relator’s Exhibit No. 1; and also contains either original
or photostatic copies of Respondents’ Exhibits Numbers
6 and 14, and original or photostatic copies of Relator’s
Exhibits Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

We further agree that in Volume II of this Statement of
Facts and accompanying same and being a part hereof, are
contained original or photostatic copies of Respondents’
Exhibits Numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16, and of
Relator’s Exhibit No. 7; and that Exhibits A, B, C, D, E,
F, Q-, H, I, J, in original form accompany this Statement
of Facts not bound in Volume I or II, and are a part hereof.

400

We further agree that this Volume I of the Statement
of Facts contains all objections to the admission or exclu
sion of testimony, the rulings of the Court thereon, and the
[fols. 644-647] exceptions reserved thereto.

And we further agree that this record shall be filed as
the Statement of Facts and Bills of Exception (except
such other and further Bills of Exception as may be filed
separately) in this cause.

Dated this 7 day of July, A.D. 1947.
Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas, Jackson

Littleton, Assistant Attorney General of Texas,
Joe R. Greenhill, Assistant Attorney General of
Texas, Counsel for Respondents; W. J. Durham,
Thurgood Marshall, James M. Nabrit, Jr., E. B.
Bunkley, Jr., Counsel for Relator.

[ f o b 6 4 8 ] C a p t i o n

T h e S t a t e o f T e x a s ,
County of Travis:

At a term of the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis
County, Texas, begun and holden at Austin on the 17th
day of March, A. D. 1947, before the Hon. Roy C. Archer,
Judge thereof presiding, and which said term of Court, by
order duly entered on the 14th day of June, 1947, was
extended until and including the 1st day of July, 1947, and
which said term, as so extended, was by order duly entered
on said date, finally adjourned, the following numbered and
entitled suit came on for trial, to-wit:

No. 74,945

H em an M arion S weatt

vs.

T h e o p h i l i t s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r , e t a l .

401

[fol. 649] I n D i s t r ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

A p p l i c a t i o n f o r T r a n s c r i p t —Filed May 29, 1947

Law Offices

W. J. Durham, 2419 San Jacinto Street, P. 0. Box 641,
Dallas 1, Texas

W. J. Durham, Phone: Central 5236, District Clerk, Austin,
Texas; C. B. Bunkley, Jr., Phone: Riverside 1011.

May 27, 1947.
#74945

In R e : H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t , v s . P a i n t e r , e t al.

D e a r S ir :

Will you please prepare transcript in the above case and
include therein the following pleadings:

1. Relator’s Original Application or Petition for Writ of
Mandamus.

2. Relator’s Second Supplemental Petition.
3. Relator’s Third Supplemental Petition.
4. Respondents’ First Amended Answer.

[fol. 649a] 5. Respondents’ First Supplemental Answer.
6. Respondents’ Suggestion of Want of Parties.
7. Respondents’ Motion to Strike Stipulated Facts.
8. Stipulation of Facts.
9. Relator’s Answer to Respondents’ Motion to strike

Stipulated Facts.
10. Judgment of the Court.
11. Appeal Bond.
12. Certificate of Cost and etc.

This notice is given under and by virtue of Rule 376 of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

We ask that the same be prepared under your hand and
seal of the Court for transmission to the Court of Civil

402

Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas,
sitting at Austin.

I am respectfully yours, W. J. Durham

This is to certify that I have this day mailed to the Honor
able Price Daniels, Attorney General for the State of Texas
and the Attorney of Record for Respondents at Austin,
Texas a true copy of the Precipe.

W. J. Durham.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[ f o l . 6 5 0 ] 1 st D i s t r ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

R e q u e s t f o r A d d i t io n a l I n s t r u m e n t s t o Be I n c l u d e d i n
t h e T r a n s c r i p t — Filed June 18, 1947

Office of the Attorney General, Austin, Texas

June 17, 1947.

The District Clerk, Travis County, Austin, Texas.

No. 74945

In re : Sweatt v. Painter, et al.
D e a r S i r :

Please include the following in the transcript in the above
styled cause:

1. Judgment of June 26, 1946.

2. State’s Motion, filed December 17, 1946, showing avail
ability of Law School.

3. Judgment of December 17, 1946.

4. Orders (Mandate) of the Court of Civil Appeals.

(a) granting permission to substitute parties.

(b) setting aside trial court’s judgment and remand
ing the cause for further proceedings.

403

5. Order concerning fact stipulations, dated on or about
June 17, 1947.

Yours very truly, Price Daniel, Attorney General
of Texas, by Joe R. Greenhill, Executive As
sistant.

[fol. 651] [Pile endorsement omitted.]

[ f o l . 6 5 2 ] l x t h e 1 2 6 t h D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

No. 74,945

H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t

vs.

T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r , C h a r l e s T il p o r d M c C o r m i c k ,
Edward Jackson Matthews, Board of Regents; Dudley
K. Woodward, Jr., Orville Bullington, E. E. Kirkpatrick,
W. H. Scherer, W. Scott Schreiner, D. M. Strickland, C. 0.
Terrell, Edward B. Tucker and David M. Warren

A p p l i c a t i o n f o r W r i t o f M a n d a m u s —Piled May 16, 1946

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Now Comes, Heman Marion Sweatt, hereinafter called

Relator, who resides at 3402 Delano Street, Houston, Harris
County, Texas, complaining of Theophilus Shickel Painter,
Charles Tilford McCormick, and Edward Jackson Mat
thews, who resides in Austin, Travis County, Texas; Dud
ley K. Woodward, who resides in Dallas, Dallas County,
Texas; Orville Bullington, who resides in Wichita Palls,
Wichita County, Texas; E. E. Kirkpatrick, who resides in
Brownwood, Brown County, Texas; W. H. Scherer, who
resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas; W. Scott
Schreiner, who resides in Kerrville, Kerr County, Texas;
D. M. Strickland, who resides in Mission, Hidalgo County,
Texas; C. 0. Terrell, who resides in Pt. Worth, Tarrant
County, Texas, Edward B. Tucker, who resides in Nacog
doches, Nacogdoches County, Texas; and David M.

404

Warren, who resides in Panhandle, Carson County, Texas,
the Respondents, and each of them, alleges and states:

[fol. 653] 1
That relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, is a resident and

citizen of the United States, and of the State of Texas,
County of Harris, and City of Houston; that relator
is desirous of studying law in the School of Law of the
University of Texas, which is supported and maintained
by the tax payers of the State of Texas, for the purpose of
preparing himself to practice law in the State of Texas,
and to render public service therein; that he has been arbi
trarily refused admission to the School of Law of the Uni
versity of Texas; that on the 26th day of February, 1946,
relator duly made application for admission to the first
year class of the School of Law of the University of Texas;
that at the time said application for admission to the School
of Law of the University of Texas was made by relator, he
then possessed and still possesses all the scholastic, moral
and other lawful qualifications prescribed by the Constitu
tion and Statutes of the State of Texas, by the Board of
Regents of the University of Texas, and by all duly author
ized officers and agents of the said University and the
School of Law, for admission into the first year class of
the School of Law of the said University.

2
That the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, was at the time

of the making of the aforementioned application for admis
sion to the School of Law, of the University of Texas, and
still is ready, willing and able to pay all lawful Registration
fees and other regular fees and charges required of first year
students in the School of Law of the University of Texas, and
conform to all lawful uniformed rules and regulations, es
tablished by lawful authority for admission to the first
year class of the School of Law of the University of Texas;
[fol. 654] that relator’s application was arbitrarily and
illegally rejected pursuant to a policy custom or usage
denying qualified Negro applicants to the equal protection of
the laws, solely on the ground of his race and color.

405

3
That the School of Law of the University of Texas is

the only law school in the State, maintained by the State
and under its control, and is the only law school in Texas
that relator is qualified to attend. Eelator desires that he
be admitted in the first year class of the School of Law of
the University of Texas at the next regular registration
period after this cause has been heard and determined, and
upon his paying the requisite uniform fees and conforming
to the lawful, uniform rules and regulations for admission
to such class.

4
That the respondents, Dudley K. Woodward, Orville

Bullington, W. E. Kirkpatrick, W. H. Scherer, W. Scott
Schreiner, D. M. Strickland, 0. 0. Terrell, Edward B.
Tucker and David M. Warren, Board of Eegents of the
University of Texas, is an administrative agency of the
State and excercises of students in the University, a cor
poration organized as a part of the educational system of
the State and maintained by appropriations from the public
funds of the State of Texas; the respondent, Theophilus
Shiekel Painter, is the duly appointed and qualified act
ing President of the said University and as such is subject
to the authority of the Board of Regents as an immediate
agent governing and controlling the several colleges and
[fol. 655]schools of the said University; the respondent,
Charles Tilford McCormick, is the Dean of the School of
Law of the said University, whose duties comprise the
government of the said law school including the admission
and acceptance of applicants eligible to enroll as students
therein, including your relator; the respondent, Edward
Jackson Matthews, is the Registrar and Dean of Admission,
whose duty is to pass on the eligibility of applicants who
seek to enroll as students therein, including your relator;
that admission to the School of Law is under the control
of said Registrar and Dean of Admission; all respondents
herein are being sued in their official capacity.

5
That the School of Law specializes in law and procedure

which regulates the courts of justice and government in

406

Texas and there is no other law school maintained by the
public funds of the State where relator can study law and
procedures to the same extent and on an equal level of
scholarship and intensity as in the School of Law of the
University of Texas; the arbitrary and illegal refusal of
respondents, Board of Regents, Theophilus Shickel Painter,
Charles Tilford McCormick and Edward Jackson Matthews,
to admit relator to the first year class of the said law school
solely on the ground of race and color, inflicts upon your
relator an irreparable injury and will place him at a dis
tinct disadvantage at the bar of Texas and in the public
service of the foresaid State with persons who have had
the benefit of the unique preparation in Texas law and
procedure offered to white qualified applicants in the School
of Law of the University of Texas.

[fol. 656] 6
That certain requirements for admission to the first

year class of the School of Law of the University of Texas
have been prescribed by the Board of Regents or other
administrative officials of the University of Texas; that
said requirements prescribed by the aforesaid Board of
Regents or other administrative officials of the University
of Texas, provides as follows: Applicants for admission
must be at least nineteen (19) years of age; must furnish
satisfactory evidence of good moral character; said re
quirements further provide that an applicant holding a
bachelors degree from the University of Texas or from
any other acceptable institution is entitled to full admission
to the School of Law of the University of Texas. Relator
is over nineteen (19) years of age, has furnished Registrar
and Dean of Admission proof of his good moral character,
and has completed the full four (4) year college course
at Wiley College, an accredited college by the Southern
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools of the South
ern States and possesses a bachelors degree from the
aforementioned Wiley College; that said relator has com
pleted twelve (12) semester hours of Graduate work at
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and main
tained an average of B-plus or more, while attending the
University of Michigan; that relator has in all particulars
met the qualifications necessary for admittance to the School
of Law of the University of Texas, which fact respondents

407

have admitted; relator is ready, willing and able to pay all
lawful charges and tuition, requisite to admission to the
first year class of the School of Law, and is ready, willing,
and able to fulfill all other requisites for admission to the
School of Law of the University of Texas.

[fol. 657] 7
On the — day o f ------ , 1946, relator applied for admission

to the School of Law of the University of Texas and complied
with all the rules and regulations entitling him to admis
sion by filing with the proper officials of the University
an official transcript of his scholastic record; said transcript
was duly examined and inspected by the President, Dean
of the School of Law and Registrar and Dean of Admission
of the University; respondents aforementioned, and found
to be an official transcript as aforesaid entitling him to
admission to the School of Law of the University; relator
was denied admission to the School of Law solely on the
ground of race and color in violation of the Constitution and
laws of the United States and of the State of Texas.

8
Respondents have established and are maintaining a

policy, custom and usage of denying to qualified Negro
applicants the equal protection of the laws by refusing to
admit them into the law school of the University of Texas
solely because of race and color and have continued the
policy of refusing to admit qualified Negro applicants into
the said school while at the same time admitting white
applicants with less qualifications than Negro applicants
solely on account of race and color.

9
That on the 16th day of March, 1946, the respondent,

Theophilus Shickel Painter, refused admission to the Law
School of the University of Texas to relator, although ad
mitting that relator was duly qualified for admission to the
[fol. 658] School of Law at the University of Texas, save
and except for the fact that he is a Negro; that relator
was denied admission to the school of law at the University

2 6 — 7 2 5

408

of Texas on the ground that there is a long continued policy
of segregating race in educational institutions in the State
of Texas; that relator was denied admission to the School
of Law of the University of Texas solely because of his
race and color.

10
Eelator further shows that he has no speedy, adequate

remedy at law and that unless a Writ of Mandamus is
issued he will be denied the right and privilege of pursuing
the course of instruction in the school of law as hereinabove
set out.

Wherefore, Eelator being otherwise remediless, prays
this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus re
quiring and compelling said Eespondents to comply with
their statutory duty in the premises and admit the re
lator in the School of Law of the said University of Texas
and have such other and further relief as may be just and
proper.

(S.) W. J. Durham, Attorneys for Eelator.

D u ly s w o r n t o b y S e t n a n M a r io n S w e a t t . J u r a t o m i t t e d
in p r in t in g .

foL 659] [Pile endorsement omitted.]

[ fo l . 6 6 0 ] I n th e 1 2 6 t h D istrict C ourt of T ravis C ounty ,
T exas

[Title omitted]

Relator's S econd S u pplem en tal P etition— Filed May 8,
1 9 4 7

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Comes now, Hemau Marion Sweatt, Eelator in the above

on tided and numbered cause and -ties 'his ‘ns Second Sup
plemental Petition »nd for such second supplemental neti-
■.i.on, he alleges as follows

s - m .v .a .A n O -.s . TOO TOistOWstOg; wjTftSUt
vug**#?? mcjk*-

409

ning at Line 16 with the word “ And” and reading as
follows:

“ And arranged for instructor’s classes, library and
other facilities”

for the reason that the same does not set out what arrange
ments were made with said instructors, what classes were
arranged for, if any, what library was established, if any,
[fol. 661] and what other facilities were acquired and estab
lished, if any. The same is vague and indefinite and is the
conclusion of the pleader and does not inform the relator
what evidence will be required to meet such defense and
relator can not prepare a defense to said vague and indefi
nite allegation and respondent should be required to spe
cifically plead what arrangements had been made for in
structors, if any, and what courses had been established, if
any, and what other facilities had been provided for, if any.

Wherefore, Relator prays that the respondent he required
to specifically set out said alleged arrangement for in
structors, the classes alleged to have been provided, the
library alleged to have been established and what such other
alleged facilities were if any.

