Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 10—August 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Virginia Holds Decree Allows Year
RICHMOND, VA.
federal court here has issued a
decree which state officials inter
pret as permitting the operation of
segregated schools during the 1955-56
school year.
The decree was issued July 18 by
the special three-judge court hearing
the Prince Edward County case. This
is one of the cases directly involved
in the Supreme Court’s opinion of
May 17, 1954 outlawing enforced ra
cial segregation in public schools.
As far as the time element is con
cerned, key words in the decree is
sued here last month are these:
“ . . . The court finds that it would
not be practicable, because of the ad
justment and rearrangement re
quired for the purpose, to place the
public school system of Prince Ed
ward County, Virginia, upon a non-
discriminatory basis before the com
mencement of the regular school
term in September, 1955. . . .”
Thus the court apparently will per
mit the schools to begin the term in
September on a segregated basis. And
state officials reason that the court
is not likely to require integration
during the school year.
This particular part of the court’s
decree was an apparent rebuff for
attorneys for the National Associa
tion for the Advancement of Colored
People, representing the Negro chil
dren who had brought the Prince
Edward case in an effort to secure
admittance to white schools.
ASKED 1955 ACTION
The NAACP attorneys had asked
the three-judge court to require in
tegration as of September, 1955.
In declining this request, the court
declared:
“... The court is of the opinion that
the refusal of the court to require
such adjustment and rearrangement
to be made in time for the said Sep
tember, 1955. school term is not in
consistent with the public interest or
with the decision of the Supreme
Court.”
But NAACP attornevs Spottswood
W. Robinson. Ill, and Oliver W. Hill,
emphasized that the court had reiter
ated the unconstitutionality of segre
gation.
“It is our sincere hone,” the attor
neys added, “that the defendants will
wiselv employ the time this decree
affords in constructive efforts to re
move racial segregation from the
schools of Prince Edward County at
the earliest practicable date.”
3-JUDGE COURT
The special court consisted of Cir
cuit Judge Armistead M. Dobie and
District Judges Hutcheson and Al
bert V. Bryan.
The decree apparently put an end
to plans which had been made by
white residents of Prince Edward
County to operate private schools for
white children during the coming
year. A private corporation, formed
by the citizens, had almost reached
its goal of $212,000 intended to be
used to employ white teachers.
Two days after the three-judge
court issued its decree here, the six-
member Prince Edward school board
voted unanimously to ask the Board
of Supervisors to appropriate funds
for operation of the schools during
the coming year. Previously, the su
pervisors had withheld funds for
schools for fear that if the schools
operated, integration might be re
quired by the court.
The supervisors were expected to
consider the school board’s request at
their meeting on Aug. 4.
MONTH-BY-MONTH
Supervisors in four other counties
—Nottoway, Sussex, Amelia and
James City—have approved only par
tial school budgets for the coming
year. Their idea is to keep the schools
going on a month-by-month basis
and to be ready to close the schools
quickly if any court order requiring
immediate integration is issued.
While not encouraging the piece
meal appropriation plan, the State
Department of Education announced
that it would gear its distribution of
school-aid funds to any reasonable
school-financing arrangement adopt
ed by the localities.
Atty.-Gen. J. Lindsay Almond Jr.,
said that after exhaustive study of
‘‘Perhaps They Can Help
You, Too’
—Richmond News Leader
the statutes, he had found no legal
impediment to any month-by-month
or quarter-by-quarter financing of
the schools. He said the financing is
purely an administrative procedure
within the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors.
WILL BORROW FUNDS
In a Saturday night meeting July
30, the Prince Edward Board of Su
pervisors authorized the county
school board to borrow from private
sources in order to operate the schools
for the 1955-56 school session, but the
authorization was on a month-to-
month basis.
The reason for this action is that the
board of supervisors already has
made its appropriations for the cur
rent fiscal year and the deadline set
for such fiscal action already is part.
In making its appropriations for
the current year, the board of super
visors, uncertain as to what may come
from the federal court case involving
the county’s schools, appropriated
only $150,000—approximately 45 per
cent of the total school budget—to
meet the school debt requirements
and to pay for building maintenance.
Under the authorization given at
the special meeting, the school board
may borrow an additional $262,500
for the school year, but must make
monthly reports to the supervisors on
these transactions. The purpose of this
is to permit the supervisors to keep
control over the county’s school sys
tem.
The action was approved by the su
pervisors iii a resolution, which said,
in part:
“We earnestly desire that public
schools may continue to operate. We
are conscious of conditions that may
make it impossible and contrary to
the welfare of all the people to con
tinue the public schools throughout
the year 1955-56.”
