Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS —Oct. I, 1954—PAGE 9 Mississippi JACKSON, Miss. ISSISSIPPI voters will decide in a special election on Dec. 21 whether to amend the constitution of 1890 so as to authorize the legislature to abolish public schools if all other legal steps to prevent integration of the racially segregated system fail. A special session of the legislature, convened Sept. 7 by Gov. Hugh White for the specific purpose of considering the amendment, voted overwhelm ingly to submit that history-making decision to the electorate. Although submission of the amend ment by the legislature necessitated a two-thirds vote in each branch on three separate days, its ratification requires only a majority vote of the electors. It will be the only question on the ballot. Gov. White and other sponsors of the amendment insist it will be used only as a “last resort.” However, there is nothing in the amendment making it a “standby” proposal. Once ratified, it could be put in force at the will of the legislature. Application of the amendment will require a two-thirds vote of the legislature if the question is state wide abolition of public schools. If the question is merely the authoriza tion to a local school district to abolish its schools, then the legislature can give that consent with a simple ma jority vote. Broad Power Granted Should the amendment be ratified and the issue presented the legisla ture, that lawmaking body would be authorized under it to “appropriate state funds and authorize counties, municipalities and other governmen tal subdivisions and districts to ap propriate funds, including poll tax and 16th section funds, to aid edu- cable children of this state to secure an education.” That is the provision sponsors believe would enable the state to vote funds directly to the children for their attendance in schools of their choice—segregated, integrated or private. To make existing school facilities available to whatever substitute sys tem is set up, the amendment pro vides that the legislature “shall be and is hereby authorized and em powered to enact suitable legislation to dispose of school buildings, land and other school property by lease, sale or otherwise.” Sponsors of the amendment point out that a new section which would be in the constitution if the amend ment is ratified, safeguards the pub lic school system so long as it is segre gated. It provided: would be unfaithful to our solemn trust if we should feel otherwise.” “We will meet this threat without faltering; by our joint efforts we shall unitedly find the solution. We shall not fail our heritage.” Gov. White said “very few were prepared for the blow which so preci pitately fell” on Monday morning, May 17, 1954, when the United States Supreme Court decision banning seg regation was handed down. An unanimous court saw fit to try to destroy every precedent of the past; it ignored the findings of fact of the trial courts; it usurped the legislative func tions of the Congress specifically provided by the 14th amendment itself, and it em braced as the supreme law of the land the unsworn, personal theories of five or six sociologists, the chief of whom was a Swede, Myrdall, who have never lived in the United States, much less in the South. The people of Mississippi were shocked and stunned. There were no overt demon strations, but I know I am correct in say ing that there was universal resolution not to abide by such an unreasonable decision if lawful means could be found by which to avoid it. Logic and Merit Gov. White said “the thinking be hind this amendment is unanswer able, both as to logic and merit.” The United States Supreme Court has deliberately proposed to tell us how we must operate our public schools, although they have not yet spelled out the details. We know it cannot force us to operate schools if we do not desire to do so. There is absolutely no desire to abandon our public schools; there is absolutely no present intention to do so. Let me make it perfectly clear that there likewise is no intention of being unjustifiably forced to mix the races in our schools. Governor White closed his message to the legislature as follows: We have lived through civil war, under the bayonet of the unsympathetic con queror, through economic slavery for white and black alike, and through all manner of troubles; but our spirit, which is our own and which no power on earth can take from us, has remained unbroken. In this we find comfort, inspiration, humility and courage. May we never yield, and may success crown our united efforts is my humble prayer. Opposition was based on absence from the amendment of any provision for its use as a “last resort.” Also it was pointed out that if the state vacates the public education field, the federal government could step in and finance integrated schools. Rep. Joel Blass of Stone county (4,899 whites, 1,363 Negroes) in op posing the amendment said “the real choice is between public and private schools in some counties and between public schools and no schools in others.” He said that without tax sup ported schools, many of the poorer comities would suffer, since they now depend on the