Sweatt v. Painter Transcript of Record

Public Court Documents
October 4, 1948

Sweatt v. Painter Transcript of Record preview

Date is approximate.

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

Print

442
443
443
444

445
445
460
461 
465
465
466 
466 
466

471

471

472



1

[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



2

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.



3

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.



4

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.



5

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



6

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.



7

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.



8

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.



9

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?



10

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------



11

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.



12

[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?



13

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!



14

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 ?



15

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?



16

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?



17

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



18

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



19

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



20

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------



21

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



22

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



23

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.



24

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.



25

[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.)



26

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



27

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,



28

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



29

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.



30

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.



31

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



32

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



33

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



34

(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!



35

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?



36

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



37

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.



38

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.

39



40

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?



41

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.



42

[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



43

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



44

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?



45

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



46

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.



47

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



48

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?



49

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



50

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.



51

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?



52

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



53

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?



54

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.



55

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



56

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.



57

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



58

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.



59

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



60

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

61



62

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



63

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



64

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.



65

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



66

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



67

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?



68

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.



69

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



70

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?



71

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 ?



72

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?

73



74

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.



75

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.



76

[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.

77



78

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?



79

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



80

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.



81

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



82

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 ?



83

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



84

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.)



85

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.



86

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



87

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



88

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



89

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



90

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.



91

[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.



92

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



93

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.



94

(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



95

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



96

[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?



97

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



98

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,



99

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

1



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.

(c) It shall provide an adequate library available for 
the use of the students.

(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\

&C



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 ?-.

mm

■
m * * ;  * * f f
i | * j # * * M

I ii<-h*hrt»»♦*/
1 i w m :

’«*»*** t

-**'■■*

3
8

5



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

11

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 

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. 
Darden, Mrs. Margaret Batts Tobin, and James W. Rock­
well, Respondents in the above entitled and numbered cause, 
and file this their first supplemental answer, answering the 
Relator’s second supplemental petition filed herein, and 
would respectfully show:

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.

II

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.

II

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.

2

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).

IV

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.

VI

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.

IX

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.

II

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

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top