Newspaper Page Text
i
PAGE 22—June 8, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Excerpts
Continued From Page 21
I adopt and subscribe to that brief
in its entirety. While Maryland was
a slave state, they have always been
considerate of its colored population.
It is highly significant that at the
beginning of the war between the
states only one-half of the Negroes in
Maryland were slaves and the rest
were freedmen.
In its constitution of 1867 Maryland
provided for the free education of
both the white and colored races.
ACCEPTED PATTERN
While it is true that it did provide
by statute for separate schools, this
was the accepted pattern of the day.
Our brief delineates and documents
the progress that has been made in
the education of our colored popula
tion in Maryland from 1867 to the
present day.
That progress has really been re
markable. It is completely true that
at the time the court’s opinion was
handed down in these cases last year
Maryland’s educational facilities were
already equal though separate.
Equal in physical fact and not in
theory only. I cite this situation to
indicate the bona fides of the state’s
good will toward all its citizens. . . .
I do not intend to over-emphasize
the difficulties occasioned by the im
pact of this Honorable Court’s opinion
upon standard and established prac
tices and traditions in Maryland.
DIFFICULTIES SEEN
But I feel it would be a disservice
to the Court to say that no difficulties
have been encountered or will arise.
To be at all helpful we must ex
amine the situation factually and
realistically. Shortly after the Court’s
opinion in these cases last year, sev
eral parent-teacher association
groups in a Southern Maryland coun
ty adopted what they identified as
the West River proclamation, (a copy
of which appears in the appendix to
our brief at pages 62 and 63).
This manifesto in essence would
prohibit any change in the existing
educational pattern in Maryland, ex
cept by state law sanctioned by the
people through referendum.
Another plan to circumvent this
Court’s decision was a petition cir
culated by a group known as the
C. FERDINAND SYBERT
Maryland Petition Committee and
signed, I have been informed, by ap
proximately 36,000 citizens. . . .
Maryland was one of the three
states which refused to ratify the 14th
Amendment in the 1840s and which
have not ratified it since.
A bill for such ratification was in
troduced in the recent session but
died in committee. . . .
LETTERS RECEIVED
The Office of the Attorney General
of Maryland has received hundreds
of letters since the opinion in these
cases containing almost every con
ceivable suggestion as to methods of
circumvention or implementation of
the decision.
Many meetings of citizens have
been held to the same ends ....
In the city of Baltimore, which con
tains almost one-half of Maryland’s
population, the public school au
thorities began the process of deseg
regation in September 1954.
With elementary and high school
students attending the schools of their
choice, regardless of race. Some early
difficulties were encountered, such as
picketing by some parents and ab
senteeism or as sometimes termed, a
strike of pupils . . .
I have been informed by a good
many citizens that possible further
trouble is feared this coming Sep
tember. . ..
VARIED POPULATION
There has been no integration or
desegregation in the counties of
Maryland up to the present time. In
the 23 counties of Maryland the
situation is extremely varied. Mary
land has often been referred to as
America in miniature. We have the
wooded mountainous Western section,
three or four counties, the rich grain
area upland central district, the
alluvian plains of Southern Maryland
and the Eastern Shore of Maryland
bisected by the Chesapeake Bay with
its seafood industry.
Baltimore City is approximately
the center of the state, a great sea
port.
I am bound to inform the Court
that the existing ways of life and
established patterns of thinking vary
between the inhabitants of those dis
similar regions as much as does their
habitat.
It is also true that great differences
as to population of schools and school
attendance by races exists among the
counties.
Maryland therefore specifically rec
ommends to this Court that the ques
tions propounded should be resolved
in favor of an affirmative answer to
Question 4(b) and an affirmative an
swer to Question 5(d), that is first
that this Court may and should in the
exercise of its equity powers so frame
its decree as to effect an effective
gradual adjustment be brought about
from existing segregated systems in
public education to systems not based
on color distinction.
WOULD REMAND
On that point that is the position
taken in the brief of my predecessor.
To my mind the same end would be
attained if this Court, in considering
these cases involving specific persons
who have sued, would simply remand
the cases to the lower courts for such
further action in the light of the
opinion in this case as should appear
to be necessary.
Second that the cases be remanded
without specific direction as to meth
ods of time or compliance which
questions should be determined by
the Courts of first instance in the light
of local conditions as they may be
found to exist.
We respectfully submit that the
90-day period suggested by the Gov
ernment within the lower courts
should order local authorities to pre
sent their plans for ending segrega
tion as soon as feasible would make
for makeshift and abortive planning.
