Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 16—April 7, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Tennessee
NASHVILLE, Term.
^FTER two and a half months of
relatively quiet legislative in
fighting, the effort to reinforce the
state’s segregation public school
system with new statutes came to
an abrupt halt.
The reason: Gov. Frank Clement
vetoed four “local bills” designed to
circumvent the U. S. Supreme Court
ruling last May 17 that public school
segregation is unconstitutional.
The governor’s first veto message
—killing two local segregation bills
introduced by Sen. Charles A. Stain-
back of Somerville— was delivered
to the Senate in night session on
March 14.
A local bill is one which applies
to a county or city represented by
the bill’s author either in the House
or Senate.
GENERAL BILL FAILED
Stainback’s local bills—which
would apply to his home counties
of Fayette and Haywood—included
the same provisions as his ill-fated
general bill. This bill accorded local
GOV. FRANK CLEMENT
school boards power to assign pupils
to schools on individual basis with
out reference to previously estab
lished attendance areas. It’s “autho
rity” was the state’s police power
(See SSN March 1955).
(A general bill in Tennessee is,
as the name implies, general in
scope, applicable to the entire state.)
The governor’s veto of the Stain-
back bills clearly indicated any
similar measures also would be
vetoed. This was substantiated by
the following events:
By the time the 1955 General As
sembly session closed on March 18,
a third local segregation bill, for
Tipton County—patterned after the
Stainback proposals—was vetoed,
and on March 24, Gov. Clement
vetoed a fourth local segregation
bill, which would have applied to
Sumner County.
MEASURE WITHDRAWN
During this same period, a local
segregation bill for Hardman County
introduced earlier in the house, was
withdrawn by its author, and another
local segregation bill—for Gibson
County, died in the House after pass
ing the Senate.
The pro-segregation forces in the
legislature fought hard for their pro
posals, but once Clement declared
himself on the issue—the first time
he has done so in such specific terms
since the court delivered its decision
last May—the movement collapsed.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Here is what happened:
On the night of Feb. 28 the State
Senate calendar committee met in
executive session to decide when the
Stainback general bill should be
placed on the calendar for considera
tion.
While the press and public were
barred from the committee meeting,
it was learned afterward that the
bill was “tabled” by an overwhelm
ing voice vote.
When questioned by the press on
the reason for the secret session,
Sen. Landon Colvard of Pikeville
said he asked for the closed session
because “reporters printed a lot of
stuff last week that isn’t true. They
don’t quote what you say.”
The committee was composed of
16 senators and the Senate speaker.
STAINBACK OUSTED
Stainback, who was present when
the meeting was called to order, was
forced to leave the chamber when
the group voted to go into executive
session.
The committee action, in effect,
killed the bill for the session. The
bill could be forced from committee
to the Senate floor for debate only by
an affirmative, simple majority vote
of that body.
On the following day, March 1,
Stainback attempted to force the
bill from committee.
He called the calendar committee’s
action “political skullduggery,” said
he was ordered out of the committee
hearing, and declared this was a
“personal affront and insult.”
“They didn’t even have the moral
courage to call a roll on it (the
tabling motion),” he said. “And I
submit this is political trickery of
the lowest degree.”
MOVE VOTED DOWN
Sen. Stainback’s effort was to no
avail. He failed—by a narrow margin
—to force the bill from committee.
The vote was 15 to 13. Seventeen
votes were needed.
Shortly thereafter, Stainback in
troduced his local segregation bill.
The reason for this was clearly
understood—for by tradition, local
bills are automatically approved by
the legislature, and seldom vetoed
by the state’s chief executive. And
more often than not if they are
vetoed, the veto is overridden by the
Senate.
On March 2, the pro-segregation
forces received another set-back.
That day, the 200 million dollar
general education bill passed the
Senate by a 29 to 3 vote without a
provision prohibiting the expendi
ture of state school funds to sup-
Excerpts From Veto Message
Gov. Frank Clement’s veto of the
Stainback segregation bills was the
first such action taken by any
southern governor.
Here are excerpts from his veto
message to the State Senate:
“It is my understanding that this
measure represents an attempt to
circumvent the efficacy of the recent
opinion handed down by the Su
preme Court of the United States
banning segregation in public
schools, and that this is its sole pur
pose.
“The issue faces all of Tennessee
and yet some 90 Representatives and
27 Senators have not seen fit to in
troduce similar local legistlation. The
combined membership of this hon
ored General Assembly has not seen
fit to enact similar general legisla
tion. . .
