Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PAGE 10 —Nov. 4, 1954 —SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS Georgia MACON, Ga. JTOR the past six weeks Georgians have witnessed increasingly hot campaigns for and against a proposed constitutional amendment which would allow the General Assembly to substitute a private school system for a public school system to avoid mixing the races in the classrooms. The issue was voted on in the gen eral election of Nov. 2. Proposed Constitutional Amend ment No. 4 is the key to the dispute. It says: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this constitution, the General Assem bly may by law provide for grants of state, county or municipal funds to citi zens of the state for educational pur poses, in discharge of all obligations of the state to provide an adequate educa tion for its citizens. Opponents of the plan insist on calling it “the private school plan.” Proponents insist it should be called “the segregation amendment.” It was sponsored in the 1953 legis lature by Gov. Herman Talmadge and received the required constitu tional majority. The governor said it was formulated in anticipation of just such a decision outlawing segrega tion as the Supreme Court handed down. He has spoken in favor of it on numerous occasions, holding it to be a “last resort” measure to be used in maintaining separation of white and Negro students in Georgia schools despite the desegregation decree. GRIFFIN BACKS PROPOSAL Gov.-nominate Marvin Griffin, who will be inaugurated in January, has also thrown his full support be hind the campaign to secure approval of the amendment. He promised to work in favor of the proposal in his successful campaign for the guber natorial nomination. Since the Democratic primary election of Sept. 8, the drives in favor of and against the amendment have increased' in tempo with many important organizations or officials publicly taking sides. On Sept. 14, Gov. Talmadge re quested an official opinion from At torney General Eugene Cook on the following three questions: 1. Under the Constitution of this State, can taxes be levied by either the State or any local unit of govern ment, for the support of mixed schools of white and colored stu dents? 2. Under the Constitution of this State, can public funds of the State or any local unit of government be expended for such purpose? 3. If by action of the judicial de partment of the Federal Government, the races are ordered mixed in the public schools, could funds of the State or any local unit of government be expended for the purpose of sup porting the schools in which the races were mixed pursuant to such Fed eral action? COOK’S REPLY NEGATIVE Cook’s opinion, limited to the common schools as distinguished from the university system, was in the negative in answer to all three questions. His conclusion stated: In my opinion there is no authority under the Georgia Constitution of 1945 to establish mixed schools, tax for mixed schools, or expend funds for mixed schools. If the Supreme Court of the United States should strike down the re quirement in Article VIII, Section I, that separate schools be maintained for the white and colored races in Georgia, the provision for an adequate education in free common schools falls with it. By so doing, the Supreme Court of the United States would have abolished free public education in Georgia under the present Constitution of 1945. Some opponents of the amendment have disputed Cook’s interpretation of the state constitution. The Georgia Commission on Edu cation, created by the legislature to make plans to provide adequate edu cation consistent with both the state and federal constitutions at the re quest of the governor, met on Sept. 28 to discuss recommendations for the General Assembly. By a 14 to 4 vote, with four mem bers absent, the commission urged ratification of proposed Constitution al Amendment No. 4 and, pending ratification, made the following recommendations: 1. The existing public school sys tem should be continued in every county and independent local system in the state as long as it is possible to do so. 2. The following should be con tinued: (a) The provisions of the present appropriations act by which state funds are appropriated only to separate public schools, the unex pended appropriation to lapse upon the mixing of the races, (b) The pro visions of the present budget cutting off funds from mixed public schools and cutting off salaries of teachers instructing mixed classes, (c) The present statute providing that no teacher instructing mixed classes shall be paid anything out of the common school fund. (These laws, it was explained, give statutory aid to the provisions of the Georgia Con stitution forbidding expenditure of public funds for mixed public schools). 3. Similar statutory laws should be enacted with respect to local funds, so that by no means can local funds be spent for mixed public schools or for the payment of public school teachers instructing mixed classes. (It was explained that this would give statutory aid to consti tutional provisions forbidding the expenditure of public funds for mixed public schools.) 