2. Relator further specially excepts to the following por
tion of the respondent’s First Amended Answer, beginning
with the word “ Relator” in line 2 of the second section of
Allegation 2, which reads as follows:

“ Relator had notice of such law school and arrange
ment. ’ ’

for the reason that respondents do not allege whether such
notice was verbal or in writing, by whom such notice was
sent, how such notice was sent nor the contents of such
notice, and relator can not determine from said pleading
what proof will be required to meet said purported allega
tion of fact, that is pleaded as a defense and relator is
unable to prepare to meet said purported allegation of fact
because said allegations is indefinite and does not give
relator sufficient information to prepare by testimony to
meet such alleged defense, and of this special exception
[fol. 662] relator prays judgment of the Court.

3. Relator further specially excepts to the following por-

410

tion of respondents’ first amended answer, beginning at line
7 with the word “ And” , section four (4) of Allegation 2,
and reads as follows:

“ And adequate text and reference library was in
stalled. ’ ’

for the reason that the same is a conclusion of the pleader
that the library established, if any, was an adequate library
and the respondents do not allege the list of books, if any,
that was installed in said alleged library. That the respond
ents should be required to plead specifically a list of books
and periodicals, if any, installed in said library in order that
relator may adequately prepare his defense to said pur
ported allegation of fact pleaded herein as a defense and
of this special exception relator prays that the Court sus
tain the same, and that the respondent be required to set
out specifically the list of books alleged to have been in
stalled in said reference library.

4. Relator further specially excepts to the following por
tion of respondents’ first amended answer beginning at Line
11 with the word “ F or” in section 4 of allegation Two (2)
which reads as follows:

“ For permanent use, approximately ten thousand care
fully selected books were ordered which together with
those already in the school are sufficient to satisfy the
standards of the American Bar Association and the
American Association of Law Schools.”

[fol. 663] for the reason that said allegation that said books
were sufficient to satisfy the standards of the American
Bar Association and the Association of American Law
Schools is a mere conclusion of the pleader and the re
spondents do not set out the list of books claimed to have
been carefully selected, it does not say from whom said
books were ordered and respondents do not allege the
standards of the American Bar Association or the standards
of the Association of American Law Schools (American
Association of Law Schools), and the relator can not deter
mine what standards respondents claim to have satisfied
and all of said matters are alleged as a defense in this case
and relator can not determine what type and character of
evidence he will be required to procure to meet said alleged

411

defense, and of this special exception prays that the court
sustain, and that the respondents be required to specifically
plead the list of books claimed to have been selected, the
dates said books were ordered and from whom said books
were ordered together with the price thereof, and he fur
ther prays that the ^respondent be required to list supplies
and specifically the books claimed to have already been in
the school, and he specifically prays that respondents be
required to set out the standards of the American Bar
Association which respondents alleged they have satisfied,
and the rules and standards of the Association of American
Law Schools (American Association of Law School) which
respondents alleged that they have satisfied in order that
relator might property prepare his defense.

II
Comes now, the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, herein

without waiving any of his foregoing special exceptions but
[fol. 664] still insisting upon the same, denies each and every
allegation contained in respondents’ second amended an
swer and demands strict proof of the same.

III
And specially pleading herein, Relator respectfully

shows: On December 17, 1946, judgment was entered deny
ing the writ of Mandamus sought by Relator. Relator ex
cepted to said judgment and perfected an appeal of this
cause to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme
Judicial District of Texas. Thereupon the respondents (as
appellees) filed a motion to remand the cause without deci
sion. The brief filed by respondents (as appellees) prayed
that the Court of Civil Appeals “ affirm the constitutionality
of providing equal opportunities in separate schools, finding
that a reasonable time therefor is allowed, and this cause
be remanded to the District Court without final decision and
without prejudice to either party.” On March 26, 1947, the
Court of Civil Appeals entered an order as follows: “ the
motion for substitution of appellees was granted; appellees
motion to remand was dismissed; and the trial court’s judg
ment was set aside and the cause remanded generally to
the trial court, without prejudice to the rights of either
party, by agreement of the parties in open court this date.
The costs of appeal are assessed against appellees. On

412

April — 1947, respondents filed their first amended original
answer.

1. The respondents’ have not established any law school
other than the University of Texas School of Law that
satisfies and meets the requirements and standards of the
Association of American Law Schools, and relator further
specially pleading herein states that the University of Texas
[fol. 665] School of Law is the only law school now, existing
in the State of Texas and operated by public funds which
satisfies the requirements, standards and rules of the As
sociation of American Law Schools, and that the University
of Texas School of Law has held and now holds membership
in the Association of American Law Schools and has held
said membership since on or about the year 1907, and that
said law school is the only law school in the State of Texas
operated by public funds which holds a membership in the
Association of American Law Schools.

2. Administrative officers of the public schools system of
Texas including the respondents while purporting to act
under the policy, custom and usage of the State of Texas
of requiring separation of white and Negro students have
denied Eelator and other qualified Negro students educa
tional facilities equal to those afforded white students with
similar qualifications solely because of race and color. At
the time relator made his application for admission to the
Law School of the University of Texas and at the time of
the filing of this suit there was no state supported law school
except the one to which he applied. The continued refusal
of Respondents to admit the Eelator o f the Law School of
the University of Texas is in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In
sofar as Respondents claim to be acting under authority of
the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas their con
tinued refusal to admit the Eelator to the Law School of
the University of Texas is none the less in direct violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.

3. The State of Texas acting through its administrative
[fol. 666] agents including Respondents has refused to ad
mit qualified Negro students to the University of Texas or
any of the other Colleges and Universities maintained by
the State of Texas except Prairie View State Normal and

413

Industrial College, the name of which was changed to
Prairie View University in 1945 hy S. B. No. 228 which
stated: “ There is no adequate educational facilities for the
education of the Colored population of this State.” Prairie
View has never offered to Negroes education equal or
equivalent to that offered in any of the many universities
and colleges maintained hy the State of Texas for the exclu
sive use of all qualified students other than those of the
Negro race. The quantity and quality of education offered
at Prairie View is not and never has been equal to that
offered at any of the other state universities and colleges in
Texas in physical plant, facilities, curriculum, faculty,
library, accreditation, available funds or any of the other
recognized standards of comparison of colleges and sec
ondary schools. The schools authorized by Senate Bill No.
140 Cli. 29, p. 36; Sect. 1947 have not been established.

4. Action of the Respondents in continuing to refuse to
admit Relator to the Law School of the University of Texas
solely because of his race and color pursuant to the Consti
tution and laws of Texas requiring segregation of white and
Negro students is in direct violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Insofar as
the Constitution and laws of Texas relied on by Respondent
prohibit Relator from attending Law School of Univer
sity of Texas because of his race and color such constitu
tional and statutory provisions of the State of Texas as
[fol. 667] applied to Relator are in direct violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

Wherefore, Relator prays herein for the same relief as
prayed for in his original petition and he prays for such
other and further relief in law and in equity to which he
may be entitled to.

Tliurgood Marshall, J. M. Nabrit and W. J. Durham,
Attorneys for Relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, by
(S.) W. J. Durham.

This is to certify that I have this day mailed a true and
correct copy of this petition to the Honorable Price Daniels,

414

Attorney General of Texas and the Attorney for Respond
ents, whose address is Austin, Texas.

Dated this the 7th day of May, 1947.
Thurgood Marshall, J. M. Nabrit and W. J. Durham

by (S.) W. J. Durham.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[ f o l . 6 6 8 ] I n t h e 1 2 6 t h D i s t b ic t C o u e t o f T b a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

[Title omitted]

R e s p o n d e n t s ’ F i e s t A m e n d e d O e i g i n a l A n s w e e —Filed
May 1,1947

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Come Now, Theophilus Shickel Painter, Charles Tilford

McCormick, Edward Jackson Mathews, Dudley K. Wood
ward, Jr., E. E. Kirkpatrick, W. Scott Schreiner, C. 0. Ter
rell, Edward B. Tucker, David M. Warren, William E. Dar
den, Mrs. Margaret Batts Tobin, and James W. Rockwell,
Respondents in the above entitled and numbered cause and
file this their first amended original answer to Relator’s
complaint. Heretofore, an answer was filed by the Re
spondents, an interlocutory order was entered after the
first hearing hereof on June 17, 1946, and in a second hear
ing on December 17, 1946, judgment was entered denying
the writ of mandamus sought by Relator. The answer,
order and judgment were related to and based upon the
provisions of and actions under Senate Bill No. 228, Acts
49th Legislature, 1945, c. 308, p. 506. To said judgment
[fol. 669] Relator duly excepted and perfected an appeal
of this cause to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third
Supreme Judicial District of Texas. Subsequent to said
judgment and during the pendency of said appeal the 50th
Legislature, Regular Session, enacted Senate Bill No. 140,
Acts 1947, repealing the above cited Senate Bill No. 228*
thereby changing the law and facts pertinent to the issues
herein. Thereupon the Respondents (as Appellees) moved
the Court of Civil Appeals to remand this cause without deci
sion and without prejudice in order that it might be consid
ered under the newly enacted legislation and the new facts

415

and material resulting therefrom. To this the Relator (as
Appellant) agreed and said judgment of December 17, 1946,
was set aside and the cause was remanded to this Court
without prejudice to either party by mandate dated March
27, 1946. Respondents now, therefore, with leave of the
Court, file this their First Amended Original Answer in lieu
of their Original Answer, and would respectfully show to
the Court:

I
Respondents deny each and all of the allegations contained

in Relator’s Original Petition, and demand strict proof of
the same, and of this they put themselves upon the country.

II
For further answer herein, the Respondents would re

spectfully show to the Court:
1. The Constitution and laws of the State of Texas require

equal protection of the law and equal educational opportuni-
[fol. 670] ties for all qualified persons but provide for sepa
rate educational institutions for White and Negro students.
The Respondents therefore deny that their refusal to admit
Relator was arbitrarily or illegal or in violation of the
Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas,
since equal opportunities were provided for Relator in
another State supported law school as hereinafter shown.

2. At the time the Relator made application for admis
sion to the Law School of the University of Texas, and at
the time of the institution of this suit, there was in effect a
law providing for the establishment of a course in law for
the colored youths of Texas by the Board of Directors of the
Agricultural and Mechanical College at the Prairie View
University at Prairie View, Texas, said law being Senate
Bill 228, Acts of the 49th Legislature, 1945. Said Prairie
View University was originally established in the year 1876
as an industrial and mechanical college for the colored
youths of Texas, and since that date had been enlarged in
scope to include other subjects as need therefor arose. Pur
suant to the provisions of the cited Senate Bill No. 228, the
Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical
College established at Houston, Texas, a law school as a
branch of Prairie View University, and arranged for in
structors, courses, library, and other facilities so as to offer

416

to negro citizens law courses substantially equivalent to
those offered at the University of Texas. Such school was
open for registration and instruction on February 1, 1947.
Relator had notice of such law school and arrangements, but
failed and refused to avail himself of the courses in law
[fol. 671] then offered, and failed to present himself or
communicate in any way with any of the officials for the
purpose of being registered and securing the legal training
allegedly desired by him.

3. On or about March 3, 1947, the 50th Legislature of
Texas enacted Senate Bill No. 140, ch. 29, p. 36, Acts 1947,
providing for the establishment of a university of the first
class for the negroes of Texas, to be organized in two divi
sions ; the first to be styled ‘ ‘ The Texas State University
for Negroes,” to be located at Houston, Texas, and the
second to be styled “ The Prairie View Agricultural and
Mechanical College of Texas,” located at Prairie View,
Texas. Section 11 of said bill authorized and required the
Respondents herein to establish immediately a separate
school of law for negroes at Austin, Texas, to be known
as The School of Law of the Texas State University for
Negroes, and therein to provide instruction in law equiva
lent to the instruction being offered in law at the University
of Texas. The Board of Regents of the University of Texas
(Respondents herein) were constituted the governing board
of such law school until its transfer to the control of the
Texas State University for Negroes, and there was appro
priated an adequate sum in the amount of $100,000.00 to be
expended by the Respondents in the establishment and oper
ation of said law school.

4. Pursuant to said Senate Bill No. 140, Acts 50th Legis
lature, 1947, and particularly Section 11 thereof, the Re
spondents immediately established a separate law school
for negroes in Austin, Texas, in a suitable building at
104 East 13th Street, adjoining the grounds of the State
Capitol building and between the Capitol and the campus
[fol. 672] of the University of Texas. An adequate text and
reference library was installed, and the Texas State Li
brary, including the library of the Supreme Court of Texas,
located in the State Capitol directly opposite the newly
created school was made available for students of said insti
tution. For permanent use, approximately 10,000 carefully
selected law books were ordered, which, together with

417

those already in the school, are sufficient to satisfy the
standards of the American Bar Association and the Ameri
can Association of Law Schools. Courses of instruction
were set up identical with those offered in the University
of Texas School of Law, and the identical professors of the
University of Texas were assigned to instruct said courses.
The Dean of the University of Texas School of Law and the
Registrar were assigned to serve in the same capacities for
the new school, so that with the same courses and the same
faculty, the School of Law of the Texas State University
for Negroes offers education in law equal to that offered
by the University of Texas. The requirements for admis
sion, fees, class work, length of semesters, standards of
work, and other related features are the same as those of
the School of Law of the University of Texas, the same pro
visions and catalog being adopted for the new school. No
tice of all the foregoing was circulated by the Respondents
in a bulletin and in the public press. The law school for
negroes was opened for registration and instruction on
March 10, 1947, when the school and all persons connected
therewith were and still are ready, willing and able to give
equal instruction and opportunities to students in law and
procedures.

5. On or about March 3, 1947, the Relator was personally
notified by letter of the establishment of said school, of
[fol. 673] its immediate availability to him, of the nature
of the school, that he was eligible for admission, and that his
application for legal training was accepted by said school,
but the Relator, as of the date hereof, has not presented
himself nor communicated in any way with any of the per
sons in charge of said school. Relator did not make reply
to the official notice from the Registrar as requested in such
notice.

6. By reason of the foregoing there is now available, and
there was available to the Relator on March 10, 1947, legal
training and courses in law equivalent to those in the School
of Law of the University of Texas, and the Relator could
have commenced the study of law to the same extent and
on an equal level of scholarship and intensity as in the
School of Law of the University of Texas, all of which Rela
tor declined to do. The Respondents, therefore, specifically
deny the allegation that the School of Law of the University
of Texas is the only State law school that the Relator

418

is qualified to attend, and further deny the allegation that
there is no other law school maintained by public funds
where the Relator can study law and procedures to the same
extent and on an equal level as in the School of Law of
the University of Texas.

