Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 12—August 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Proceedings
(Continued)
perfect right to decline to answer it
if you want to. Let us suppose that
the school board of Prince Edward
County may be misguided; they are
not familiar with sociological theory;
they have not read a great many of
the astrological patriotic treatises
written by men who are conversant
with the books; and they do decide
on the question of segregation to
abolish the public schools and that
there will be no public schools in the
county. Which way would you pre-
fer?
ROBINSON: Well, as Mr. Marshall
expressed himself in South Carolina,
we, I think, would be the last ones to
express a desire to abolish the public
schools. At the same time, we are not
satisfied that we are faced with that
situation in this case and, additional
ly, we feel that the things urged by
the Supreme Court in its decision
would take us away from that...
The position I would have to take for
my clients is that we could not accept
a segregated situation.
JUDGE DOBIE: Under no circum
stances, come hell or high water,
come darkness or dawn, non-segre
gation or nothing? That is not what
I understood Mr. Marshall to say in
South Carolina.
ROBINSON: Well, if Your Honor
please, I suggest Mr. Marshall is go
ing to speak this morning. However,
I would repeat again that that is not
the question that we face in this situ
ation, and before sitting down I in
tend to argue to the court that the
suggestion that has been made by the
defendants relative to the desegrega
tion of high schools in Prince Ed
ward County during the next year
does not comply with the Supreme
Court’s decision...
Our suggestion relative to a decree
is this: First, we think it should con
tain three provisions. First, in con
formity with the direction of the Su
preme Court, we think it should con
tain a provision specifically requiring,
the defendants to make a prompt and
reasonable start toward desegregation
of the public secondary schools in
Prince Edward County.
Secondly, we feel that the decree
should also require interim progress
reports up to the time that the de
segregation process is actually com
pleted.
Thirdly, as I have already suggest
ed, we believe that the decree should
require the completion of the deseg
regation process by the commence
ment of the next regular school ses
sion in September, 1955.
As we understand the May 31 deci
sion, additional time is to be granted
to the defendants only if, once a
prompt and reasonable start has been
made, such time is necessary to carry
out the Supreme Court’s ruling in an
effective manner.
JUDGE DOBIE: Now, let’s see. Do
I understand you that the decree
should require, positively and abso
lutely, in no uncertain terms, that
there should be desegregation within
two months?
ROBINSON: That is right; by Sep
tember, 1955. I would like to say I
am basing that argument on the basis
of experience in other counties and
also after hearing the argument that
was made here this morning as to
what was necessary and what occa
sion there is for delay beyond that
space of time.
As the Supreme Court has said:
“The burden rests upon the defend
ants to establish that such time is
necessary in the public interest and
is consistent with good faith compli
ance at the earliest practicable date.”
As I have already said, nothing oc
curs to us that would delay desegre
gation beyond September 1955 and
we are not prepared to say that delay
beyond that date is consistent with
good faith in compliance...
I would like to take just an addi
tional moment to address myself to
a few of the legal implications rela
tive to the suggestion that they have
made, that they must continue to
operate the schools in Prince Edward
County for the next school session
on a segregated basis, otherwise those
schools will close.
At the outset, I would like to
point out that there certainly has
not been any showing satisfactory
to us that under these circumstances
we or they or the court have been
shown that conditions will be any
different in August or September of
1956. But, in addition to that, we
feel that the considerations them
selves are legally irrelevant... Orig
inally, it was an effort to justify the
constitutionality of the segregation
laws, themselves, and since the Su
preme Court on May 17, 1954, has
established that those laws are un
constitutional, it has been used, or it
has been suggested as a means for
indefinitely delaying the desegrega
tion of the public schools. We feel
that on the basis of the court’s May
31 decree, there can be no question
but that a decree of the type they
offer should not be entered.
The court started off its opinion
by making reference to the fact that
on May 17, 1954, it had declared the
fundamental principle that racial
discrimination in public education is
unconstitutional, and then the court
went on to say that all provisions of
federal, state, or local law requiring
or permitting such discrimination
must yield to this principle, and I
do not think that any action that
would fall within the scope of the
prohibition on state, federal, or local
laws could be tolerated by the Four
teenth Amendment.
But the Supreme Court did not
content itself with stopping at this
point. It went on to say:
“But it should go without saying
that the vitality of these constitu
tional principles cannot be allowed
to yield simply because of disagree
ment with them.”
That, as I understand it, is the
difficulty encountered by the school
authorities in Prince Edward Coun
ty. They want to discontinue the
schools because the principles an
nounced by the Supreme Court do
not meet the approval of the offi
cials of that county.
