Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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