Wherefore, premises considered, Respondents pray that
the writ of mandamus sought herein be denied, and that
the Respondents go hence with their costs without day.

(S.) Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas. (S.)
Jackson Littleton, Assistant Attorney General,
[fol. 674] (S.) Joe Greenhill, Assistant Attorney
General.

Copies of the foregoing First Amended Original Answer
of the Respondents have been mailed to W. J. Durham,
Attorney for the Relator, whose address is P. 0. Box 641,
2419 San Jacinto Street, Dallas, Texas.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[ f o l . 6 7 5 ] I n the 126th D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

[Title omitted]

R e s p o n d e n t s ’ F i r s t S u p p l e m e n t a l A n s w e r —Filed May 12,
1947

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Come now, Theophilus Shickel Painter, Charles Tilford

I
1. Respondents specifically except to the allegation of

Relator contained in Section III, 2 of the Relator’s second

419

supplemental petition wherein it is alleged that the Re
spondents have denied to Relator “ and other qualified negro
[fol. 676] students” educational facilities equal to those af
forded white students with similar qualifications, because
this suit was brought by Relator as an individual, and
Relator did not assume to act as a representative of other
negroes, and said allegation is therefore improperly in
cluded, and is prejudicial in a suit involving solely the in
dividual rights of the Relator, and Respondents say that
said allegation, if true, (which is not admitted but denied)
should have no bearing on the Relator’s individual rights.

Wherefore, Respondents pray that the Court sustain this
exception, and that the Relator be required to omit or
strike the allegation as to other negroes, and the policy
of the Respondents toward them.

2. Respondents specifically except to allegation III, 3,
of the Relator’s Second Supplemental Petition wherein it
is alleged as follows: ‘ ‘ The quantity and quality of educa
tion offered at Prairie View is not and never has been equal
to that offered at any of the other state universities and
colleges in Texas in physical plant, facilities, curriculum,
faculty, library accreditation, available funds or any of
the other recognized standards of comparison of colleges
and secondary schools.” and Respondents say that said
allegation is not germane to the issues of this cause, is
general, vague and indefinite, and is prejudicial to the
Respondents in a determination of the issues drawn by the
pleadings, and Respondents say that said allegation, if true,
(which is not admitted but denied) should have no bearing
in the determination of this suit involving solely the individ
ual rights of the Relator.

Wherefore, Respondents pray that the Court sustain this
[fol. 677] exception, and that the Relator he required to
omit or strike said allegation from said second supplemental
petition.

Further answering the Second Supplemental Petition of
the Relator, the Respondents herein would respectfully
show:

1. Respondents specifically deny the allegation contained
in Paragraph III, 2, of the Relator’s Second Supplemental
Petition wherein it is alleged that it has been the policy,

420

custom and usage of the Eespondents to require separation
of the white and negro students, and have denied to Eelator
and other qualified negro students educational facilities
equal to those offered to white students, and Eespondents
say that the Eespondents denial of admission to the Law
School of the University of Texas to Eelator does not con
stitute a policy or custom, and further say that the Eelator’s
application for admission to the University of Texas Law
School is the first such application ever to have been made,
and that the Eespondents have not denied to ‘ ‘ other qualified
negro students” admission to the Law School of the Uni
versity of Texas, since no such negro students have applied
for admission thereto.

2. Eespondents specifically deny those allegations con
tained in Paragraph III, 2 and 4, of Eelator’s Second
Supplemental Petition, wherein it is alleged that the Ee
spondents denial to the Eelator admission to the Law
School of the University of Texas, violated the 14th Amend
ment of the Constitution of the United States, and Eespond
ents show that such amendment does not require that educa
tional facilities he provided for white and negro students
in the same school; that when a demand by a negro student
[fol. 678] for a particular cou-se or facility is made for the
first time, the State has the constitutional right to provide
within a reasonable time separate courses or facilities, and
Eespondents further show, as previously alleged, that sepa
rate courses and facilities have been provided for Eelator,
and that such provision does not constitute any violation
of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States.

Wherefore, Eespondents pray that the writ of mandamus
sought herein be denied, and that Eespondents go hence with
their costs without day.

(S.) Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas; Jack-
son Littleton, Assistant Attorney General; Joe E.
Greenhill, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys
for Eespondents.

[Pile endorsement omitted.]

421

[ f o l . 6 7 9 ] I n t h e 1 2 6 t h D i s t r ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

[Title omitted]

R e l a t o r ’ s T h i r d S u p p l e m e n t a l P e t i t i o n — Filed May 12,
1 9 4 7

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Come, now, Heman Mafion Sweatt, Relator herein and

with leave of the court first obtained files this his third
supplemental petition and for such supplemental petition
herein alleges;

I
Relator specially excepts to the following portions of

allegation 2 section 2 of respondent’s first supplemental
answer which reads as follows: “ that separate courses and
facilities have been provided for relator,” for the reason
that said allegation or said statement in said allegation
read and considered in connection with all other alleged
matters of fact set out therein does not inform relator as
to the courses alleged to have been provided and it does
not inform the relator what facilities were provided if any
and it does not inform this relator when and where said
courses and facilities are alleged to have been provided
and this relator cannot determine from said allegation
and from any other portion of said supplemental answer
[fol. 680] what said alleged courses were, and what said
alleged facilities were, where said alleged facilities and
courses were provided and when said alleged courses and
facilities were provided and this relator is unable to deter
mine from said allegation wliat evidence will be required
to meet said vague and indefinite allegation and of this
special exception relator prays that respondents be re
quired to plead specifically the alleged courses provided
and the alleged facilities provided and the time and place
where said alleged facilities and courses were provided if
any.

Comes now, the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, herein,
without waiving any of his foregoing special exceptions but
still insisting upon the same and denies each and every

422

allegation contained in respondents first supplemental
amended original answer and demands proof of same.

And specially pleading herein, relator respectfully shows:
that the respondents have pleaded the statutes and laws of
Texas; and have alleged that these statutes and laws re
quire separation of white and negro students; and re
spondents have further alleged that these statutes and laws
require educational facilities for negroes equal to those
provided for whites. In so far as respondents rely on
these statutes and laws as a basis for a denial of relator’s
application for admission to the University of Texas School
of Law, these statutes and laws and this action of re
spondents are the policy, custom and usage of respondents.

And further specially pleading herein relator respect
fully shows that, he was compelled to go out of the State
of Texas, to-wit, in 1937, to the University of Michigan
[fol. 681] for the purpose of doing graduate study in

Medical Bacteriology and Imm-nology, and Preventative
Medicine which are offered to white students at the Uni
versity of Texas but which were not offered at Prairie View
University, the only school of higher learning for negroes
in Texas, supported by public funds.

And relator further alleges that Prairie View University
did not in 1937 offer equal educational facilities to him which
were available to whites at that time at the University
of Texas and other state supported schools in Texas, nor,
does it now offer equal educational facilities to him which
are now available to whites at the University of Texas and
other state supported schools for whites in Texas.

Wherefore, relator prays for the same relief contained
in his prayer in his original petition and he prays for such
other relief special and general in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.

W. J. Durham, Attorney for Relator, Heman Marion
Sweatt. ______

[ f o l . 6 8 2 ] I n t h e 1 2 6 t h D i s t r ic t C o u r t , T r a v is C o u n t y ,
T exas

[Title omitted]

S u g g e s t io n — W a n t o f P a r t i e s — Filed June 17, 1946
Come now the respondents in the above styled and num

bered cause, and make known to the court that this court

423

can not proceed to trial and final judgment in this case
for the want of an indispensable party—that is to say, the
State of Texas as a respondent in this case, in that the
suit while nominally against the respondents herein is
in substance and legal effect a suit against the State of
Texas for this: That the Board of Regents of the University
of Texas constitutes and is a governmental agency of the
State of Texas, the property of every character and de
scription, and every incidental right therein, while legally
vested in the Board or Regents, nevertheless is in law
the property of the State of Texas, and any relief whatever
that might possibly be granted to relator herein against
the respondents now before the court would in reality in
essence and in law be against the State of Texas, with
respect to a governmental function by it, and as such can
not be lawfully rendered by this court in the absence of
the State of Texas, not now a party, and no permission
to relator to institute and maintain this suit against the
State has been given in any manner whatsoever.
[fol. 683] In this connection the respondents would show
that the matter here suggested is not a defense that could
in any event be waived by these respondents, or by the
Attorney General representing them, and no intention of
these respondents, nor of the Attorney General representing
them, has been evidenced, nor could be evidenced by failure
to plead the matter of want of parties here set forth in the
formal pleadings, it being sufficient that such matter be
called to the court’s attention.

Respondents respectfully submit that this cause should,
therefore, be dismissed and stricken from the docket of this
court, in support of which they call the court’s attention
to the following authorities:

League v. DeYoung, 2 Tex. 497 ;
San Antonion Independent School District v. State

Board of Education, 108 S. W. (2) 445;
McKamey v. Aiken, 118 S. W. (2) 482;
Railroad Commission v. Dyer, 144 S. W. (2) 375;
Texas Prison Board v. Cabeen, 159 S. W. (2) 523;
Bryan v. Texas State Board of Education, 163 S. W.

(2) 837;
Walsh v. University of Texas, 169 S. W. (2) 993;
Sherman v. Cage, 279 S. W. 508;
27— 725

424

State Banking Board v. Winters State Bank, 13 S. W.
(2) 391;

Parr v. Dunlap, 26 S. W. (2) 1082;
State Highway Com. v. Tengg, 57 S. W. (2) 929;
Mosheim v. Rollins, 79 S. W. (2) 672;
Watson v. Dodge (Ark.) 63 S. W. (2) 393;
California Securities Co. v. State (Cal.) 295 Pac. 583;
[fol. 684] Ramsey v. Hamilton (Ga.) 182 S. E. 392;
Wetz v. Potter (Okla.) 28 P. (2) 562;
State v. John’s (Wash.) 15 P. (2) 693;
Sullivan v. Board of Regents (Wis.) 244 N. W. 242.
Am. Jur., Vol. 45 ss. 92-94.
Respectfully submitted. Grover Sellers, Attorney

General of Texas, by (S.) Carlos Ashley, First
Assistant Attorney General, by (S.) W. V. Gep-
pert, by (S.) Jackson Littleton, Assistant Attorneys
General, Attorneys for Respondents.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[ f o l . 6 8 5 ] 1 st t h e 1 2 6 t h D i s t e ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

[Title omitted]

J u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t — Filed June 26, 1946
On this the 17th day of June, 1946, came on for hearing

the petition of the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, for Writ
of Mandamus against the Respondents, Tlieophilus Shickel
Painter, et al., and all parties appeared in person and by and
through their attorneys of record and announced ready for
said hearing, and all matters of fact as well as of law were
submitted to the Court sitting without a jury, and the Court,
having heard the pleadings, evidence and argument of
counsel, finds as a fact that the relator is a citizen of Texas
and of the United States and is above nineteen (19) years
of age, and is scholastically qualified to enter the first year
law class in the Law School of the University of Texas;
that the respondents are administrative agents of the State
of Texas; that the respondents are the duly appointed and
legal administrative officers of the State of Texas and have
[fol. 686] authority to admit qualified applicants to the

425

Law School of the University of Texas; that relator made
his application for admission to the Law School of the
University of Texas on the 26th day of February, 1946,
and that at the time, he made his application he was scho
lastically qualified for admission to the first year law class
of the University of Texas; that on the 15th day of March,
1946, relator’s application was denied solely on account of
his race and color.

(1) That under the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America and of the State of Texas, the relator,
being colored, is entitled to educational advantages and
privileges equal to those offered to the white people of the
State of Texas.

(2) That the Constitution and laws of the State of
Texas provide for the segregation of the white and colored
races in educational institutions maintained by the State
of Texas; and that such laws are valid and subsisting and
must be sustained by this Court unless they clearly and un
mistakably deny to the relator his rights under the Con
stitutions of the United States and of the State of Texas.

(3) The Court further finds that the State of Texas,
through its administrative agents and the Legislature of
Texas, have provided for courses in law and facilities for
teaching the same at the University of Texas for persons of
the white or Caucasian race, and that no provision has been
made for the courses of law and the .facilities for teaching
the same substantially equivalent to those offered at the
University of Texas for persons of African descent and of
Negro blood; that an act of the 49th Legislature, being
[fol. 687] Senate Bill 228, Chapter 308, page 506, places a
mandatory duty upon the officers or agency named therein
to provide university courses in law for the relator sub
stantially equivalent to those provided at the University of
Texas; and that the constitutional rights of the relator
will be amply preserved if such a course in law is established
within the State of Texas and made available to relator
within a reasonable time from the date hereof.

The Court further finds that the denial of relator’s ap
plication by respondents was a denial to the relator’s equal
protection of laws for the reason that no provision has been
made for courses in law and facilities for teaching the same

426

for persons of African descent and of Negro blood at any
school within the State of Tesas supported by public funds
while the courses of law and the facilities for teaching the
same have been afforded to persons of the white or Cauca
sian race.

It is therefore ordered that no writ of mandamus issue
at this time and that if within six months from the date
hereof a course for legal instruction substantially equivalent
to that offered at the University of Texas is established and
made available to the relator within the State of Texas in
an educational institution supported by said State, the writ
of mandamus sought herein will be denied, but if such a
course of legal instruction is not so established and made
available, the writ of mandamus will issue; and it is further
ordered that this court retains jurisdiction of this cause;
and that this cause be continued upon the docket of this
court from term to term; and that at the expiration of said
six months’ period, towit, on the 17th day of December,
1946, at 10 o ’clock a.m., a hearing will be held to determine
the then existing facts and whether said Law School has
[fol. 688] or has not been established; whereupon the Court
will enter its final order herein.

This order made and entered on this the 26th day of
June, 1946.

(S.) Roy C. Archer, Judge, 126th Judicial District
Court of Travis County, Texas.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[fol. 689] I n t h e 126th D i s t b ic t C ottbt o f T b a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

[Title omitted]

M o t io n S h o w i n g A v a i l a b i l i t y o f L a w S c h o o l a n d R e q u e s t
i n g D e n i a l o f W r i t o f M a n d a m u s —Filed December 17,
1946

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Come now Theophilus Shickel Painter, Charles Tilford

McCormick, Edward Jackson Mathews, Dudley K. Wood
ward, Jr., Orville Bullington, E. E. Kirkpatrick, W. H.
Scherer, W. Scott Schreiner, D. M. Strickland, C. O. Terrell,
Edward B. Tucker, and David M. Warren, Respondents in
the above entitled and numbered cause, acting herein by

427

and through Grover Sellers, the duly elected and qualified
Attorney General of the State of Texas, and without waiv
ing any pleas or exceptions heretofore filed but still insist
ing on same, respectfully show to the Court as follows:

I
That heretofore on the 17th day of June, 1946, this cause

came on to be heard by this Honorable Court, and the Court
[fol. 690] after hearing the evidence and the argument of
counsel was of the opinion that if within a period of six
months from the date of said hearing the law courses or
legal training alleged to be desired by the Relator were
made available to the Relator in an institution supported
by the State of Texas, the writ of mandamus sought herein
should be denied; that it was so ordered and decreed by
the Court, and this cause was continued upon the docket of
the Court from term to term, and a hearing on this 17th
day of December, A. D., 1946, was set.