“I cannot and do not assume that
the vast majority of you are either
unwilling or careless in the matter of
protecting the interests of your
people. I assume, to the contrary, that
you believe such legislation as this
is not in the public interest . . .
“This bill can produce no desirable
result. Its only possible effect can
be to foment racial hatred and dis
order where none exists, and pre
cipitate disputes to the detriment of
all concerned . . .
“Segregation is not a political issue
to be misused to the detriment of
Tennessee and Tennesseans, but it is
a significant and far reaching social
issue which demands statesmanlike
consideration, prayerful thought and
legal analysis . ..
“If this bill were of a purely local
nature; if it affected only the spon
sor’s county; if it bore no relation to
the welfare of our state or to the
future course of Tennessee, you
would not face the necessity for such
careful consideration . . .
“But to the contrary, the welfare
of Tennessee, of all Tennesseans, is
vitally affected and a failure to re
cognize the seriousness of the situa
tion may result in failure to protect
your own constituents.”
Southern Education Reporting Service
P.O. Box 6156, Aclden Station
Nashville, Tenn.
BULK RATE
U. S. Postage
PAID
Nashville, Tenn.
Permit No. 928
Return Postage Guaranteed
University of Georgia Libraries
Acquisitions Division
Athens, Ga.
port other than segregated schools,
which Stainback said was tradi
tional.
At the last moment, Stainback at
tempted to write a mandatory segre
gation provision into the bill.
His proposed amendment to the
bill was rejected by a voice vote.
LOCAL BILLS PASSED
Stainback’s local bills were passed
by the Senate and House, as were
those for Tipton and Sumner
Counties.
As adjournment date for the legis
lature approached, observers gener
ally agreed Clement would veto the
segregation bills.
On the afternoon of March 14„
some hours prior to the time Cle
ment’s veto message was delivered
to the Senate, there were two indi
cations the governor would act as
he did.
The Knoxville News-Sentinel, in
an editorial written by its editor
Loye Miller—a close friend and
strong supporter of Clement—urged
a veto of the Stainback bills, saying:
“If the Stainback bills become
law, we will have counties of our
state operating school systems side
by side—one under a situation where
the police power of the State is in
volved, the other without such legis
lation.
“It would be inconsistent if not
absurb to have a local law applicable
to one side of a county line and an
entirely different and perhaps con
tradictory general law on the other
side of that county line.”
BANNER’S COMMENT
The second indication appeared in
a political columnist’s story in the
Nashville Banner. In the story, the
columnist said, “While there is con
siderable pressure on Gov. Frank
Clement to allow two segregation
bills affecting Fayette and Haywood
Counties to become law without his
signature, there is reason to believe
the governor probably will veto both
measures.”
The day after Clement’s action,
Stainback attempted to get the Sen
ate to override the governor’s veto.
For 25 minutes Stainback pleaded
for the Senate to support his effort.
When a vote was called on the
Fayette local segregation bill 13
favored it, 9 opposed it. But 17 votes
were needed to override the
governor’s veto.
NEWSPAPER COMMENT
In its editorial titled “Logical and
Sound,” the Chattanooga Times de
clared on March 16:
“The bills, sponsored by Senator
Stainback, added nothing to the
powers already given by the Consti
tution and by state law to school
boards...
“Governor Clement’s veto mes
sage, we believe, advocated patience
and sound reasoning which represent
the majority opinion of the people
of the state. . .”
The Tennessean said on March 16,
in an editorial titled “Premature and
Unsound”:
“It is fortunate for all Tennessee
Governor Clement’s veto of the
Stainback segregation bills has pre
vailed in the state Senate.”
The Nashville Banner editorial, “A
Time For Calm Appraisal: This Veto
Should Stand,” declared on March
15:
“Governor Clement was clearly
right—and on the ample grounds
recited—in vetoing the two Stainback
bills on school segregation.. . ”
Comment On
The decision of the Fourth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling out
enforced segregation in Maryland
parks and playgrounds has drawn
wide and varied editorial reaction
from Southern newspapers. Excerpts
from some of the more significant
ones follow.
In Richmond, Va., where the court
handed down the opinion, the News-
Leader said:
“In our view, the circuit court mis
interpreted the Supreme Court’s re
cent line of decisions, and went even
farther toward vitiating the well-es
tablished police power of the state
and local government. . . . The effect
of the decision in Virginia may well
be to close all state parks and rec
reational areas—both white and
colored—and to bring an end to
municipally-owned swimming pools
—both white and colored—in the
various cities.”