4. Existing laws should be retained and strengthened with reference to (a) assignment of pupils in public schools; (b) laying out of public school district lines; (c) the power of local school boards to contract for the education of children in adjoin ing school districts in which the pub lic schools have been closed. 5. The General Assembly should enact laws so that, if and when the existing schools in any county or in dependent school district are closed by federal court decree, the educa tion of the children of school age in that locality may go on at state and local expense, and in properly super vised segregated schools. 6. Enacting laws to insure the con tinuation of segregated schools, the General Assembly should provide for and protect the Teachers’ Retirement System and the equalization and other salutary principles embodied in the Minimum Foundation Program, and provide for the fullest utilization of existing educational facilities. All of this, the commission was assured, could lawfully and constitutionally be done if the proposed amendment were adopted. The commission report concluded by stating that necessary legislation to effectuate the foregoing would be prepared by the attorney general, the general counsel and executive secre tary of the commission after ratifi cation of the amendment and sub mitted to members for approval prior to submission to the General Assembly. DISCUSSION PROVOKED Discussion was lively preceding adoption of the recommendations. Voting for the report were Gov. Talmadge, Gov.-nominate Griffin, Atty. Gen. Cook, State Auditor B. E. Thrasher, Board of Regents Chair man Robert Arnold, former Georgia Education Association President Harvey Cutts, Rep. Frank Twitty, State Democratic Committee Chair man John Sammons Bell, State Board of Education Chairman George Whitman Jr., W. S. Mann, University System Chancellor Har mon Caldwell, Bibb County School Superintendent Mark Smith and Rep. Battle Hall. Voting against the report were State School Superintendent M. D. Collins, House Speaker Fred Hand and Roy Harris, former House speaker. Thrasher voted for adoption of the report but refused to sign it. He and Dr. Collins secured approval of an amendment allowing for review by the commission before submission to the legislature. Chancellor Caldwell warned that schools in the university system would lose their accreditation and approximately $2Vz million in fed eral funds but said he would vote in favor of the amendment in order to preserve segregation. COLLINS DISSENTS Dr. Collins, voicing the most vig orous dissent to adoption of the re port, stated that he was not elected state superintendent of schools in order to liquidate the Georgia public school system. Hand, in voting against the report, expressed apprehension that the phrase in the proposed amendment “... in discharge of all obligation ...” could prove fatal to the State School Authority financing of bonds to build schools. Harris based his opposition to the report on a belief that it nullified the weapon the state has to tell pupils there will be no schools unless they are segregated. He held that closing of the schools because of integration would so arouse white people that Negroes would not dare defy the solid front of whites. Discussing the part of the report which emphasized that the existing separate public school system should be continued as long as it is possible to do so, Dr. Cutts asked who would say when it was no longer possible. Gov. Talmadge replied that the ques tion would be determined by the General Assembly. Two days after the commission session, the State Democratic Party convention adopted a resolution calling for “overwhelming” ratifica tion of the proposed amendment and incorporated this position into the state party platform. The state convention, by resolu tion, also denounced the Supreme Court decision outlawing segrega tion, condemned President Eisen hower for his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren to head the court, deplored the conduct of Geor gia Education Association leaders in opposing the amendment, urged re sistance to compliance with the de segregation decision and called upon Georgia’s representatives and sena tors to introduce legislation in the Congress stripping the federal courts of power and authority to decide cases against the public schools of Georgia and other states. In a speech accepting the party’s gubernatorial nomination, tanta mount to election in one-party Georgia, Gov.-nominate Griffin called Amendment No. 4 “a second Bill of Rights” for the people of the state. He said, “There must be no vio lence of any kind in our state,” but renewed his campaign promise that schools and colleges in Georgia would not be mixed while he was governor and added: “... no true Southerner feels morally bound to recognize the legality of this act of tyranny, support its provisions or obey its unthinkable terms.” Following the convention, the pro ponents and opponents of the amend ment got their vote appeals in high gear. Gov. Talmadge, Gov.