II
That it was found by the Court that Senate Bill 228, ch.

308, p. 506, Acts of the 49th Legislature, 1945, placed a
mandatory duty upon an agency of the State of Texas to
provide a law course substantially equivalent to that offered
at the University of Texas; and that said act places such
duty upon the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and
Mechanical College of Texas directing that these courses
will be provided by said Board at the Prairie View Uni
versity. n i

That in compliance with the Court’s order and decree,
aforesaid, and in compliance with said Senate Bill 228,
above cited, the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and
Mechanical College of Texas have made available to the
Relator, and other applicants for first year courses in law,
the legal training alleged to be desired and have provided
therefor by a resolution adopted at a meeting properly
called and held on the 27th day of November, 1946, a copy
[fol. 691] of which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit
“ A ” and by reference made a part hereof for all purposes.

IV
That the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and

Mechanical College, acting within its legal authority so to

428

do, has included in the foregoing resolution the requirement
that the Relator or other applicants for legal training offer
themselves to the Registrar at the Prairie View University
and present a suitable transcript and a certificate from the
Dean of the Law School of the University of Texas that
they are scholastically prepared for a course of law equival
ent to that given at the University of Texas; and Respond
ents show that Relator by acting in good faith in the
premises and presenting said transcript and certificate may
now obtain at a State supported institution the legal train
ing alleged to be desired by him beginning with the next
regular term of the Prairie View University in February,
1947.

V
That there is a presumption in law that the said Board

of Directors having adopted the resolution above mentioned
will properly provide for the legal training of the Relator;
and further that in the original hearing of this cause, it
was stipulated that ample funds were available to provide
for said legal training and law courses.

VI
That Relator’s action herein was primarily based upon

there being no other law course or legal training available to
[fol. 692] the Relator at the time this suit was instituted
and that by reason of the foregoing action by the Board
of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College,
the basis of Relator’s action has ceased to exist and that
Relator can now by acting in good faith as aforesaid obtain
the legal training alleged to be desired at the next term of
the said State supported institution, Prairie View Uni
versity; and Respondents further show that this Court by
issuing a writ of mandamus could not cause the legal train
ing to be offered to Relator at an earlier date than February,
1947, without arbitrarily disregarding the school terms
maintained at State supported institutions.

VII
That by reason of the resolution aforesaid and Senate

Bill 228 above cited, the legal duty to provide law courses
or legal training alleged by Relator to be desired and rest
ing with the Board of Directors of the Agricultural and

429

Mechanical College has been met; and that said legal duty
does not rest with these Respondents.

Wherefore, premises considered, Respondents pray judg
ment of this Honorable Court that the writ of mandamus
requiring them to admit Relator to the Law School of the
University of Texas, as sought by the Relator herein, be
denied, and that the Respondents go hence with their costs
without day.

(S.) Grover Sellers, Attorney General of Texas;
Jackson Littleton, Assistant Attorney General.

[fol. 693] R e s o l u t io n

Minute Order No. 203-46

Establishment of Law Course for Negro Students
On motion by Mr. Buchanan, seconded by Mr. Reese, and

approved by a majority vote of the Board, the following
resolution is adopted:

Whereas, by Senate Bill No. 228, of the 49th Legisla
ture the name of Prairie View State Normal and Indus
trial College at Prairie View was changed to Prairie
View University; and

Whereas, the act further provides that whenever there
is any demand for same the Board of Directors of the
Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is au
thorized to provide for a course in law at Prairie View
University substantially equivalent to that offered at
the University of Texas; (Other courses not pertinent
to this order were also authorized.) and

Whereas, the Board of Directors of A. and M. College
in cooperation with the University of Texas named a
joint committee to study the obligations of these insti
tutions in connection with Negro education and made
a report to the Governor in connection therewith, said,
(Minute Order No. 124-46), being attached to and made
a part of this order; and

Whereas, the Board of Directors of the A. and M.
[fol. 694] College of Texas strongly reaffirms the posi
tion taken in the recommendations made to the Gov
ernor, particularly that part which urges the establish-

430

ment of a first-class University for Negroes, preferably
at Houston, Texas, under the supervision of the Board
of Regents of the University of Texas; and

Whereas, it has been brought to the attention of the
Board of Directors that at this time there is pending
an application for admission to the University of
Texas by one or more colored youth seeking to enroll
in the School of Law, and this Board has been requested
to make arrangements for these young men to embark
on their legal studies pending final action by the Legisla
ture on the recommendations made or to be made to
its 50th session; and

Whereas, the Board of Directors has by investigation
determined that arrangements may be made for stand
ard courses of first-year law to be given in Houston,
Texas with qualified Negro Lawyers as teachers:

Therefore, be it resolved
1. That if the applicant and/or similar other appli

cants for first-year courses in law offer themselves
to the Registrar at Prairie View University, bringing
with them a suitable transcript and a certificate from
the Dean of the Law School of the University of Texas
that they are scholastically prepared for a course of
law equivalent to that given at the University of Texas,
[fol. 695] they will be admitted to Prairie View Uni
versity for the semester beginning February 1947.

2. The course will be offered in Houston, Texas and
will be substantially the same approved course as is
now offered by the University of Texas School of Law
for entering students, and the qualifications of the per
sonnel to teach the students will be determined by the
State Board of Law Examiners, and they will be judged
acceptable by it before instruction begins.

3. The Board of Directors of A. and M. College,
through Prairie View University, will provide instruc
tion in accordance with the requirements of the
Supreme Court of Texas and the American Bar As
sociation, and will provide or make available to the
students such books or library material as are needed
for the first-year course in which they will be enrolled.
The Governor will be asked for a deficiency appropria
tion to provide the cost of instruction.

431

C e b t i f ic a t e

I, E. L. Angell, certify that the foregoing is an exact copy
of Minute Order No. 203-46 passed at the meeting of the
Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical
College of Texas held at Austin, Texas on November 27,
1946.
[fol. 696] In witness whereof, I have hereunto affixed my
hand and seal of the said institution this 4th day of De
cember, 1946.

(S.) E. L. Angell, Secretary, Board of Directors,
Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas.
(Seal.)

[fol. 697] M i n u t e O r d e r N o . 124-46

Higher Education for Negroes in Texas
On motion by Mr. Newton, seconded by Mr. Peeples, and

approved by a majority vote of the Board, it was ordered
that the following report of a Special Joint Committee of
the A. & M. College of Texas and the Board of Kegents of
The University of Texas on “ Higher Education for Negroes
in Texas” be adopted:

The Board of Directors of The Agricultural and Mechanical
College of Texas

College Station, Texas
The Board of Regents of The University of Texas
Austin, Texas
G e n t l e m e n :

The undersigned special committee, authorized by
your joint meeting held at Fort Worth, Texas, January
13, 1946, to inquire into the respective responsibilities
of The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas
and The University of Texas concerning higher educa
tion for negroes in Texas respectfully recommends that
steps be taken to accomplish the following:

1
Reestablish at Prairie View, Texas the college for

negroes offering instruction in agriculture and the

432

mechanic arts, including engineering, and providing
both undergraduate and graduate instruction in these
fields, as well as certain other vocational courses and
teacher training now being offered at this institution,
[fol. 698] and to conform to the requirements of the
Land-Grant College Act.

For all other instruction, both graduate and under
graduate, establish a first-class university for negroes,
preferably at Houston, Texas, to be supervised by
the Board of Regents of The University of Texas, if
so determined by the Legislature; to the end that all
courses of study offered at The University of Texas
or The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas
will be provided at one of the two institutions.

3
To this end it is our opinion that our two Boards

should petition the Governor of the State to appoint
from its citizenship an outstanding biracial committee
of such number as he may think appropriate for the
purpose of reporting detailed plans for these schools
to the Legislature for its consideration at the earliest
practicable time.

Respectfully submitted, (S.) T. S. Painter, D.
K. Woodward, Jr., Gibb Gilchrist, Chairman.
(S.) T. D. Brooks, Scott Gaines, Henry
Reese III.

[ f o l . 699] C er tifica te

I, E. L. Angell, certify that the foregoing is an exact
copy of Minute No. 124-46 passed at the meeting of the
Board of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical
College of Texas held at Corpus Christi, Texas on July
13, 1946.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto affixed my hand and
seal of the said institution this 4th day of December, 1946.

(S.) E. L. Angell, Secretary, Board of Directors,
Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas.
(Seal.)

[File endorsement omitted.]

433

[fol. 700] I n D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

[Title omitted]
J u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t — Filed December 17,1946

On this the 17th day of December, 1946, came on for hear
ing the Motion of the respondents in the above entitled and
numbered cause pursuant to an order of this Court made
and entered of record herein on the 26th day of June, 1946.
All parties appeared in person or by their attorneys of
record and announced ready for said hearing, and all matters
of fact and law were submitted to the Court sitting without
a jury, and the Court having heard the pleadings, evidence,
and argument of counsel is of the opinion that the said
order of June 26, 1946, has been complied with in that a law
school or legal training substantially equivalent to that
offered at the University of Texas has now been made
available to the Relator and that the Relator may now
obtain legal training within the State of Texas at the
Prairie View University, an institution supported by said
State, by presenting to the proper authorities a suitable
transcript and a certificate from the Dean of the Law School
of the University of Texas that he is scholastically pre
pared for legal training equivalent to that given at the Uni
versity of Texas. And, further, the Court is of the opinion
that provision for legal training for the Relator at said
[fol. 701] Prairie View University does not constitute any
abridgment or denial of his constitutional rights.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the
Writ of Mandamus sought herein be in all things denied
and that the costs hereof be assessed against the Relator.

To which action of the Court the relator in open Court
excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil
Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of the
State of Texas, sitting at Austin, Texas.

And to the action of the Court in overruling the exceptions
of the respondents, the respondents except and in open
Court give notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals
for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas, sitting
at Austin, Texas.

This order made and entered on this the 17th day of
December, A. D. 1946.

Roy C. Archer, Judge, 126th District Court of Travis
County, Texas.

[File endorsement omitted.]

434

[ f o l . 7 0 2 ] I n D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

M a n d a t e o f t h e C o u r t o f C iv i l , A p p e a l s —Filed March 28,
1947

In t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e T h i r d S u p r e m e
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , a t A u s t i n

On Wednesday, March 26, 1947.
Motion #10,363 Cause #9619

H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t

vs.
T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r , e t a l

Appeal from District Court of Travis County
Motion for Substitution of Appellees

This day came on to be heard the motion of the appellees
to strike the names of Orville Bullington, W. H. Scherer
and D. M. Strickland as appellees in this cause and to
substitute therefor William E. Darden, Mrs. Margaret Batts
Tobin and James W. Rockwell. It appearing that the
aforesaid Orville Bullington, W. H. Scherer and D. M.
Strickland have ceased to be regents of the University of
Texas and in their stead the aforesaid William E. Darden,
Mrs. Margaret Batts Tobin and James W. Rockwell have
been appointed and qualified as such regents, It is there
fore ordered that said motion be substituted and that said
substitution be and same is hereby made.

[fol. 703] 9619—H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t

vs.
T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r , e t a l

Appeal from District Court of Travis County
No opinion Rendered.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the

record and the parties, both appellant and appellee ap
peared by their respective attorneys of record and in open
court agreed that the judgment of the trial court in this

435

cause may be set aside and the cause remanded generally
to the trial court for further proceedings without prejudice
to the rights of any party to this cause: It is therefonfcon-
sidered, adjudged and ordered that the trial court’s judg
ment in this cause be and the same is hereby set aside and
the cause is remanded generally to the trial court for
further proceedings without prejudice to the rights of any
party to this suit. It is further Ordered that all costs of
appeal in this cause be and the same are hereby taxed
against the appellees herein in their respective official capa
cities, and that a copy of this Judgment be certified below
for observance.

Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper omitted in print
ing.

[fol. 704] [File endorsement omitted.]

[fol. 705] In the 126th D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y ,

T e x a s

[Title omitted]

R e s p o n d e n t ’ s M o t io n t o W i t h d r a w S t i p u l a t i o n s — Filed
May 12, 1947

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Comes now Theophilus Shickel Painter, et al, Respond

ents in the above styled and numbe-d cause, before any
of the parties hereto have announced ready for trial, on
this the second and new trial of such cause, and would
show the Court the following:

1. That on or about June 17, 1946, the date of the first
trial of this cause, and for the purposes of facilitating the
procedure thereof and saving the Court’s time, a stipulation
of facts was entered into and executed by all parties hereto.
Such stipulation began “ it is admitted by Relator and
Respondent that the following facts are true and admitted
in evidence upon th e t r ia l of this cause” (emphasis added.)
That the stipulations were entered into for the purposes of
th a t trial, with the facts as they were understood to be as
of that time.

436

2. That subsequent to that trial, the facts and conditions
have materially changed, so that the former stipulations
[fol. 706] do not now reflect the true facts.

3. Specifically, the matter contained in the follow- num
bered paragraphs is no longer accurate :

Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22
Among other material changes causing the above sec

tions to be erroneous are those brought about by the last
enactment of S. B. 140, 50th Leg., 1947. This Act repealed
S. B. 228, Acts 49th Leg. (1945), which was effective when
the above stipulations were executed. Further, the per
sonnel of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas
has changed, rendering stipulations as to the identity thereof
erroneous.

All of these inaccuracies are material and are detrimental
and prejudicial to the rights of Respondents.

4. Further, paragraphs 7 and 15, though entered into in
good faith by all parties, have subsequent-y been found to
contain statements which are incorrect and inaccurate.

The inaccuracies of section 7 and 15 are material, and
are detrimental and prejudicial to the rights of the State.

5. The remainder of the stipulations formerly entered
into, left standing above, and without the new facts which
have subsequently come into being, leave such an erroneous
and insomplete recital of the facts, as to render such stipula
tion useless and fa-lacious.