The Chief Justice: Do you feel,
General, that the District Court is
entitled to any guidance as a matter
of help to them in supervising these
cases?
Mr. Sybert: If your Honors, please,
I really don’t think that is necessary.
I think the fact that this decision has
been handed down in most instances
is going to lead to the gradual and
ultimate adoption of the principles
there laid down . . .
Justice Frankfurter: Do I infer
from what you just said that you
think no litigation will arise at all.
There is no problem so far as Mary
land is concerned about any action by
a District Court?
Mr. Sybert: That depends upon the
degree of forebearance, the degree
of intelligence with which both races
approach this problem. . . .
I might say that I am convinced
that I am correct when I say that
thoughtful leaders of both races in
Maryland believe that we should
make haste slowly. They feel that
coercion and force can only lead to
trouble in Maryland.
They believe that they themselves
and local authorities can work the
situation out now that the court has
enunciated the principle in a calm
lawful manner and within a reason
able time.
Argument On Behalf Of
The State Of Texas
By JOHN BEN SHEPPERD
Attorney- General
M AY it please the Court, the pur
pose of the State of Texas in
appearing as an amicus curiae in
these cases is to bring more fully to
the attention of the Court the prob
lems with which we will ultimately
be faced as a result of the decision
of last May 17. . . .
In order to determine the problems
with which the Texas public school
system is confronted, our office has
made a sincere effort to obtain a cor
rect cross-section of views of the peo
ple of our state.
Surveys were made of editors, leg
islators and others with a knowledge
of the subject matter under consider
ation.
Public opinion was sampled and
composite views of groups of Negro
and white editors, civic leaders,
school administrators, parents and
many others were obtained.
We shall attempt to present the
Texas picture as reflected from this
research.
Expressive of the general attitude
of our people is a statewide survey
conducted by the Texas people on
September 12 last. It was indicated
in that poll that 71 per cent of our
people are definitely opposed to the
decision . . .
The poll indicated that there would
be less resistance to a plan of gradual
integration . . .
From its inception the Texas public
school system has been operated and
maintained on a segregated basis.
That has existed for more than 80
years under the authority of Section
7 of Article 7 of our Texas Constitu
tion of 1876 . . .
This doctrine of separate and equal
schools was not the result of official
or governmental prejudice or a desire
to discriminate against either race nor
caused by any hatred or feeling of
superiority.
The truth is that the purpose of the
system is to furnish equal opportuni
ties, privileges and services for the
children of the two races and at the
same time to preserve the peace and
harmony and public support of the
public school system.
In certain localities it would have
been impossible to maintain peace,
order and harmony among the people
and to have the taxpayers support
for the public school system if those
people were forced to mingle together
against the will of the majority.
USE OF POLICE POWER
This was a valid exercise of the
police power of the state. The argu
ment that the states have been vio
lating the Constitution by maintain
ing separate and equal school systems
is without foundation.
On the contrary they have been
acting in accordance with numerous
precedents of this and other courts ...
Texas has 254 counties, but one-
half the colored school children of
the state live in only 45 counties of
the eastern section of the state. About
90 per cent of all the colored scholas
tics of Texas reside in the 88 coun
ties comprising the eastern third of
the state. The remaining ten per cent
of our colored school children are
scattered throughout 125 central and
western counties, thus the propor
tionate colored population of Texas
counties varies sharply with five east
ern counties having colored school
children in the majority and 41 west
ern counties having not a single col
ored school child.
Referring briefly to our appendix
No. 1, it will be seen that the colored
population drops sharply as we move
JOHN BEN SHEPPERD
from the eastern boundary of our
state to the western boundary.
In those counties designated in red,
50 per cent or more are colored. In
those in blue, 40 per cent or more.
Those designated by the dashed
mark, many along the Louisiana line
and in the central eastern part of
the state, 30 per cent or more are
colored.
Those in green, 20 per cent or more.
Those in pink, 10 per cent or more.
Purple, five per cent or more . . .
POPULATION VARIED
Thus it is obvious that the question
of separate and integrated schools is
as vast and as varied as Texas terrain
and population and the varied situa
tions that exist in these communities
cannot be treated under a single
blanket policy; they must be con
sidered as they exist in local school
districts.