richer political sub divisions for equalizing funds. Sen. William Matthews of Magee in Simpson county (14,549 white, 7,267 Negroes), a proponent, said the amendment “may not be a complete answer to our problem, but at least it will delay integration and we are willing to pay almost any price to prevent that.” Sen. W. B. Alexander of Cleveland in Bolivar county (19,868 whites, 42,945 Negroes) touched on the issue which brought about the Supreme Court decision—inequities between the dual system despite the constitu tional provision for “separate but equal.” He voted for the amendment after making this statement on the floor: Everybody who votes for this amend ment has a co-equal responsibility to fi nance a program of adequate schools for the colored citizens of this state. The only way to maintain segregation is to give the colored people equal schools and when we vote for this amendment we are in effect pledging to do that when we meet again. Committee Proposal The amendment was recommended to Gov. White for submission to the special session by a 25-member Legal Educational Advisory Committee created at the 1954 regular legislative session to prepare a plan for the pre servation of segregation, notwith standing the decision of the Supreme Court. Gov. White, leading state of ficials including the attorney general, members of the legislature and out standing state lawyers composed the committee. That committee was set up in anticipation of an adverse Supreme Court decision by the regular session in April this year. Following adoption of the resolu tion submitting the amendment to the voters in the Dec. 21 special election, the legislature voted to continue ex istence of the LEAC. However, a proposal to vote it $100,000 to finance a statewide cam paign to seek voter ratification was rejected by the lawmakers. The op position said the decision should be left with the people without a paid “campaign of propaganda” by the state. The rejected proposal would have authorized the educational advisory group to spend the funds for “pamph lets and literature, paid speakers and in arranging meetings in the 82 coun ties.” Leading the fight against it was Rep. Joe Wroten of Washington county (23,436 white, 46,821 Negroes), the son of a Methodist minister. The house then followed with adoption of its own resolution (HR 6) by Rep. Icey Day of Attala county (15,084 whites, 11,565 Negroes), in which those who voted for the con stitutional amendment agreed “that they and each of them will use such means at his or her command as may be deemed necessary to inform the people of their respective counties of the provisions, purposes and intent of said proposed amendment, and that they will use their best efforts to cause to be held public meetings in the various precinct in their respec tive counties at which said amend ment may be presented and explained to the people.” Concurrent Resolution Then as an assurance to the people that all efforts will be made to con tinue public schools with adequate support if the amendment is ratified, both branches adopted a concurrent resolution (HCR. 13) by House Speaker Walter Sillers of Bolivar county, member of the educational advisory committee and drafter of the amendment submitted by it. The re solution states: It is the sense of the legislature, in event of the adoption by the people and insertion in the constitution of the amendment, that an adequate and pro gressive support and building program shall be enacted so as to provide ample school facilities for the school children of Mississippi. Gov. White has said he will call a special session early next year to vote the necessary funds if the amendment is ratified. He said the session would not otherwise be called because he does not favor voting further funds for schools “under existing laws without the protective features of the constitutional amendment.” A special session is necessary if support funds for common schools to operate in the 1955-56 session are made available. That results from ac tion at the 1954 regular session in voting funds for only the current year pending the then anticipated Supreme Court ruling. The next regular session is not un til January of 1956. ‘Voluntary’ Plan Seen Proponents of the amendment and the plan to vote funds at a special session next year—contingent on the amendment being ratified—feel that with sufficient funds to launch a building program for Negro schools leaders of that race will agree to a “voluntary segregation” plan and continuance of the present dual sys tem. That is their belief despite re fusal of Negro leaders attending a July 30 bi-racial conference called by Gov. White to agree to any plan that would circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling. Some of the Negro leaders attend ing that meeting have since said publicly that with their system equal ized in all phases—opportunities, salaries, transportation and facilities —“90 per cent of the problem will be solved.” Another piece of “segregation sup- Regardless of any provisions of Article ® (providing for tax-supported separate but equal schools for the races) or any other provisions of this constitution to (he contrary, the