6. In the interest of shortening the record of this cause,
and to conserve the Court’s time, Respondents stand ready
and willing to enter into and execute new stipulations. Re
spondents have been willing and desirous of entering into
new stipulations since the reversal of this cause by the
[fol. 707] Court of Civil Appeals. Relator’s counsel has
been appraised of such willingness. By letter, such counsel
has indicated a willingness to stipulate anew; and on March
26, 1947, reiterated such willingness to stipulate as soon as
amended pleadings were filed. However, no stipulations
have been offered by Relator, and none have executed.
Respondents have prepared a set of stipulations which they
now offer to Relator in good faith.

437

Wherefor, it is respectfully prayed that the former stipu
lations of June 17, 1946, be in all things withdrawn; that
they be not admitted in evidence; and that they form no
part of the record in this cause.

(S.) Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas.
[File endorsement omitted.]

[fol. 7 0 8 ] l x D i s t b ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

[Title omitted]

O r d e r E x t e n d i n g M a r c h T e r m o f C o u r t — June 14, 1947
On this the 14th day of June, A. D. 1947, it appearing to

the Court that he is in the midst of the trial of the above
numbered and entitled cause and that the date for adjourn
ment of the March Term, A. D. 1947, of the 126th Judicial
District of Texas at Austin, Texas, has arrived and that
there is insufficient time left during said term of said Court
in which to complete the said pending trial of said cause,
the Court deems it necessary and advisable that an exten
sion of said term of said Court be granted in order that
the Court may be able to complete the said pending trial
of said cause;

It is therefore Ordered by the Court that this March
Term, A. D. 1947, of the 126th Judicial District of Texas
at Austin, Texas, be, and the same is, hereby extended solely
for the purpose of terminating the trial of the above num
bered and entitled cause until and including the 1st day of
July, A. D. 1947, at which time, if found necessary, a further
extension of said term of said Court for this cause may be
had.

Entered this the 14th day of June, A. D. 1947.
Roy C. Archer, Judge, 126th Judicial District Court,

Travis County, Texas.

[fol. 709] In D i s t r ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

74,945 H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t

vs.
T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l , P a i n t e r , e t a l

J u d g m e n t — Piled June 17, 1947
On the 12th day of May, 1947, came on for hearing the

petition of the Relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, for Writ
of Mandamus against the following officials of the University
of Texas: Theophilus Shickel Painter, President; Charles
Tilford McCormick, Dean of the School of Law; Edward
Jackson Mathews, Registrar; and Dudley K. Woodward,
Jr., E. E. Kirkpatrick, W. Scott Schreiner, C. 0. Terrell,
Edward B. Tucker, David M. Warren, William E. Darden,
Mrs. Margaret Batts Tobin, and James W. Rockwell,
Regents; who are the Respondents; and all parties ap
peared in person and by their attorneys of record and an
nounced ready for said hearing, and all matters of fact as
well as of law were submitted to the Court, without a jury,
after the Court heard and passed upon the special excep
tions of the parties as hereinafter set out.

And the Court, having heard the pleadings, evidence, and
argument of counsel, finds as follows:

That this petition came on for hearing originally on the
17th day of June, 1946, and on the 26th day of June, 1946,
an interlocutory order was entered finding that Relator, a
[fol. 710] negro citizen seeking entrance to the School of
Law of the University of Texas, was duly qualified, and
under the Constitutions of the United States and the State
of Texas, he was entitled to educational advantages and
opportunities equal to those furnished by the State to white
citizens; that the Constitution and laws of Texas provide
for separate schools for the white and negro races, and
that such laws were valid and did not abridge or deny Re
lator’s constitutional rights so long as equal facilities were
furnished Relator in a separate school; that a valid law,
Senate Bill 228, Chapter 308, page 506, Acts of the 49th
Legislature, 1945, placed a mandatory duty upon Prairie
View University to establish a law school for negroes sub
stantially equal to that of the University of Texas, and that
establishment of such courses in law within a reasonable
time would preserve the rights of Relator; and it was

438

439

thereupon ordered by this Court on June 26, 1946, that if
within six months a course of legal instruction substantially
equal to that offered at the University of Texas was estab
lished and made available to Relator in a State educational
institution, the Writ of Mandamus would be denied; but if
such a course was not so established and made available,
the Writ of Mandamus would issue. Whereupon this Court
retained jurisdiction and continued the cause until De
cember 17, 1946.

Pursuant to the interlocutory order of June 26, 1946,
the further hearing was held on December 17, 1946, and
this Court, after having heard the pleadings, the evidence
and the argument of counsel, was of the opinion that said
order had been complied with, and that legal training sub
stantially equivalent to that offered at the University of
Texas had been made available to the Relator by establish
ment of the Prairie View University Law School in Houston,
[fol. 711] Texas. Thereupon, the Writ of Mandamus sought
herein was denied, and judgment was accordingly entered,
from which judgment the Relator perfected his appeal to
the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial
District of Texas, in Austin, Texas.

During the pendency of said appeal, the 50th Legislature
of the State of Texas convened in Regular Session and en
acted Senate Bill 140, Acts 1947, Chapter 29, page 36,
creating a new first class University, The Texas State Uni
versity for Negroes, and appropriated the sum of $3,000,-
000.00 therefor. In Section 11 of said Act it was provided
that Respondents herein would immediately provide for a
new and separate school of law at Austin, Texas, to be
known as the School of Law of the Texas State University
for Negroes, and appropriated the sum of $100,000.00 for
the establishment and maintenance thereof. By reason of
this change in the law, and upon a showing by the Respond
ents that said new School of Law had been established, the
parties hereto agreed before the Court o f Civil Appeals,
March 26, 1047, that this cause should be remanded for
further proceedings, and the Court of Civil Appeals ae-
eordingiy issned if* tnandqfg re m a n d i n g - ri lUT
to this Court for further proceedings, without prejudice
to either party.

M d aeemBegljr, upon A m refeearnag, bjmmg Jbeard A t
preacrnga. erodesuee art arguments, tr t Court of tue

25—725

440

opinion and finds from the evidence that during the appeal
of this cause and before the present hearing, the Respond
ents herein, pursuant to the provisions of Senate Bill 140,
Acts of the 50th Legislature, 1947, have established the
School of Law of the Texas State University for Negroes
[fol. 712] in Austin, Texas, with substantially equal facili
ties and with the same entrance, classroom study, and
graduation requirements, and the same courses and the
same instructors as the School of Law of The University
of Texas; that such new law school offered to Relator privi
leges, advantages, and opportunities for the study of law
substantially equivalent to those offered by the State to
white students at the University of Texas; that Relator,
although duly notified that he was eligible and would be
admitted to said law school March 10, 1947, declined to
register; that from his own testimony, Relator would not
register in a separate law school no matter how equal it
might be and not even if the separate school affords him
identical advantages and opportunities for the study of law
equal to those furnished by the State to the white students
of the Law School of the University of Texas; and the con
stitutional right of the State to provide equal educational
opportunities in separate schools being well established
and long recognized by the highest State and Federal
Courts, and the facts in this case showing that Relator
would be afforded equal if not better opportunities for the
study of law in such separate school, the petition for Writ
of Mandamus should be denied.

It is, therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed:
1. That the exceptions of the Relator to the First Amended

Original Answer of the Respondents, as well as the excep
tions o f the Relator contained in his Third Supplemental
Petition be, and the same are hereby overruled, to which
order the Relator in open court duly excepted and gave
notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third
Supreme Judicial District of Texas, at Austin, Texas.
[fol. 713] 2. That the exceptions of the Respondents to the
allegations of the Relator contained in Section III, 3, of
Relator’s Second Supplemental Petition relating to the
quantity and quality of education offered at universities
and colleges maintained by the State of Texas generally,
bo stricken from said pleading as being immaterial and
irrelevant to the issues of whether a suitable law school

441

maintained by the State is available to the Relator, and
that the evidence introduced by the Relator herein over
objection of Respondents, concerning the facilities provided
by other State universities and colleges (specifically that
of the witness, Dr. Charles H. Thompson), be stricken from
the record as beyom/ the scope of the pleadings and the
issues, and immaterial and irrelevant thereto, to which the
Relator in open court duly excepted, and gave notice of
appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme
Judicial District of Texas, at Austin, Texas.

It is further Ordered that other exceptions presented by
the Respondents herein to the Second and Third Supple
mental Petition of the Relator be, and the same are hereby
overruled.

3. That the Writ of Mandamus sought herein by the
Relator be, and the same is hereby in all things denied, and
that the costs hereof be assessed against the Relator, to
which judgment the Relator in open court duly excepted,
and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for
the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas, at Austin,
Texas.

Entered of record on this the 17th day of June, 1947.
Roy C. Archer, Judge 126th Judicial District, Travis

County, Texas.

[fol. 714] Approved as to form, Thurgood Marshall and
W. J. Durham, Attys. for Relator. Approved as to form,
Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas, By Joe R. Green-
hill, Executive Assistant.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[fols. 715-717] Bond on appeal for $1,000.00 approved and
filed June 17, 1947, omitted in printing.

[foL 718] I s Bistkict Corner of Thaws Cousty
[Title omitted]

Ozm&or t:-:z Cotzr C<MroF.&«//>'0 ? .at.
June 17, 1947

Ok i h flbe 17 day of Jtme, 1947, mme tobe 'keauB&llm
mfAlo&oi T H P a .'lHr. et to tfee w * f n c

442

the record. And it appearing to the Court that counsel for
relator and respondents are agreed that such stipulations
should form no part of the record on this appeal, such
stipulations not having been offered in evidence by either
party on this trial, and it appearing to the Court that such
stipulations should not form a part of the record on this
appeal,

It is therefore Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that
such stipulations form no part of the record in this case,
and that they be not included in the transcript of this
appeal.

Eoy C. Archer, Presiding Judge.
[File endorsement omitted.]

[fol. 719] In D istr ict C ourt of T ravis C o u n t y
[Title omitted]

O rder C lo sin g M a r ch T er m of C ourt—Filed July 1, 1947
On this the 1st day of July, 1947, it appearing to the

Court that heretofore, to-wit on the 14th day of June, 1947,
this Court was in the midst of the trial of the above num
bered and entitled cause, and that the time for the expira
tion of the March Term, A. D. 1947, of the 126th Judicial
District Court of Travis County, Texas, had arrived and
that the Court deemed it advisable and necessary, in order
to complete the said pending trial of said cause, that said
term of said Court should be extended, made and entered
its order granting an extension of said term of said Court
for the said purpose only;

And it now appearing to the Court that a final judgment
has been entered in said cause; that all motions, if any, to
perfect an appeal, if desired, have been duly filed, acted
upon and appropriate orders entered thereon;

The Minutes entered in said cause, having been examined
in open Court, and the same being found correct, are hereby
approved.

And this Court will now stand finally adjourned.
[fol. 720] Witness my hand at Austin, Texas, this the 1st
day of July, 1947.

Roy C. Archer, Judge, 126th Judicial District Court,
Travis County, Texas.

[File endorsement omitted.]

443

[ f o l . 721] I n t h e 1 2 6 t h D i s t r ic t C o u r t o e T r a v is C o u n t y ,
T e x a s

[Title omitted]

R e l a t o r ’ s M o t io n Re O r ig in a l E x h i b i t s — Filed Julv 8,
1947

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:
Comes now the relator and respectfully shows to the

Court:
I

That the relator’s exhibits from one (1-8) to eight should
be sent up to the Appellate Court with the record in this
case in the original form for the reason that said exhibits
can not be reproduced and placed in such form as to in
telligently advise the Appellate Court of the contents
thereof. That respondents’ exhibits 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
14,15 and 16 and exhibits from A to J should he sent up with
the record in this case in their original form for the said
reason as hereinbefore set out in connection with relator’s
exhibits from two (2-8) to eight.
[fol. 722] Wherefore, Relator prays that the original ex
hibits hereinbefore described in this motion be sent up in
their original form as a part of the record in this case.

W. J. Durham, Attorney for Relator, Heman Mafion
Sweatt.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[ f o l . 7 2 3 ] In D i s t r ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

[Title omitted]

O r d e r D i r e c t i n g C l e r k t o S e n d O r i g i n a l E x h i b i t s t o
C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s —Filed July 8, 1947

On this the 8th day of July, 1947, relator’s motion to
send relator’s original exhibits two (2-8) to 8 and respond
ents’ exhibits 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and A to J,
inclusive in the original form came on for hearing, and the
Court is of the opinion that said motion should be granted.

It is therefore the order of this Court that relator’s

444

exhibits two (2-8) to eight, inclusive and respondents’
exhibits 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and A to J, inclusive,
he sent to the Court of Civil Appeals in the original form
and as a part of the record in this case, and the Clerk of this
Court is directed to send said exhibits in their original
form to the Court of Civil Appeals, 3rd Supreme Judicial
District of Texas as a part of the record in this case.

[fol. 724] Roy C. Archer, Judge of the 126th Dis
trict Court.

[fol. 7 2 5 ] I n D i s t r ic t C o u r t o f T r a v is C o u n t y

[Title omitted]

Order A mending J udgment—July 8, 1947

On this the 7th day of July, 1947, came on for considera
tion a suggestion to the Court by Attorneys of record
as to the recitation of the dates of the hearing in the
Judgment of the Court heretofore entered in this cause, and
it appearing to the Court that the suggestion was well made,
and that the days during which the hearing was held should
have been recited, and that the attorneys for both parties
have agreed thereto.

It is, therefore, Ordered, and Decreed that the Judgment
of the Court heretofore entered in this cause be supple
mented to cure said omission and to show that all matters of
fact as well as of law in said hearing were submitted to
the Court without a jury on the 12th day of May, 1947, as
recited in said Judgment, and from day to day thereafter
until the 18th day of May, 1947, when both parties rested
and the Court pronounced his judgment as heretofore
entered.

Entered of Record on this the 8th day of July, 1947.
Roy C. Archer, Judge 126th Judicial District, Travis

County, Texas.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[foL 726] [Bill of Costs omitted in printing.]

445

[fol. 727] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript
omitted in printing.

[fol. 728] In C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e T h i r d S u p r e m e
J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s

No. 9684

H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t , Appellant,

vs.

T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r e t a l ., Appellees

Appeal from 126th District Court, Travis County

O p i n i o n — Filed February 25, 1948
February 26, 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a Negro, ap

plied for admission to the School of Law of the University
of Texas as a first year student. Admittedly, be possessed
every essential qualification for admission, except that of
race, upon which ground alone his application was denied,
under Sec. 7 of Art. 7 of the Texas Constitution, which
reads:

“ Separate schools shall be provided for white and
colored children, and impartial provision shall be made
for both.’ ’

May 16, 1946, he filed this suit, as Relator, for a writ of
mandamus, against the President, members of the Board of
Regents, Dean of the School of Law, and Registrar of the
University of Texas, as Respondents, to compel his admis
sion, upon the ground that its denial constituted an infringe
ment of rights guaranteed to him under the equal protection
clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitu
tion. In a trial to the court the sought relief was denied and
Relator has appealed.