At this point I would like to turn
the argument over to Mr. Hill.
e
HILL: May it please the court, just
at the termination of his argument
... my colleague had pointed out to
the court that up to the present time,
despite all these affidavits, the peti
tion, and everything else, all the
defendants have produced is the fact
that there is community hostility
toward desegregation ...
JUDGE DOBIE: You need not de
bate that.
HILL: We submit that that is all
up to this time that the defendants
have come forward with.
JUDGE DOBIE: You don’t need to
discuss its application to this case.
Of course we know that.
HILL: Yes; I understand the court.
In the course of their presentation,
serious efforts have been made to do
several things. One, to contend that
serious efforts have been made and
are being made to show deliberate
speed. We submit that so far as any
thing that the Commonwealth has
done... nothing up to the present
time has indicated any willingness
to comply with the Supreme Court’s
decision, from the announcement of
the governor of Virginia of the ap
pointment of a commission right
down to the last pronouncement of
the commission...
We submit it would take no legis
lative commission or anybody else to
study the school laws of Virginia for
one year in order to comply with
the Supreme Court’s decision. The
only reason that the matter is being
not now clarified is because the laws
of Virginia, so far as we have been
able to ascertain, are directed toward
continuing segregation, in spite of
the Supreme Court’s decision. As al
ready pointed out, we do not con
tend that anybody has to integrate
anything. All we say and all the
Supreme Court says is that color has
to be taken out of the classification.
When attorneys don’t have any
case, they get a whipping post. In
order to persuade this court that it
should permit these activities and
give them authority to go on and
continue segregated schools, they
use the NAACP as a whipping post.
But we represent blood and flesh
individuals in Prince Edward Coun
ty, and those... individuals, when
their constitutional rights are in
volved, are the ones we want to se
cure those rights for. As individuals
living in Prince Edward County, of
course, they are interested in their
county, and whenever counsel for the
other side can show that they are
willing to cooperate, certainly our
clients will cooperate.
So, all this talk about shuffling a
bunch of children is done to influ
ence this court, we submit, against
a decree in this case. I am ready now
on behalf of my clients to say that
we are perfectly willing to do what
ever is necessary so far as coopera
tion is concerned, but cooperation is
a two-way proposition ...
We submit there is only one thing
for this court to do in fairness to
the people of Virginia, in fairness
to our clients, and in fairness to
everybody in Prince Edward County,
and that is, let the public officials
and everyone else in Prince Edward
County know that the law of this
land is that race can no longer be
used as the basis for assigning pupils
in this school. We hope to have
prompt desegregation. We submit it
can be done in September 1955 and
we submit to this court that is the
only thing that is going to bring these
people to the realization that that is
the law and they are going to have
to face up to it, and on that basis I
think we will make some reasonable
progress.
JUDGE DOBIE: Let me ask you a
question. Do you think that by Sep
tember 15 of this year, which is less
than two months off now, that they
could really integrate, or do any
thing other than just not have any
schools at all?
HILL: I will try to answer both
questions, Judge Dobie. I think this,
in all fairness and candor: that if
they honestly wanted to do it, there
would be no problem whatsoever on
completely desegregating the schools.
We recognize the fact that they have
community hostility. I still say that
they could start—
JUDGE DOBIE: How about the
legislative problem?
HILL: I say as far as legislative
problems are concerned, the declara
tion of the Suoreme Court has out
lawed constitutional segregation;
that money goes down to the schools
on the basis of attendance, that is,
from the state; the local money is
collected in the localities.
There is no reason in the world
why they could not use that money,
and they know as well as I know
that there is not a court in Virginia
that is going to do anything with
these trustees for using the money
to go ahead and carry on the schools,
in the light of the recent interpreta
tion as far as the law is concerned.
And I say this: that if they were con
scientious about it, with the able
counsel they have and the attorney
general’s office, so far as any changes
in the law of Virginia are concerned,
so far as the appropriations and all
those things, they could have been
announced months ago. Even a sec
ond-rate lawyer could have recom
mended the proper changes, and
they have got able counsel. So, we
know that these things are just ex-
CUSGS.
JUDGE HUTCHESON: Mr. Hill,
let me ask this auestion: As I under
stand, the boards of supervisors of
the respective counties are the ones
who levy the taxes for local school
purposes. They are not parties to this
proceeding.
HILL: That is right.
JUDGE HUTCHESON: What can
the school board do in the face of
inaction by the board of supervisors?
Would you like to make any com
ment on that?
HILL: I think this: I think that
what we are concerned with right
now is an order directed to the school
board. Now, if the proper order is
entered and then someone else inter
feres with the school board’s per
formance of its duties, then I think
it will be up to someone else. The
school board could come in and show
that they had endeavored in good
faith to carry out the court’s order
but were being blocked by some
other official, and the remedy would
be to bring them in in some proper
proceeding. ..