-nominate Griffin, Atty. Gen. Cook and several members of the General Assembly spoke in favor of it. Copies of Cook’s opinions, given in answer to the governor’s questions of Sept. 14, and literature publicizing pro-amend ment views were mailed to many citizens at state expense. The amend ment was endorsed by the County Commissioners Association, the Georgia Municipal Association, the State Board of Education and various other organizations and individuals. Anti-amendment forces, led by Dr. Collins and Harold Saxon, execu tive secretary of the Georgia Edu cation Association, a white teachers’ organization, scheduled speeches and distributed literature opposing the proposal. Among others publicly fighting the amendment were listed the Georgia Education Association and numerous county and district affiliates, the League of Women Voters, a special ly-formed Committee to Save Our Schools, defeated gubernatorial can didates Tom Linder (who is still in office as Georgia commissioner of agriculture) and Charles Gowen, the Active Voters organization, the State Council of the CIO, Georgia Federa tion of Labor and State PTA Con gress. Opponents of the amendment have asked many questions concerning the details of the proposed segregated private school system and have used the lack of information available as one of their strongest arguments against ratification. Amendment supporters have re plied that the details will be worked out by the General Assembly, which the people must trust, and they say the issue is how far people want to go in maintaining segregation. FINANCIAL PROBLEM Loss of federal money in the tran sition from public to private status for the schools has also been dis cussed. The Committee to Save Our Schools says the amendment would cost 20 million dollars in federally- financed school buildings and would end federal appropriations of several million dollars annually for school maintenance. In addition, it is urged, implementation of the amendment would mean state subsidies to stu dents in privately-owned colleges, including ones owned by churches, and would thus destroy the univer sity system, already hard-pressed for finances. Dr. Collins takes the position that a private school system would not guarantee continued segregation. A Supreme Court decision striking down South Carolina’s proposed “white primary” is cited with the opinion that the court would take the same view of segregated private schools. Even if the schools became private, they could not operate because then they would be subject to sales, in come, property and all other taxes, Collins claims. He also fears such a plan would wreck the Teacher Re tirement System, abolish local school control and destroy the accreditation ratings of state schools. Atty. Gen. Cook believes the pro visions of the proposed act are broad enough to permit the legislature to appropriate funds for teacher retire ment. As for possible loss of federal funds, Cook is of the opinion that it would amount to only about $5 mil lion. This, he says, is the price Geor gians must pay to maintain segrega tion. Otherwise, the attorney general claims, only the well-to-do will be able to send their children to pri vately-operated segregated schools and the poor will have to send their children to public unsegregated schools. MANY LEGAL PROBLEMS It is conceded that a vast amount of legal work will have to be done and numerous laws enacted to pre pare for use the segregated private school plan, depending on ratifica tion of the amendment, in the event test integration suits are filed and schools closed because of failure to comply with the law. From the many statements of pub lic officials and from interviews with various leading pro-amendment fig ures, a surmise of the skeleton form which the private segregated school plan would take can be sketched. Grants of state, county and, mu nicipal funds would be made to par ents who could assign such grants to whatever schools their children wish to attend. School buildings would be made available for educational purposes, leased to individuals under the re quirement that tuition in excess of the aggregate of state and local grants not be charged, and regulat ed by the state board of education and state education department as the public service commission reg ulates utilities. Legislative authority to levy taxes for teacher retirement would be ex tended to private school teachers by amendment of the present act. Private schools accepting students would be required to post perform ance bonds. In actual practice, grants due students through their parents would be sent to schools upon pre sentation of bills for individual pu pils. If a parent refused or failed to expend grants for educational pur poses, the state would recover the money, since the amendment only authorized grants for educational purposes and a contract or obligation to use it for no other purpose would be implied. The state is without authority to require segregation in any school system but presumably schools would be leased only to those opera tors requiring segregation. Religious schools would have no claim to public funds since the grants would be to students, not schools, and the General Assembly could deny grants to students attending religious schools.