At the outset it should be borne in mind that the validity
of state laws which require segregation of races in state
supported schools, as being, on the ground of segregation
alone, a denial of due process, is not now an open question.
The ultimate repository of authority to construe the Federal
Constitution is the Federal Supreme Court. We cite

446

chronologically, in a note below, the unbroken line of deci-
[fol. 729] sions of that tribunal recognizing or upholding
the validity of such segregation as against such attack.1

The gist of these decisions is embodied in the following
excerpts from the opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson (Mr. Justice
Brown 2 writing):

“ The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to
enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the
law, but in the nature of things it could not have been
intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or
to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equal
ity, or a commingling of the two races upon terms un-

1 (1878) Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. Ed. 547;
(1896) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138,

41 L. Ed. 256;
(1899) Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U. S.

528, 20 S. Ct., 197, 44 L. Ed. 262;
(1914) McCabe v . A T & S F E Co., 235 U. S. 151, 35 S. Ct.

69, 59 L. Ed. 169;
(1927) Gong Lum v. Rice, 275IJ. S. 78, 48 S. Ct. 91, 72 L. Ed.

172 •
(1938) Missouri v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 59 S. Ct. 232, 83

L. Ed. 208;
(1948) Sipuel v. Oklahoma, — IJ. S. —, — S. Ct. •— 92 L.

Ed. 256;
A like uniformity is to be found in decisions of other

Federal and State Courts. Their citation is not of impor
tance here.

2 Mr. Justice Henry Billings Brown was born in Lee,
Massachusetts, March 2, 1836. His academic education was
at Yale, and among his fellow students were Chauncey M.
Depew and his later associates on the Supreme bench, Mr.
Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Shiras. His education in
law was obtained at Yale and Harvard. In 1859 he moved
to Michigan, where he practiced law until 1861. He then
served as Deputy U. S. Marshal and Assistant District
Attorney until 1868, when he became Judge of the Wayne
County Circuit Court. In 1875 he was appointed U. S.
District Judge by President Grant, and in 1890 Associate
Justice of the H. S. Supreme Court by President Benjamin
Harrison.

447

satisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even re
quiring their separation in places where they are liable
to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the
inferiority of either race to the other, and have been
generally, if not universally, recognized as within the
competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of
their police power. The most common instance of this
is connected with the establishment of separate schools
for white and colored children, which have been held
to he a valid exercise of the legislative power even by
courts of states where the political rights of the colored
race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.

* * * * # # #

“ The distinction between laws interfering with the
political equality of the negro and those requiring the
separation of the two races in schools, theaters, and
railway carriages, has been frequently drawn by the
courts.”

[fol. 730] This holding had the express approval of Mr.
Justice Harlan in the Cumming case, of Mr. Justice Taft
in the Gong Lum case, and of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in
the Canada case. Its approval is implicit in the latest
enunciation of that court on the subject (January 12, 1948)
in the Sipuel case.

Relator’s brief asserts:

“ The record in the instant case for the first time
presents testimony and documentary evidence clearly
establishing that:

“ (1) There is no rational basis for racial classifica
tion for school purposes.

“ (2) Public schools, ‘ separate but equal’ in theory
are in fact and in practical administration consist
ently unequal and discriminatory.

“ (3) It is impossible to have the equality required
by the Fourteenth Amendment in a public school
system which relegates citizens of a disadvantaged
racial minority group to separate schools.”

448

And further:
“ The doctrine of racially ‘ separate but equal’ public

facilities is merely a constitutional hypothesis which
has no application where racial segregation is shown
to be inconsistent with equality.”

“ Although separate school laws have been enforced
by several states, an examination of the cases in the
United States Supreme Court and lower courts will
demonstrate that these statutes have never been se
riously challenged nor their validity examined and tested
upon a record adequately presenting the critical and
decisive issues such as are presented by the record in
this case:

“ (1) Whether there is a rational basis for racial
classification for school purposes.

“ (2) Whether public schools, ‘ separate but equal’
in theory are in fact and practical administration
consistently unequal and discriminatory.

“ (3) Whether it is possible to have the equality
required by the Fourteenth Amendment in a public
school system which relegates citizens of a disadvant
aged racial minority group to separate schools.”

Implicit in these quotations is the assertion that race
segregation in public schools, at least in the higher and pro-
f fol. 731] fessional fields, inherently is discriminatory within
the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, and cannot be
made otherwise.

This assertion in effect impeaches the soundness of the
various decisions of the Federal Supreme Court which hold
to the contrary, as being predicated upon a purely abstract
and theoretical hypothesis, wholly unrelated to reality. To
so hold would convict the great jurists who rendered those
decisions of being so far removed from the actualities in
volved in the race problems of our American life as to render
them incapable of evaluating the known facts of contem
poraneous and precedent history as they relate to those
problems.

It is of course of the very essence of the validity of seg
regation laws that they provide for each segregated group

449

or class facilities and opportunities the equivalent, or (as
often stated) substantial equivalent of those provided for
the other group or class. Our constitution (quoted above)
so provides. The brief asserts that there can be no “ sub
stantial equality,” the two words being in themselves in
compatible. This is of course true in pure, as distinguished
from applied, mathematics. “ Equality” like all abstract
nouns must be defined and construed according to the con
text or setting in which it is employed. Pure mathematics
deals with abstract relations, predicated upon units of
value which it defines or assumes as equal. Its equations
are therefore exact. But in this sense there are no equa
tions in nature; at least not demonstrably so. Equations
in nature are manifestly only approximations (working
hypotheses); their accuracy depending upon a proper evalu
ation of their units or standards of value as applied to the
subject matter involved and the objectives in view. It is
in this sense that the decisions upholding the power of
segregation in public schools as not violative of the four
teenth amendment, employ the expressions “ equal” and
“ substantially equal” and as synonymous. The framers
of the Texas constitution of 1876 recognized the necessity
[fol. 732] (both inherent and under the 14th amendment) of
“ equal protection” in the must (shall) requirement (Art.
7, Sec. 7) of “ impartial provision” for “ both” races. The
question, and we think the controlling one, which this appeal
presents is whether under the record showing in this case
the State at the time of the trial had provided and made
available to Relator a course of instruction in law as a
first year student, the equivalent or substantial equivalent
in its advantages to him of that which the State was then
providing in the University of Texas Law School. We are
not dealing here with abstractions but with realities.

In the latter portion of Relator’s brief the following prop
osition is asserted:

“ The expert testimony introduced at the trial estab
lishes that there is no rational justification for segrega
tion in professional education and that substantial
discrimination is a necessary consequence of any separa
tion of professional students on the basis of color.”

The supporting evidence deals generally with the subject
of race segregation in professional and other schools from

450

biological and other viewpoints, giving conclusions of scien
tists, educators and other experts in the several fields, and
data compiled and conclusions reached in reports of surveys,
etc. In so far as this evidence is directed against the policy
of segregation the subject dealt with is outside the judicial
function. The people of Texas, through their constitutional
and legislative enactments, have determined that policy,
the factual bases of which are not subjects of judicial review.
See Watts v. Mann, 187 SW 2d 917, error ref.; 11 Am. Jur.,
§§ 142-144, pp. 82, et seq. The only appropriate judicial
inquiry here is whether the facilities furnished and made
available by the State to Relator as an applicant for a first
year law course meet the test of due process under the
fourteenth amendment.

Nor are we concerned here with whether the State has dis
charged its obligations under that amendment in other
segregated fields or branches of education.
[fol. 733] For these reasons we hold that the tidal court
correctly excluded: 1) Relator’s pleadings as to what hap
pened at Prairie View in 1937 (Relator’s first point) ; 2)
evidence of Dr. Thompson regarding facilities at other state
institutions and colleges (Relator’s second point); and 3)
evidence of Donald Murray regarding what happened at
the University of Maryland in 1929-32 (Relator’s third
point).

The record shows that this cause ivas called for trial June
17, 1946, and after a hearing the court passed an interlocu
tory order, which, after reciting the (below) 1945 Act,
provided that, if by December 17, 1946, ‘ ‘ a course for legal
instruction substantially equivalent to that offered at the
University of Texas is established and made available to
the relator within the State of Texas in an educational in
stitution supported by the State, the writ of mandamus
sought herein will be denied, but if such a course of legal
instruction is not so established and made available, the
writ of mandamus will issue.” The cause was ordered held
on the docket until December 17, 1946, on which date final
judgment Avas entered denying the writ, upon a showing
by Respondents that the A & M (Texas Agricultural and
Mechanical College) Board had provided for a first year
laAV school at Houston to open with the February 1947
semester, as a branch of Prairie VieAV University. This
judgment was set aside by this court March 26, 1947, and

451

the cause remanded generally, without prejudice to the rights
of either party, upon agreement of counsel in open court.
Thereafter (May 17-June 17, 1947) the cause was again
tried, the judgment denying the writ, upon the specific
finding by the court that in compliance with the Act of
1947 (noted below) the Respondents:

“ * * * pave established the School of Law of the Texas
State University for Negroes in Austin, Texas, with
substantially equal facilities and with the same entrance,
classroom study, and graduation requirements, and with
[fob 734] the same courses and the same instructors as
the School of Law of The University of Texas; that
such new law school offered to Relator privileges, ad
vantages, and opportunities for the study of law sub
stantially equivalent to those offered by the State to
white students at the University of Texas; that Relator,
although duly notified that he was eligible and would
be admitted to said law school March 10, 1947, declined
to register; that from his own testimony, Relator would
not register in a separate law school no matter how
equal it might be and not even if the separate school
affords him identical advantages and opportunities for
the study of law equal to those furnished by the State
to the white students of the Law School of the Uni
versity of Texas; and the constitutional right of the
State to provide equal educational opportunities in
separate schools being well established and long recog
nized by the highest State and Federal Courts, and the
facts in this case showing that Relator would be afforded
equal if not better opportunities for the study of law
in such separate school, the petition for Writ of Manda
mus should be denied.”

The sufficiency of the evidence to support these findings
and conclusions to the extent that the stated facilities pro
vided by the State meet the requirements of due process,
constitutes the controlling question in the case; upon which
issue the record shows: Relator’s application was the first
ever made by a Negro for admission to the University of
Texas Law School. It also appears to have been the first
application of any Negro for admission to any other depart
ment or school of the University of Texas. The Prairie
View Normal and Industrial School for Negroes was estab

452

lished in the 1870’s, and was operated under the governing
board of the A. & M. Neither Prairie View nor any other
state supported school for Negroes offered any courses in
law. The name of Prairie View was changed by the Act
of June 1, 1945, to Prairie View University; and it was
provided:

“ Whenever there is any demand for same, the Board
of Directors of the Agricultural and Mechanical College,
in addition to the courses of study now authorized for
said institution, is authorized to provide for the estab
lishment of courses in law, medicine, engineering,
pharmacy, journalism, or any other generally recog
nized college course taught at the University of Texas,
in said Prairie View University, which courses shall
be substantially equivalent to those offered at the Uni
versity of Texas.” (Acts 49th Leg., Ch. 308, p. 506.)

The Act of 1947 (S.B. 40, Ch. 29, Acts 50th Leg.) was
passed and became effective March 3, 1947. It provided
(inter alia) for the establishment of “ The Texas State
[fol. 735] University for Negroes” to be located at Houston,
with a governing board of nine “ to consist of both white and
negro citizens of this State,” and appropriated $2,000,000 for
land, buildings and equipment, and $500,000 per annum for
maintenance for the biennium ending August 31, 1949. And
that:

“ The Texas State University for Negroes shall offer
all other courses of higher learning, including, but
without limitation, (other than as to those professional
courses designated for The Prairie View Agricultural
and Mechanical College), arts and sciences, literature,
law, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, journalism, educa
tion, and other professional courses, all of which shall
be equivalent to those offered at the University of
Texas. Upon demand being made by any qualified
applicant for any present or future course of instruc
tion offered at the University of Texas, or its branches,
such courses shall be established or added to the curric
ulum of the appropriate division of the schools hereby
established in order that the separate universities for
Negroes shall at all times offer equal educational op
portunities and training as that available to other per
sons of this state.”

453

And further:
‘ ‘ Sec. 11. In the interim between the effective date of

this Act and the organization, establishment and opera
tion of the Texas State University for Negroes at
Houston, upon demand heretofore or hereafter made
by any qualified applicant for instruction in law at
the University of Texas, the Board of Regents of the
University of Texas is authorized and required to forth
with organize and establish a separate school of law at
Austin for negroes to be known as the ‘ School of Law
of the Texas State University for Negroes’ and therein
provide instruction in law equivalent to the same in
struction being offered in law at the University of
Texas. The Board of Regents of the University of
Texas shall act as the governing board of such sepa
rate law school until such time as it is transferred to
the control of the Board of Directors of the Texas State
University for Negroes.”

For this latter purpose $100,000 was appropriated.
Pursuant to this Act the school for first year Negro law

students was established at Austin. Relator was notified
amply in advance of its opening on March 10, 1947, but did
not and has not attended. A resume of the evidence show
ing the facilities, opportunities and advantages afforded by
this school and a comparison thereof with those afforded by
the University of Texas School of Law is set forth in an
appendix to this opinion, copied in the main from Respond-
[fol. 736] ents’ brief, and approved and adopted by us as a
fair statement of the evidence in this respect.

The evidence shows, on the part of the State of Texas,
an enormous outlay both in funds and in carefully and con
scientiously planned and executed endeavor, in a sincere and
earnest bona fide effort to afford every reasonable and
adequate facility and opportunity guaranteed to Relator
under the fourteenth amendment, within the State’s settled
policy (constitutional and statutory) of race segregation in
its public schools. We hold that the State has effectually
accomplished that objective.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. James W. McClendon, Chief Justice.

[File endorsement omitted]

454

[ f o l . 737] A p p e n d i x

Breaking the elements of the School of Law into com
ponent parts, the following evidence was deduced.

Entrance, Examination, Graduation, and Similar Require
ments

The requirements for admission and fees, and regulations
relating to classification of students, classwork, examina
tions, grades and credits, standards of work required, and
degrees rewarded are exactly the same as those published in
the latest published catalogue of The University of Texas
and used at such institution.