legislature may author ize the establishment, suport, main tenance and operation of public schools. Under that section, supporters of the amendment believe that as a school system is authorized and suc cessfully attacked, then another can he authorized to delay integration through lengthy legal contests. White Issues Challenge When Gov. White officially pres ented the proposal to the special ses sion in a message to a joint meeting of the house and senate on Sept. 7, he challenged the membership to resist integrated public schools “with the same legal right the National Asso ciation for the Advancement of Col- ^ >eo Pl e exercised in contesting e unanimous court decisions of over o half century upholding segrega tion.” i , ^ant to say here that there is no ention to "defy” the Supreme Court. rich?* 6 sim P'y exercising the same legal gnt to resist this most unfortunate deci- W that the NAACP exercised in con- ln g the unanimous court decisions of ov ®f a half century. • y,; e - v resisted these sound decisions; we au now resist this one by every legal Weans at our command. Asserting that “we now have a cr ^ s which we did not seek but which we alone can solve,” Gov. hite told the lawmakers that “for Wy part, and I know you concur in the eeung, the solution is worth the ef- °rt, regardless of difficulties, and we ‘Citizens Councils’ Are Established JACKSON, Miss. ^Organization of “Citizens Councils” in Mississippi’s 82 counties, com posed of “reliable white male citizens dedicated to upholding racial segre gation,” was revealed in a speech on the floor of the Mississippi House of Representatives in the current spe cial session, Sept. 7-30. The disclosure was by Mrs. Wilma Sledge, representative from Sunflow er County, after newspaper reports of the existence of the councils. She explained her statement was due to the fact that newspapers revealed that the first council was organized at Indianola on July 11, 1954, in the county she represents in the legisla ture. Mrs. Sledge said the councils “are a widespread group of local organi zations composed of reliable white male citizens who believe that segre gation is not discrimination and are organized for the sole purpose of maintaining segregation of the races.” “These councils will maintain seg regation through unity of purpose, consolidation of public opinion, and utilization of all legal means avail able,” she explained. “They do not and will not advocate violence in any form.” The Delta representative said “the existence and purpose of each coun cil is non-secretive; however, there are some operations of the councils which for obvious reasons cannot be publicized. Such operations will be legal.” A form letter of invitation for membership states that the members are “freedom-loving Americans who believe in separation of the races with liberty for both.” “We plan to organize and unite all local patriotic white citizens to direct and support our local and state offi cials,” the prospectus states. Each council will have four major committees. The committees and their functions are, according to a mimeographed form sent prospective members, as follows: 1. Political and Elections Committee. It will screen all candidates in local and state elections against those who might be seeking the Negro vote. If necessary, organize a white private election within the group to combat the Negro bloc vote. Discourage Negro registration by every legal means. 2. Information and Education Commit tee. Gather information pertaining to segregation from all over the nation. Seek facts to present to the people. Educate all citizens, black and white, to the advan tages of segregation and the dangers of integration. 3. Membership and Finance Committee. Seeks white patriotic voters for member ship. “We must mobilize public opinion." Annual dues, $5.00. 4. Legal Advisory Committee. Antici pates moves by agitators and devises legal means for handling any problem that may arise. Provides legal council for all members. Recommends application of economic pressure to trouble makers. An explanation of the Citizens Councils, as made by Mrs. Sledge stated: Each council accepts the responsibility of preventing integration of the races within its immediate territory. Should a consolidation of councils be necessary for concerted action, a centralized control could be established within a matter of hours. These organizations have as yet no constitution and by-laws; no top-level governing body, and no elected official spokesman. Council leadership is composed of the most prominent, well-educated and con servative business men in each commun ity. These leaders are reliable men who have been selected because of their stability and good judgment. All members are carefully screened by the membership committee. All segregation problems confronting the respective councils are thoroughly studied by appropriate committees, and any actions recommended have the com plete sanction of legal advisors who are also members of the organization. It is not the intent or purpose of the Citizens’ Councils to be (or to be used as) a political machine. In maintaining segregation, all city, county and state officials will