LEGAL ACTION
Less than a week after the Fourth
U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
validated intrastate bus segregation
laws in a South Carolina case, the
judge of the Richmond Police Court
convicted a 25-year-old Negro on a
charge of refusing to move to a seat
designated by a local bus driver.
James M. Ritter, 25, a student at
Virginia Union University, was fined
$10. His attorney, a member of the
legal staff of the NAACP, noted an
appeal. Hearing of the appeal was
set for Hustings Court here on Aug.
24.
Lee F. Davis, vice-president and
manager of the Virginia Transit
Company, which operates buses in
Richmond and Norfolk, has an
nounced that his firm will continue
to comply with the Virginia statute
relating to segregation on public car
riers.
Sinclair Phillips, president of the
Citizens Rapid Transit Company,
which operates buses in Newport
News, appealed to the public to con
tinue abiding by the Virginia segre
gation law, “For the sake of contin
ued harmonious relations among all,
we hope our patrons will abide by
the law until changed by proper au
thority,” he said.
The Newport News chapter of the
NAACP had sent a letter asking the
company to stop the practice of seg
regating the races on buses.
SECOND CASE
In another case involving segrega
tion, Federal District Judge Walter
E. Hoffman, sitting in Norfolk, per
manently enjoined the Virginia State
Department of Conservation and De
velopment from denying Negroes the
use of its state-owned Seashore state
park. »
The injunction also provided that
if the park is leased to a private op
erator (which the state had planned
to do in order to avoid admitting
Negroes) the operator cannot dis
criminate against any race.
When the park season began this
year, the state opened seven of its
all-white parks and its one all-Negro
park, but Seashore nark was not
opened. As of the end of July there
had been no change in this situation,
despite the ruling by Judge Hoffman.
Following issuance of the injunc
tion, Atty.-Gen. J. Lindsay Almond
Jr. declared that he felt Virginia
should quit the public park business
as quickly and as completely as pos
sible because no legal defense is left
for the operation of segregated state
parks. He commented further:
“I have long felt the state should
not compete with private enterprise
in those phases which belong to the
domain of orivate enternrise. Vir
ginia should be the last bastion of
private enternrise. If it is to crumple,
let it crumple elsewhere.”
The park ruling was seen as hav
ing a possible significant implication
in connection with proposals which
have been made for the leasing of
public school buildings to private
groups to permit the operation of seg
regated" schools.
Some observers said that if parks
leased by private onerators from the
state cannot be operated on a segre
gated basis, then school buildings
leased by private groups also could
not be used exclusively for members
of one race.
In the City of Newport News,
which has about 50 per cent Negro
school enrollment, the school board
received a petition from 590 Negro
parents asking integration this fall.
The board refused to reverse its June
decision to operate segregated
schools. The vote was 5-to-l, with
the lone Negro member, Dr. C. Waldo
Scott, dissenting.
The school board of the County of
Isle of Wight (which has about 54
per cent Negro school enrollment)
received a similar petition signed by
approximately 130 persons. The board
replied that it could not consider the
matter until it had conferred with
the county supervisors, seen a report
from the state’s official segregation
study commission and learned re
sults of the July 18 federal court
hearing on the Prince Edward case.
NORFOLK CONFUSION
Meanwhile, there was considerable
confusion here as to just what was
the significance, if any, in the Nor
folk school board’s statement issued
July 1 and reported briefly in the
last issue of Southern School News.
When the statement was first made
public, it was widely interpreted as
meaning that the board had endorsed
the principle of racial integration in
the schools.
In mid-July, however, news stories
quoted Paul Schweitzer, chairman of
the board, as saying the statement
did not approve or disapprove of
racial integration in the Norfolk
schools. He was quoted as saying, “I
wish the people would read the whole
statement.”
Southern School News attempted
to get Mr. Schweitzer to clarify the
matter, but he declined to make any
further statement.
The key words in the board’s state
ment were generally considered to be
these: “We intend, without mental
reservation, to uphold and abide by
the laws of the land.”
of Segregated Schooling
WORDS AND MUSIC
Richmond, Va.
Federal judges who have been
handed the problem of school
segregation apparently have been
doing considerable “boning up”
on the two Supreme Court de
cisions on the subject.
During the hearing on the
Prince Edward County case be
fore the special three-judge
court here on July 18, one of the
attorneys repeatedly quoted from
one of the higher court’s opin
ions. He apologized several times
for referring to the opinion so
often.
Finally, Circuit Judge Armis
tead M. Dobie, who was presid
ing, pointed out that he and his
two colleagues were thoroughly
familiar with the opinion in
question. In fact, he said:
“We could put notes to it and
By the end of July, indications
were that a special session will be
held in November. State Sen. Gar
land Gray, chairman of the Commis
sion on Public Education (the segre
gation study group), called a meet
ing of his 11-member executive com
mittee for Aug. 18-19. He said he
didn’t believe it would be possible
for the commission to have a report
ready in September.