And the Richmond Times-Dispatch
said:
“Since the present [Supreme]
Court went to such lengths in its
decision outlawing segregation in the
public schools, there are those who
fear that it will carry the ‘theory of
state action’ to the even greater
length of holding ultimately that any
corporation, such as a hotel, with a
state charter, or any partnership or
company owned by a single individ
ual, which has any sort of authoriza
tion from the state, would likewise
be construed to be covered by the
theory of state action, and hence
would be forbidden by the court to
operate under a policy of segregation.
While such a possible interpretation
as this is for the future, the speed
with which barriers between the
races are falling already, under pres
sure of the courts, is cause for genu
ine concern.”
The Norfolk Virginia-Pilot edito
rial stated:
“If the present Circuit Court of Ap
peals decision stands up, it would
seem by implication to extend the
destruction of the ‘separate but
equal’ doctrine just about everywhere
that doctrine is applied today. In that
sense, this may turn out to be a case
of historical significance, second only,
in modem times, to the school segre
gation decision of May 17.”
In Maryland, the state most im
mediately affected by the court’s
decision, reaction and comment came
more slowly. The Baltimore Sun con
cluded an editorial on the subject:
“The circuit court’s opinion does
not settle the matter. It will not be
settled until the Supreme Court in
this case or in one coming up from
another jurisdiction, finally speaks.
Until it does so, public policy in
regions where segregation in recrea
tion has long prevailed must be halt
ing and uncertain.”
The Baltimore Evening Sun carried
no comment on the decision, either
in the form of editorials or in the
letters-to-the-editor column.
But the Baltimore Afro-American
hailed the reversal of the Baltimore
district court as the answer to the
question of whether the Supreme
Court’s opinion of last May 17 “could
be extended to areas other than ed
ucation.” The Negro-owned and op
erated paper said editorially:
“ . . . There is no question in our
mind that these three judges would
be upheld if an appeal was taken to
the Supreme Court. . . Actually, we
Park Decision
would welcome such an appeal, for
the decision would then become the
law of the land.”
In South Carolina, the Charlestm
News & Courier again raised tie
question of whether the state has air
real business operating a system o':
parks. The paper also said it saw a
need for a revision of public park
policy in the state.
And the Greenville (S.C.) Pied-
mont, acknowledging that separate
parks maintained by the state and its
various municipalities are “open to
challenge,” asserted:
“The legal victory is certain to
prove a hollow one. Rightly or
wrongly, the majority of whites will
abandon the parks as they are in
vaded by Negroes. The result will be
that the parks will become Negro
parks, or will fall into disuse. Na
turally, the General Assembly will
decline to confine to support them.
This is not an argument, but a state
ment of fact, or a prediction. This
could become a pattern for municipal
parks.”
An editorial appearing in The
Washington Post & Times Herali '
of March 19 in commenting on play
ground equality said:
“In holding racial segregation to
be unconstitutional in state and mu
nicipal recreation facilities, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals fol
lowed a clear mandate from the Su
preme Court. The decision, which
will no doubt become the rule in
other circuits as well, consigns to its
final rest the specious ‘separate but
equal doctrine’ accepted by the Su
preme Court in 1896 and overruled
in the historic school decision of las*
year.
“The view that segregation of itself
does not constitute discrimination
has been rejected in successive cases
involving institutions of higher
learning, service in railroad dinh^
cars and the operation of dual publ ic
school systems.”
Quoting from the lower court rub
ing, the editorial said of the decision-
“This seems to us good logic and
good law; and it moves America 3
step closer to realization of its demo
cratic ideals.”
Still further editorial comment o r -
the decision came from the Louisvi[ e
(Ky.) Courier-Journal, which said 11
Part: . .
“The Richmond ruling is subj eC ^
to appeal to the Supreme Court. B u
it is further evidence that the care
ful legal analysis of federal j ur f\
for more than a decade past n^
tended continuously to break d°
racial inequalities of every sort on
imbedded in custom and law. Go®“
with the wind even before last
were the old ‘restrictive covenan
of yesterday’s real estate contrac'
segregation in transportation,
‘white primary’ of the South e
states. j.
“The pattern of inevitability '
plain. Our courts, interpreting
Constitution, are progressively ^
stroying every notion that it S3 P
tions anything less than first- c
citizenship for all . . .” il.
In Alabama, the Montgomery
vertiser said: . n o
“Here in Alabama we are u 1
need at all of any more segreg 3 ^
problems as we already have
than we can say grace over. Yf
may as well brace for the inevi ^ \
complications of segregation 111
publicly owned facilities.”