receive complete support from their councils Our congressmen will receive like support. All of Mississippi’s law enforcement of ficers will be given any assistance they request. Agitation promoted or fomented by out-of-state individuals and organizations will be nullified. Candidates for offices at all levels will be carefully screened by the political committees. porting” legislation enacted at the current session which quit work Sept. 24, was a bill by Rep. T. F. Badon of Amite county (8,823 whites, 10,437 Negroes) adding a section to the statute on conspiracy. Two or more persons would be sub ject to prosecution for conspiracy if they conspired “to overthrow or violate the segregation laws of this state through force, violence, threats, intimidation or otherwise.” Upon conviction of the misde meanor, the penalty would be a fine of not less than $25 or from one month to six months in jail, or both. Three other “allied” measures were defeated. They were: 1. To prohibit the fomenting and agita tion of litigation, aimed at any person, firm, corporation, group or organization likely to encourage anti-segregation suits in Mississippi. It was offered by Rep. Byron Long of Lee county (27,578 whites, 10,655 Negroes). It proposed to make un lawful by any of those named “either before or after procedings commenced, to promise, give or offer, or to conspire to promise, give or offer, or for any person to receive or conspire to receive, a valu able consideration or any assistance whatever as an inducement to such per son to commence or further prosecute as a party litigant, either individual, as next friends or in any representative capacity, other than as attorney at law, or solicitor in equity, any proceedings in any court or before any administrative agency in the state of Mississippi.” The bill passed the House but died in the Senate Judici ary Comittee. 2. A companion measure by Rep. Long to provide that before an out-of-date at torney could practice before a state court or state agency, he shall certify to the State Board of Bar Admissions the details of his case and present “evidence of his good moral character and his good stand ing in the state from which he comes from some one of the judges of the courts before which he has practiced and two members of his local bar.” That bill was aimed particularly at counsel for the NAACP. It was defeated in the House where it originated. 3. To require the registration of all fire arms and records on all sales of ammuni tion. Rep. Edwin White of Holmes county (8,824 whites, 24,466 Negroes), was the author and said it would safeguard "us from those likely to cause us trouble.” He commented on the floor of the House as to the increased purchases of firearms and ammunition by Negroes. He said with the registration statute, law enforce ment officers would know “in whose hands” firearms and ammunition were in and could confiscate them in case of trouble. The bill passed the House but died in the Senate Judiciary committee. In another House and Senate-re jected issue, the legislators refused to petition the Congress under the redress provision of the federal con stitution citing seven specific griev ances stemming from the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision. Ask ing for return of the constitutional right of a state to govern itself, the resolution by Rep. Billy Little of Simpson County asserted that “we the people of the South and the state of Mississippi have been placed in a great grievance because of the Unit ed States Supreme Court’s decision which declared that there could be no separation of the races.” Asking for the right to operate Mississippi’s public schools without federal interference, the resolution which was adopted by the House but died in the Senate Judiciary Com mittee, set out the following griev ances. 1. It (the Supreme Court decision) will bring about grief, heartaches, and no doubt, bloodshed and hatred between the races, who have heretofore been of one accord. 2. It leaves the road open for our foes in enemy countries to capitalize upon our differences. 3. It will bring about inevitably the mixing of the blood of the two races, the Caucasian and the Negro, and there by destroy the heritage of both races. 4. It has engrossed upon our belief that economically there can be equality of the races, but in a different locale. The decision has not destroyed our belief, but has halted our attempts to this end. 5. The decision has cost the taxpayers large sums of money in our efforts to right the wrong and injustice which has been perpetuated on our people. 6. It will tremendously affect the lives of both races in every way. 7. It has impaired and hampered our respect for racial separation as set up by the Creator of the races. This is true in the localities, principally in the South where the Negro race predominates in number. When it became evident to Rep. Little that the Senate would not con sider his proposal, he reintroduced it in the House as a House resolution and it was adopted. The resolution provides, however, the grievances are not to be filed un less the voters ratify the constitu tional amendment in the Dec. 21 spe cial election.