The Faculty

The instructors at the School of Law of the Texas
State University for Negroes were and are the very same
professors which had taught or were teaching the same
courses at The University of Texas Law School. They were
the same instructors Sweatt would have had if he had
been enrolled in The University of Texas. The instructions
from the Board of Regents were to use all of the faculty of
the University Law School, so far as necessary, in order to
maintain a full curriculum at the Negro Law School until
four more full-time professors could be employed for the
Negro Law School. The budget provided for four pro
fessors at $6,000 per year—the same pay base for profes
sors at The University of Texas. Each of the instructors
devotes all of his time to teaching—each a full-time profes
sor. None are engaged in the private law practice. With
the small enrollment at the Negro Law School, the instruc
tors would be more available to the students for consultation
than they would be to students at The University of Texas
with its large class of 150 to 175 students. The Dean and
Registrar of the two law schools were respectively the same
persons.

Curriculum

The curriculum at the Negro Law School and at The
University was exactly the same; it was the same as that
adopted in the latest University of Texas School of Law
Bulletin. The courses offered beginning students at the
Negro Law School were identical with those offered begin-

455

ning students at the University: Contracts, Torts, and Legal
Bibliography. These courses, with the same professors,
are set out in Respondent’s Exhibit 7.

Classroom
The classroom requirements were identical. With much

smaller classes, the Negro Law School would provide the
student with the opportunity to personally participate in
classroom recitations and discussions. In an average law
class at The University of Texas Law School, an average
student would be called upon to recite only an average of
1% times a semester. In a smaller class the students would
receive better experience and education; they would be
called on more frequently, would be more “ on their toes” .
The students would come to class better prepared because
their chances of being called upon are much greater;
there would be a greater pressure to keep up their daily
work. Dean McCormick testified that “ in the Negro Law
[fol. 738] School he (Sweat!) would have gotten a good deal
more personal attention from the faculty than he would
have had he been in the large entering class in The Uni
versity of Texas.”

Library
At the time of trial, there were on hand in the School

of Law of the Texas State University for Negroes books
customarily used by the first-year class of the University,
and other books which Miss Helen Hargrave, Librarian of
the University Law School, thought would be useful. There
were about 200 of these books. There were also available
for transfer to the Negro Law School between 500 and 600
books from the University, plus gifts of between 900 and
950 books. In addition, the entire library of the Supreme
Court of Texas was specifically made available to the Negro
Law School by Section 11 of H. B. 240, Acts 50th Legis
lature. The Supreme Court Library is located in the State
Capitol Building on the second floor. The Capitol grounds
are some 20 feet from the Negro Law School, and the en
trance is only about 300 feet from that School.

The Supreme Court Library contains approximately
42,000 volumes, which number is far in excess of the
7,500-book minimum requirement of the American Bar
Association. Excluding duplicates, The University of

29— 725

456

Texas Law Library contains 30,000 to 35,000 books. Count
ing duplicates, it contains around 65,000. These books
serve 850 law students of The University of Texas.

In some respects the Supreme Court Library is stronger
than that of the University. Being a Governmental De
pository, the Supreme Court Library automatically receives
many reports, such as those of administrative bodies. It is
the strongest library in the South on State Session Laws. It
contains Attorney General’s Opinions, Tax Board Opinions,
Workmen’s Compensation Reports, and other items not
carried by the University. The Supreme Court Library is
more spacious for a student body of ten students than are
the facilities at The University of Texas Law School
Library, which are exceedingly crowded. There is no more
confusion, and in most instances, less confusion in the Su
preme Court Library than at the Law Library at the Uni
versity because of the large number of persons using the
latter.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court Library does not
have as many textbooks, legal periodicals, or English re
ports as the University Law Library. The Court’s Library
contains the Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Texas Law
Reviews, and the American Bar Association Journal. It has
the English Reports up to 1932. The Law Library of The
University of Texas and that of the Supreme Court are
substantially equal except for the texts, legal periodicals,
and English Reports.

However, all of such texts, legal periodicals, and English
Reports, not available in the Supreme Court Library, are
readily available to the Negro Law School on a loan basis
from the Law Library of The University of Texas.

In addition to the books in the Negro Law School and in
the Supreme Court Library, and those available on a loan
basis from the Law Library of The University of Texas,
a complete law library is being procured, consisting of some
[fol. 739] 10,000 law books, some of which are already
available. The rest have been placed for order through
the Board of Control for the School of Law of the Texas
State University for Negroes. The list of the 10,008 books
which will constitute the Negro Law School Library is set out
in Respondent’s Exhibit No. 8. Of such number 1,261 are
immediately available, and 8,727 books were already req
uisitioned. Bids had already been requested on the 8,727

457

books requisitioned, and 23 bids were received. Orders
have already been placed for 5,702 of the books, all deliver
able within ten to sixty days. Wherever new books were
available, they were ordered; second-hand books were only
ordered where new ones were not available. The library
requisitioned included 20 Law Reviews, Indices of legal
periodicals, Citators, Digests, Restatements, textbooks,
statutes, the complete West Publishing Company Report
er System, etc. The undisputed evidence is that the books
ordered for the Negro Law School are sufficient to meet the
requirements of the American Association of Law Schools.

The Physical Facilities

Whereas The University of Texas Law School has 3
classrooms for 850 students, the School of Law of the
Texas State University of Negroes has two classrooms, plus
a reading room, toilet facilities, and an entrance hall, for
a much smaller student body. The two law schools possess
approximately the same facilities for light and ventilation,
(“ There are ample windows and lights.” ) though most law
schools, including The University of Texas, need artificial
light in the daytime. The Negro Law School, assuming a
class of 10 students, has a greater floor space per student.

The location of the Negro Law School is particularly
good. It is directly north of the State Capitol, separated
only by a 20-foot street. It is within 100 yards of the
Supreme Court of Texas, the Court of Civil Appeals, the
Attorney General’s Office, and the Legislature. It is between
the business district of Austin and The University of Texas
—8 blocks south of the University, and hence 8 blocks nearer
the business district.

The building housing the Negro Law School is a three-
story building of brick construction. The first floor was
occupied by the School at the time of trial, but the upper
two stories of the building were available as needed.
Before March 10, 1947, the premises were cleaned up and
painted. The building has ample space to house the 10,000
volume library and leave sufficient space for classrooms and
reading room.

Hon. D. A. Simmons, President of the Texas Bar Asso
ciation 1937-38; President of the American Judicature So-

30— 725

458

ciety 1940-1942; and President of the American Bar Asso
ciation 1944-1945, testified:

“ In my opinion, the facilities, the course of study, with
the same professors, would afford an opportunity for a
legal education equal or substantially equal to that
given the students at The University of Texas Law
School.”

Hon. D. K. Woodward, Jr., Chairman of the Board of
Regents of The University of Texas, testified:

[fol. 740] “ What we set up there was a plant fully ade
quate to give the very best legal instruction for the
only man of the Negro race who had ever applied for
instruction in law at the University in about 63 years
of the life of the School.”

“ I am talking as a man familiar with what it takes to
provide a thorough training in law in the State of
Texas, and I stated the facts within my own personal
knowledge, that the facilities which the Board of Re
gents of the University set up in accordance with
Senate Bill 140 are such as to provide the Relator
in this case the opportunity for the study of law un
surpassed any time elsewhere in the State of Texas,
and fully equal to the opportunity and instruction we
are offering at the University any day.”

Hon. Charles T. McCormick, Dean of the University of
Texas Law School and President of the Association of
American Law Schools, 1942, testified that the facilities at
the Law School for Negro citizens furnished to Negro citi
zens an equal opportunity for study in law and procedure;
that considering the respective use by the respective number
of students, the physical facilities offered by the Negro Law
School were substantially equal to those offered at The
University of Texas Law School; and that: “ I would say
* * * the Negro student has at least equal and probably
superior facilities for the study of law. ’ ’

With reference to the membership requirements of the
Association of American Law Schools, it was shown that the

459

Negro Law School, at the time of this trial, met the great
majority of the 9 requirements:

(1) It is a school not operated as a commercial enterprise,
and the compensation of any officer or member of its teach
ing staff is not dependent on the number of students or the
fees received.

(2) It satisfies the entrance requirements, i.e., pre-legal
training, etc.

(3) The school is a “ full-time law school.” The school
work is arranged so that substantially the full working time
of the student is required at the school.

(4) The conferring of its degrees is conditioned upon the
attainment of a grade of scholarship attained by examina
tions.

(5) N o special students are admitted. In this, the
School’s requirement is stronger than that of the Associa
tion, which permits such students under certain con
siderations.

(6) The 10,000 volume library ordered for the School is
sufficient to meet the library requirements. The selection
of the books is such as to conform with the Association’s
requirements. In addition, the Supreme Court Library of
[fol. 741] 40,000 volumes is available plus loan privileges
from the Law Library of the University of Texas.

(7) The seventh requirement is that the “ faculty shall
consist of at least four full-time instructors who devote
substantially all of their time to the work of the school.”
The professors in this case are full-time professors in the
sense that all of their time is devoted to teaching. However,
all of their teaching is not done at the Negro school; they
will also be teaching at the University.

(8) Provision has been made for keeping a complete and
readily accessible individual record of each student.

(9) The requirement reads, “ It shall he a school which
possesses r e a s o n a b ly a d e q u a te f a c i l i t i e s and which is con
ducted in accordance with those standards and practices
generally recognized by member schools as essential to the
maintenance of a sound educational policy.” Dean Me-

460

Cormick testified that in his opinion the Negro Law School
met this requirement.

The testimony was that a two-year period is generally
required before any law school may be admitted to member
ship in the Association of American Law Schools. Dean
McCormick testified that he knew of no reason why the
Negro Law School could not comply with all of those stand
ards within that two-year period—before any entering
student could graduate from the school.

[ f o l . 742] Isr C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e T h i r o S u p r e m e
J u d i c i a l D i s t r ic t o f T e x a s

No. 9684
Motion No. 10,502

Hem a n M a r io n S w e a t t , Appellant,
vs.

T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r e t a l ., Appellees

O p i n i o n o n A p p e l l a n t ’ s M o t io n f o r R e h e a r in g — Piled
March 17, 1948

Point VII in the motion complains that this court “ erred
in ignoring testimony introduced by appellant and merely
adopting appellees’ interpretation of the evidence by at
taching to its opinion, an appendix copied in the main from
appellees’ brief, and based its opinion and judgment on
said appellees ’ brief, without making an independent evalua
tion of the record as to the comparative values of the two
law schools as a basis for its opinion and judgment.”

Implicit in the statement in our opinion that the resume
of evidence set forth in the appendix was “ approved and
adopted by us as a fair statement of the evidence” in the
stated respect, was the assertion (which we now make ex
plicit) that we had made “ an independent evaluation of
the record as to the comparative values of the two law
schools as a basis for its (our) opinion and judgment,”
and that from this “ independent evaluation” we reached
the conclusion and so held that the statement in the appendix
contained a fair resume of the pertinent evidence, which
we approved and adopted as our own.

461

It should always be held in mind that the members of this
court are not the triers of fact. That is the function of the
trial court. This court is one of review only. Where there
is no evidence of sufficient probative value to support a
judgment, we have the power to set it aside and render the
judgment which the trial court should have rendered. We
also have the power (when our jurisdiction in that regard
is properly invoked) to set aside a judgment and order a
[fol. 743] new trial on the facts, where the evidence so
greatly preponderates against the judgment as, in our
opinion, to require that it be set aside in the interest of
justice. Our jurisdiction in this latter regard was not in
voked in this case. See Wisdom v. Smith, — SW 2d —,
17 Sup. Ct. Reporter, 239; Hall Music Co. v. Robertson,
117 Texas 261, 1 SW 2d 857; Phillips v. Anderson, 93 SW
2d 171. However, we have carefully considered the evi
dence from that viewpoint as well as from that of its
sufficiency as a matter of law; and were our jurisdiction in
that regard properly invoked we would be constrained to
hold that its preponderance and overwhelming weight sup
port the trial court’s judgment and the specific fact find
ings therein which are quoted in our original opinion; if in
fact it does not conclusively do so, as a matter of law.

The motion in overruled.
James W. McClendon, Chief Justice.

Overruled.
[Pile endorsement omitted.]

[fol. 744] [Pile endorsement omitted]

I n t h e C o u r t o p C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e T h i r d S u p r e m e

J u d i c ia l D is t r ic t o p T e x a s

[Title omitted]

A p p e l l a n t ’ s M o t io n f o r R e h e a r in g —Filed March 11, 1948

This case was tried without a jury and no assignments
of error were required; and appellant presents his Motion
for Rehearing upon the points presented in this Court on
the original hearing, together with the other errors of the
Court of Civil Appeals in affirming the judgment of the
trial Court.

462

Now comes Heman Marion Sweatt, appellant in the above
entitled cause, and respectfully moves the Court to set aside
the judgment of this Court rendered on the 25th day of
February, 1948 affirming the judgment of the lower court
and to grant a rehearing herein.

[fol. 745] I
The Court of Civil Appeals erred in overruling and not

sustaining appellant’s First Point, reading:
The error of the Court in sustaining appellees’ special

exception to Allegation 3 of appellant’s second supple
mental petition (Paragraph 3, Relator’s Second Supple
mental Petition, TR page — ).

II
The Court of Civil Appeals erred in overruling and not

sustaining appellant’s Second Point, reading:
The error of the Court in excluding the testimony of the

witness, Dr. Charles H. Thompson, with reference to the
quantity and quality of education offered at the universities
and colleges other than Prairie View College, maintained
by the State of Texas. (S. F. beginning with the testimony
on page 380 and ending on page 469, inclusive).

III

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in overruling and not
sustaining appellant’s Third Point, reading:

The error of the trial court in excluding the evidence of
the appellant as to the admission of Donald Murray to the
Law School of the University of Maryland and the results
thereof in a situation analogous to the instant case as shown
in appellant’s hill of exception as fully set out. (S.F.
beginning on page 478 to page 482, inclusive).

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in overruling and not
sustaining appellant’s Fourth Point, reading:

The Court erred in holding that the proposal of the
State to establish a racially segregated law school afforded
the equality required by the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

463

States; and thus justifies the denial of appellant’s petition
for admission to the Law School of the University of Texas.

[fol. 746] V

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the trial
court’s judgment in holding that Article 7, Section 7 of the
Constitution of the State of Texas was not unconstitutional
in that the enforcement thereof against appellant denied to
the appellant, that equality required by the equal protec
tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu
tion of the United States; and thus held that the appellees
had the legal authority under such Article to deny appel
lant’s admission to the Law School of the University of
Texas.

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in failing to hold that
Article 7, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution, and the laws
of Texas enacted pursuant thereto, were based upon no real
distinction or actual difference; and therefore, violated the
appellant’s right under the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States.