With the report apparently coming
in October, speculation here was that
a special session will be called soon
after the general election of Nov. 8.
In Farmville, Prince Edward Coun
ty seat, the Rev. L. Francis Griffin,
president of the local chapter of the
NAACP and pastor of a Baptist
church, said the federal court order
of July 18 “simply means more time
for stalling off a situation that’s got
to be faced.”
He added:
“I don’t think there is any inten
tion on the part of the white people
to obey the law on integration.
If you give them five years their
argument would be the same. I don’t
think it (time) is going to change
their opinion at all.”
Lester E. Andrews, of Farmville
newly-elected chairman of the Prince
Edward school board, said of the de
cree: “We were well pleased with it
I think we can go ahead and oper
ate.”
In other developments in Virginia
related to racial segregation:
The Virginia League, a pro-segre
gation organization, sent letters to
members of the Senate Judiciary
subcommittee and to Virginia sen
ators, opposing President Eisenhow
er’s nomination of Solicitor-General
Simon E. Sobeloff to be a judge of
the U. S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. The letters, signed by
John W. Ball, of Henrico County,
president, said that “Sobeloff’s rec
ord, especially that portion dealing
with his position before the U. S.
Supreme Court in the segregation
cases, has convincingly demonstrated
to us that this person is a strong ad
vocate of racial integration and, pos
sibly, racial mongrelization—philos
ophy which, if imposed upon a people
by biased judges, can destroy this
republic.”
The Presbyterian Synod of Vir
ginia reaffirmed its opposition to seg
regation by voting to reject a move
for reconsideration of the group’s po
sition on the race question. The sy
nod last September had recommend
ed that its institutions of higher
learning open their doors to students
of all races and had taken other
steps considered as being pro-inte
gration.
Sussex County residents have set
up a committee to explore the possi
bility of operating a private school
system in the event integration in
public schools is ordered by the
courts.
Va. Proceedings
Following is a partial transcript
(exclusive in SSN) of the remanded
Prince Edward County case as heard
by a three-judge court in Richmond,
Va. Participating were Circuit Judge
Armistead M. Dobie and District
Judges Sterling Hutcheson and Al
bert V. Bryan. Attorneys for the state
were T. Justin Moore Sr., Archibald
G. Robertson and Atty.-Gen. J. Lind
say Almond. Attorneys for the plain
tiffs were Thurgood Marshall, Albert
W. Hill and Spottswood Robinson III.
JUDGE DOBIE: I think the first
thing to do is to take up this petition
for intervention. We had a similar pe
tition in the South Carolina case and
counsel for the defendants consented
to it and the order was issued. Frank
ly, I doubt the absolute necessity for
it...
MOORE, May it please the court,
we have no desire to make a compre
hensive opening statement in this
matter, but we believe it would be
helpful if we stated in just a few
words our position.
Of course, we are mindful of the
circumstances that occurred last Fri
day at the South Carolina hearing
and our position, fundamentally, is
that in view of certain facts that we
desire to present to the court, which
we believe set out in much more com
plete background, both from the
standpoint of the local authorities in
Prince Edward County and as to the
state’s action, that an order different
from that in South Carolina is appro
priate.
We believe that it is appropriate
and really necessary in the public in
terest in this particular proceeding
for an order to be entered that would
clarify the position of the state and
the Prince Edward authorities with
particular reference to operation of
this school during the next current
year. Your Honors will find when you
hear the facts that we are going
present that we do have a special sit
uation that is rather different, we
think, from the South Carolina situa
tion. . . .
From what has been said and pre
sented to the court, our position, we
believe, has been made very clear,
and it boils down to the proposition
that we do not believe that the South
Carolina decree is appropriate or ade
quate for the present situation.
Now, I desire to come immediateb
to what we consider to be the con
trolling questions before Your Honor-
and they are five. . . .
The first is, What is the test of de
liberate speed” that is referred to in
the opinion and in the mandate of tn
Supreme Court to this court?
cond, Has a prompt and reason^
start toward operation within
ework of the Supreme Cou. .
ee of May 31,1955, been made P
defendants so as to entitle the
Iditional time to make arrang ^
ts for admission of students on ^
discriminatory basis — “ p
lpt and reasonable start
s by these defendants, haviBe.
1 the Commonwealth is a de e
here, such as in South Caro
itate was not?
,e third question, Is it w | th “\ re e
it of the Supreme Court s e
[ay 31, 1955, during the »» g
>d before rearrangemen ue
discriminatory basis, to co „
Derate for the next sessioni ^
egated basis? In other wo ^ a
iperation for the next y .^in
;gated basis permissib e
framework of the
•t’s decree?
xl