This idea has been manifested in
prior consideration of the subject
matter made by our editors and our
Texas Commissioner of Higher Edu
cation, Dr. Edgar, who stated in June
of last year, “Texas has 2,000 prob
lems as a result of the Supreme
Court’s decision. We have 2,000 school
districts and they vary from totally
white to totally Negro. The final de
cree of the Court ought to be to per
mit continued management of local
districts by local boards. Schools must
be run on a community basis. They
cannot be run successfully from
Washington or even from Austin. Ex
perience in separating children on a
language basis has proved to us that
where the responsibility is put on the
local community, they work honestly
to resolve differences.
“Anything which schools do effec
tively must be done with public sup
port. We don’t care to tell others how
to run their schools. But we certainly
believe that our 2,000 problems can
be resolved best if the Supreme Court
leaves control in local districts.”...
LOCAL CONTROL
The schools of Texas are operated,
maintained and controlled by local
school boards made up of men and
women elected by their neighbors.
There are 911 of these school trus
tees in the state . . . Each one is fa
miliar with the problems, tempera
ment and economic conditions of his
locality. Citizens may resolve their
complaints or effect scholastic district
policies quickly, face to face with the
men and women who are responsible
for them.
Justice for parent, child, teacher
and administrator alike is of the
greatest importance, only a short dis
tance across a town or down a farm
to market road—it is local.
Expenses of these school districts
are paid through local taxation voted
by the taxpayer of the District and
complemented by the legislature un
der an automatic system of finance
called the minimum foundation pro
gram . . .
Considering the attitudes of the
Texas citizens, the structure of the
Texas school system, the variety of
local situations, the urgency of sav
ing and increasing facilities, and the
necessity of maintaining peace and
order, it is clear that any attempt to
effect immediate or too sudden mix.
ture of white and colored pupils esp e '
cially if made by an authority outsit
the individual school district wouU
be rash, imprudent and unrealistic.
BASIC QUESTION
The question is more basic than
laws and systems. This touches the
deepest roots of human emotion, h
touches mothers and fathers and chil
dren in an area of deep sensitivity.
It comes dangerously close to inter
ference in the sacred inviolable re
lationship between parent and child
and the right of parents to bring U p
their children in their own customs
and beliefs.
Texas does not come here today to
argue the cause of other states be
cause its situation is unique.
It argues only that in Texas a man
made cataclysm must be made slowly
and with wisdom. Our argument may
be summed up in 8 words, the sim
plicity of which I believe this Hon
orable Court will appreciate.
It is our problem, let us solve it....
The Chief Justice: . . . You antici
pated there would be some difficulties
in some parts of the state. What prob
ability do you believe there would be
of having integration very quickly
let us say, in these places where there
are less than one per cent or one per
cent, two per cent, three per cent,
something like that, what is your
prognosis there.
Mr. Shepperd: I think that there
are some of those particular counties
in some of those particular districts
that would like integration. It would
be more economically feasible for
them to integrate.
The Chief Justice: That is the only
reason? I say that is the only reason
they would do it?
Mr. Shepperd: That is the only rea
son I have heard advanced. As far
as difficulties are concerned, I would
hesitate to speak for my brethren
from West Texas because they too
get a little rugged in spots.
Argument On Behalf Of
The Government Of The
United States
By SIMON E. SOBELOFF
U.S. Solicitor General
J AM going to try not to be repeti
tious and yet reframe arguments
that have been made here, restate
them in a context that seems to us
coherent from the government’s point
of view.
I am not so presumptuous as to
claim that we have complete objec
tivity, but I am more than ordinarily
conscious in this case that I am priv
ileged to speak for the United States,
and our approach to these problems
is perhaps a little different than that
of the plaintiffs or the defendants, or
even of some of the States or other
governmental authorities that might
appear as plaintiffs or as defendants
in future cases.. ..
Everybody here has urged that this
Court should not itself frame detailed
decrees, but should remand the cases
to the District Courts. But the objec
tives of the different opponents o
that idea are not always the same-
Some would ask this Court, ha' e
asked this Court to remand the case*
with specific and rigid directions 0
the District Courts to specify a ft*
date for desegregation by 1955 in Sep
tember or at the latest a year later.
Others have gone to the other ex^
treme, and they have urged a remanj
but they have specifically asked tn
this Court shall fix no date, and »°
than that, it shall give no crite ria ^
its decree to the lower courts f° r
guidance of those courts,
open, as is plain, the possibility ^
nothing would eventuate except
lay.
MIDDLE COURSE e% .
The government rejects both
tremes. Our brief, which sets ^
our views at length and more m. ^
tail than it will be possible
to present them, or even necessary
See EXCERPTS on Page - 3