VII

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in ignoring testimony
introduced by appellant and merely adopting appellees’
interpretation of the evidence by attaching to its opinion,
an appendix copied in the main from appellees’ brief, and
based its opinion and judgment on said appellees’ brief,
without making an independent evaluation of the record
as to the comparative values of the two law schools as a
basis for its opinion and judgment.

VIII

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the ques
tion of whether segregation in state-supported schools is a
denial of due process is no longer an open question; because,
in doing so, the Court thereby erred in not considering ap
pellant’s contention that the action of appellees denied
appellant the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
[fol. 747] Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.

464

The Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the
appellant was not entitled to the relief sought, and that the
judgment of the court below should be affirmed; and citing
as a basis for said judgment and opinion, the opinions of
the Supreme Court in the cases of Pleasy vs. Ferguson and
Hall vs. DeCuir as the grounds for said judgment and opin
ion, for the reason that said decisions were predicated upon
a purely abstract and theoretical hypothesis, wholly un
related to the realities; and for the further reason that the
record in this case demonstrates, for the first time in any
case presented for decision, the inevitable inequalities in a
segregated school system.

Appellant respectfully prays that this motion be granted;
and that upon final hearing, the judgment heretofore ren
dered be set aside and the judgment of the trial court be
reversed and rendered, with instructions to the appellees
to admit the appellant to the Law School of the University
of Texas.

Appellant represents that the Honorable Price Daniels,
Attorney General of the State of Texas, whose residence is
Austin, Texas, is attorney for appellees.

W. J. Durham, Thurgood Marshall, Attorneys for
Appellant.

Thurgood Marshall, 20 W. 40th Street, New York City 18;
W. J. Durham, 814^ N. Good Street, Dallas 1, Texas.

I do hereby certify that I, W. J. Durham, one of the at
torneys for the appellant, have on this the 10th day of
March, 1948, mailed to the Honorable Price Daniels, At
torney for Appellees, whose address is Office of The Attor
ney General, Austin, Texas, a copy of this Motion for
Rehearing.

W. J. Durham.

465

[fol. 748] In C o u r t or C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e T h i r d
S u p r e m e J u d i c ia l D i s t r ic t o f T e x a s

No. 9684

H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t

v s .

T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r e t a l .

Appeal from 126th District Court of Travis County

Opinion by C h i e f J u s t ic e M c C l e n d o n :

J u d g m e n t — February 25, 1948
This Cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the

record and same being inspected, because it is the opinion
of the court that there is no error in the judgment, It Is
Therefore considered, adjudged and ordered that the judg
ment of the trial court be, and same is hereby in all things
affirmed; that the appellant, Heman Marion Sweatt as
Principal and E. E. Ward and C. E. Jones as sureties on the
cost bond filed herein, pay all costs in this behalf expended,
and that this decision be certified below for observance.

In C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e T h i r d S u p r e m e J u d i c ia l
D i s t r ic t o f T e x a s

O r d e r O v e r r u l in g A p p e l l a n t ’ s M o t io n f o r R e h e a r in g —
March 17, 1948

Appeal from 126 District Court of Travis County, Appel
lant’s Motion for Rehearing. Motion is Submitted and
Overruled

( O p i n i o n b y C h i e f J u s t ic e M c C l e n d o n . )

[fo l. 749] I n S upreme C ourt of T exas

No. A-1695

H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t

vs.

T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r e t a l.

From Travis County, Third District

J u d g m e n t R e f u s i n g A p p l i c a t i o n f o r W r it o f E r r o r —
September 29, 1948

This day came on to be heard the application of peti
tioner for a writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for
the Third District, and the same having been duly con
sidered, it is ordered that the application he refused; that
applicant, Heman Marion Sweatt, and his sureties, E. E.
Ward and C. E. Jones, pay all costs incurred on this appli
cation.

466

Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper omitted in printing.

[fol. 750] [File endorsement omitted]

I n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s

[Title, omitted]

M o t io n f o r R e h e a r i n g o n t h e P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f E r r o r
o n B e h a l f o f H e m a n M a r io n S w e a t t , P e t i t i o n e r , i n
C a u s e #9684 i n t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o r t h e
T h i r d S u p r e m e J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s , W h e r e i n
T h e o p h i l u s S h i c k e l P a i n t e r , e t a l ., A r e R e s p o n d e n t s
Filed October 13, 1948

To the Supreme Court of Texas:
Petition for writ of error herein filed by Petitioner on

April 17, 1948, having been denied by this Court on Sep
tember 29, 1948,

467

Now Comes Heman Marion Sweatt, Petitioner in the
above entitled cause and respectfully moves this court to set
aside the judgment of this court herein rendered on the
29th day of September, 1948, refusing the petition for writ
of error and to grant a rehearing for the following reasons:

I
The Court erred in refusing to grant said petition and

in failing to hold that the v a l id i ty u n d e r th e F e d e r a l C o n
s t i t u t i o n a n d th e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t a n d o f s t a t u t e s
r e q u i r in g s e g r e g a t i o n in E d u c a t io n w h e r e th e c la im is m a d e
th a t th e s e g r e g a t e d fa c i l i t i e s a r e u n eq u a l p r e s e n t s a n o v e l
a n d im p o r ta n t q u e s t io n w h ich sh o u ld b e p a s s e d u p o n b y th e
h ig h e s t c o u r t o f th e S ta te .

The trial of this cause and the exception to the exclusion
of evidence by the trial court present a factual picture in
[fob 751] support of the contention of the petitioner herein
that the segregated educational facilities offered by the
State of Texas are unequal. The question has never before
been raised in this court in connection with the facilities
offered by the State of Texas for graduate education in
the field of law. The determination of the issues in this
case will have a serious consequence for the petitioner and
for all persons similarly situated. In the light of the novel
and serious nature of the issues raised, this court should
grant to the petitioner an opportunity to present argument
and to have a full hearing upon the merits of his contention
that the statutes as applied to him are unconstitutional
and also that the refusal of the trial court to admit evidence
on vital and relevant issues deny to petitioner due process
of law.

The Court erred in refusing said petition for writ of error
for the reason that the p e t i t i o n e r w a s d e n ie d a f a i r h e a r in g
and> d u e p r o c e s s o f la w b y th e r e fu s a l o f th e t r ia l c o u r t , a f
f ir m e d b y th e C o u r t o f C iv i l A p p e a l s t o a d m it t e s t im o n y a n d
e v id e n c e w ith r e f e r e n c e t o th e d i f f e r e n c e in e d u c a t io n a t
w h ite a n d c o l o r e d c o l l e g e s a n d u n iv e r s i t i e s m a in ta in e d b y
t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s .

h i support of his allegation that the segrejraC'.r seatrre-
of Texas were invalid under the Fourteenth TmenCmert
of the United States Constitution, the petitioner sought r.

468

show that in every instance the State of Texas was provid
ing fewer educational opportunities and an educational op
portunity of poorer quality to Negro citizens than were
offered to white citizens. Evidence in support of this con
tention was necessary for a fair determination of- the issue
involved. The refusal of the trial court to admit testimony
of Dr. Charles H. Thompson with reference to the quantity
ffol. 752] and quality of education offered at the universities
and colleges other than Prairie View College maintained
by the State of Texas denied to the petitioner the due process
of law in that it prevented him from presenting competent
and relevant evidence on an issue fundamental to the de
termination of petitioner’s rights.

I l l
The Court erred in not holding that th e p e t i t i o n e r w a s

d e n ie d a f a i r h e a r in g a n d d u e p r o c e s s o f la w b y th e r e fu s a l
o f th e T r ia l C o u r t , a ffirm ed b y t h e C o u r t o f C iv i l A p p e a l s , to
a d m it t e s t im o n y a s to th e r e s u l t s o f u n s e g r e g a t e d e d u c a t io n
in o t h e r s ta t e s .

The validity of laws requiring segregation was said to
be established by the state on the ground that it was neces
sary for the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious rela
tions between the Negro and the white race in Texas. The
statute was alleged to have been enacted under the police
power of the state and to be justified as a necessary measure.

The refusal of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of
Civil Appeals, to admit testimony as to the admission of a
Negro student, Donald Murray, to the Law School of the
University of Maryland, after a law suit challenging the
constitutionality of the segregation statutes of Maryland,
and the court’s refusal to hear any testimony as to the
harmonious and peaceful race relations resulting from the
admission of Negro students to the law school of the Uni
versity of Maryland, denied to petitioner an opportunity to
present relevant testimony in support of his contention that
the constitutionality of the segregation statutes of Texas
could not be supported by resort to the police power of the
State. The exclusion of this evidence of a material fact
necessary for the determination of the constitutionality of a
statute restricting the individual liberty within the state
denied to petitioner the due process of law.

469

[fol. 753] IV
The Court erred in its r e fu s a l to h e a r a r g u m e n t a n d d e t e r

m in e o n th e m e r i t s th e g r a v e q u e s t io n o f in d iv id u a l l ib e r t y
o f F e d e r a l C o n s t i tu t io n a l r ig h t s d e n ie s to 'p e t i t io n e r th e d u e
p r o c e s s o f law .

The question presented by the petition for writ of error
and the issues raised by the petitioner’s contention that the
statutes requiring segregation in education are an infringe
ment upon his personal liberty and a denial of property and
a denial of the equal protection of the laws all in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States are of vital importance to petitioner’s future
education and to the future education of all persons simi
larly situated. In presenting the evidence and testimony
in support of his allegations of unconstitutionality, peti
tioner was hampered by the refusal of the lower court to
admit relevant testimony and was thus denied a fair hear
ing within the meaning of the guarantee of due process of
law and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Further the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals sum
marily rejecting petitioner’s contention that the statute
was unconstitutional upon the theory that the constitution
ality of the segregation statute could be established without
regard to the quality of the facilities provided thereunder
likewise constituted a denial of due process of law.

Unless this Court grant petitioner’s hearing upon the
merits in order to determine whether these grave constitu
tional issues can be decided without determining the equality
of the facilities afforded to the segregated group under the
statutes, petitioner will have been denied a hearing on rele
vant material matters necessary for the determination of
his rights. Failure of the state judicial machinery to pro
vide such a hearing for petitioner on such a vital issue con
stitutes a denial of due process of law.

[fol. 754] V
This Court erred in holding that the proposal of the State

of Texas to establish a racially-segregated law school
afforded the equality required by the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States; and thus, justified the denial of petitioner’s
application for admission to the Law School of the Univer
sity of Texas.

470

VI
This Court erred in refusing petitioner’s writ of applica

tion, thereby affirming the judgment of the Court of Civil
Appeals and the Trial Court and holding that Article VII,
Section 7, of the Constitution of Texas was not unconstitu
tional, in that the enforcement thereof against petitioner
denied to the petitioner that equality required by the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States; and thus, held that Respond
ents had the legal authority, under such Article of the Con
stitution, to deny petitioner admission to the Law School of
the University of Texas.

VII

This Court erred in refusing such petition for writ of
error and approving the judgment of the Trial Court and
the Court of Civil Appeals that Article VII, Section 7 of the
Texas Constitution and the Statutes of Texas enacted pur
suant thereto segregating races solely on account of race
and color, and not based upon any real distinction or actual
difference, did not violate the petitioner’s right under the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.

Wherefore, petitioner respectfully prays that this motion
be granted; that upon hearing, the judgment heretofore
rendered be set aside, and that this cause be reversed and
rendered, and for such other orders as the law requires.

Petitioner represents that the Honorable Price Daniel,
Attorney General of the State of Texas, whose residence is
[fol. 755] Austin, Texas, is attorney for Respondent.

Thurgood Marshall, 20 W. 40th Street, New York,
N. Y .; W. J. Durham, P. 0. Box 641, Dallas 1,
Texas, Attorneys for Petitioner.

I do hereby certify that I, W. J. Durham, one of the attor
neys for Petitioner, have on this the 12th day of October,
1948, mailed to the Honorable Price Daniel, attorney for
Respondents, whose address is Office of the Attorney Gen
eral of Texas, Austin, Texas, a copy of this motion for re
hearing.

W. J. Durham, Attorney for Petitioner.

471

[fol. 755a] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper omitted
in printing.

[fol. 756] In S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s

[Title omitted]

O r d e r O v e r r u l in g M o t io n f o r R e h e a r in g —October 2 7 ,1 9 4 8

Tlie motion for rehearing filed herein by the petitioner
having heretofore been submitted to the Court, and after
due consideration of same, it is ordered that the said motion
be, and is hereby, overruled.

Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper omitted in printing.

[fol. 757] In t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s f o e t h e T h i r d

J u d i c ia l D i s t r ic t o f T e x a s

[Title omitted]

A g r e e m e n t t o S e n d O r ig in a l E x h i b i t s u p t o t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n O r ig in a l F o r m —Filed
Nov. 24, 1948
It is agreed between counsel for appellant and counsel

for appellees that all the original exhibits introduced upon
the trial of this case in the Trial Court by both plaintiff
and defendant shall be sent to the Supreme Court of the
United States in original form with the transcript and
statement of facts which are now on file in the original
form in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme
Judicial District Court of Texas, said exhibits having been
sent to the Court of Civil Appeals in original form by order
of the Trial Court. That said exhibits are to be returned to
the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Judicial District
of Texas after a final disposition has been made of this
case by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 1948.

472

Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas, by Joe R.
Greenhill, Executive Assistant Attorney General;
Attorneys for Appellees: Tbeopbilus Shickel
Painter, Charles Tilford McCormick, Edward
Jackson Mathews; Board of Regents: Dudley K.
Woodward, Jr., E. E. Kirkpatrick, W. Scott
Schreiner, C. 0. Terrell, Edward B. Tucker, David
M. Warren, William E. Darden, Mrs. Margaret
Batts Tobin and James W. Rockwell. Thurgood
ffol. 757-A] Marshall, W. J. Durham; Attorneys
for Appellant Heman Marion Sweatt, P. O. Box
641, Dallas, Texas.

[File endorsement omitted.]

[fol. 758] [Bill of costs omitted in printing.]

[fol. 759] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript omit
ted in printing.

[ f o l . 760 ] S u p r e m e C ourt oe t h e U n it e d S tates

No. , October Term, 1948.

H e m a n M arion S w e a t t , Petitioner,
v

T h e o p h il u s S h ic k e l P a in t e r , e t a l .

O rder E x t e n d in g T im e to F ile P e t it io n eor W r it oe
C ertio rari

Upon consideration of the application of counsel for
petitioner (s),

It Is Ordered that the time for filing petition for writ of
certiorari in the above-entitled cause be, and the same is
hereby, extended to and including March 23d, 1949.

Hugo L. Black, Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States.

Dated this 12th day of January, 1949.

(725)

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Sweatt v. Painter Transcript of Record

Topic

Notable Person

Organization

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in