•
MARSHALL: May it please the
court, there are one or two points
that I would like to clear up. One is
about the need for changing the laws
of the state. The question was asked,
and especially the lawyers resident
here in Virginia and the rest of us
have studied as many of the school
laws as we can find. We find no need
to change any of these laws ...
JUDGE DOBIE:... Has any con
crete suggestion been made as to
what laws should be passed or
changed by the legislature if a spe
cial session is called? I have seen
none.
MARSHALL: I have seen none. I
have watched the press and have
watched these papers that have been
filed, and I have seen none.
JUDGE DOBIE: Maybe the attor
ney general can answer that.
MARSHALL: Maybe so. The point
is that all the Supreme Court has
said that the defendants in this case
would have need to worry about is
the statutes, because the Supreme
Court has said that state statutes and
ordinances contrary to this principle
should yield ...
JUDGE DOBIE: Of course, any
thing in a state statute in the teeth
of the Constitution would be invalid.
MARSHALL: Absolutely. And that
goes back to the last century. That
is one point that is urged for con
tinuation.
Then, the other point, as I under
stand it, is the need for time, because
of so-called hostility in the local
county, and it seems to me that,
Number One, as Mr. Hill said, the
Supreme Court has told this court
that that is one thing that is outside
of the court—any consideration that
somebody disagrees with the princi
ple as established by the court. That
is one point.
The other point is that perhaps the
other side would be on sounder
ground if somebody in position to do
so would stand here and say that at
the end of next year they will be
ready to desegregate and that things
will be better, but, since nobody has
said that up until this time, it seems
to me the only logical conclusion
that this court can draw is that their
real argument is that at this time they
want at least a year more, with the
idea of next year getting a year
more. In other words, there is noth
ing in this case, as we had in South
Carolina, even, which said that they
were taking the steps of getting
oualified experts from the Univer
sity of North Carolina and other
places to see how they could work
this thing out, but, as I understand
it, they want the permission of this
court to continue segregation just
because people don’t like to deseg
regate.
JUDGE DOBIE: Do you contend
that the idea of apnointing these
committees, and all, is a deliberate
attempt to put off desegregation?
MARSHALL: I do know this,
Judge Dobie: I remember reading
the original order on the setting up
of this commission, and I can be cor
rected by the attorney general, but,
as I read that order, it said this com
mission is to work out a way of con
tinuing segregation. Now, what it
has been doing since that time. I
don’t know, but I see nothing in the
orders there at all that says that
there is a possibility that desegrega
tion will ever occur. In other words,
they give no hone, and again I come
back to this point about this threat
of abolishing schools ...
In such a situation, it seems to me
that reasonable people might be will
ing to say “okay.” but when you are
offered nothing at the end of this
period or closing of the schools, then
it is an entirely different offer...
When we are offered either segre
gation or nothing, then, under the
SuDreme Court’s decision. I don’t
think we have any right to be ex
pected to give up our rights com
pletely. I am afraid that is the posi
tion we are in in this case. The
Supreme Court has said the=e are
personal rights that are entitled to
be protected ...
On the other point, Judge Dobie,
that was raised, about abolishing
public schools, Mr. Robinson said
there was considerable research be
ing done. The only cases I know of
say that the . .. Fourteenth Amend
ment could not require a state to set
up public schools. That is as far as
it goes. But once the schools are set
up and the schools are abolished for
the sole purpose of thwarting the
enforcement of the jurisdiction of
this court, I think we have a differ
ent question, and that is the research
we are working on right now.
That also includes Judge Hutche
son’s questions about the supervi
sors ...
e
ALMOND: May it please the court,
we were here and we were heard
before this court on Feb. 25, 1952
There are many who contend that
we have not been heard since. We
are glad to be back...
There has been an attack, subtle
though it was, on the good faith of
Virginia in proceeding to a solution
of the grave problems created by the
decision of the Supreme Court on
May 17, 1954. Virginia is a party to
this litigation. She is a party because
by constitution and statute the oper
ation of the public school system is
a joint state and local undertaking
or enterprise. Until the state moves
in earnestness, as we contend she is
now moving, to bring an orderly and
equitable solution, the school au
thorities of the various localities
affected have their hands tied ...
After the decision of May 17, the
governor appointed a 32-man com
mission, nearly one-quarter of the
entire General Assembly of Virginia.
The record shows further today...
that that commission is working
earnestly to bring about a solution of
the dilemma in which we find our
selves, and to bring it about within
the framework of the law if hu
manly possible...
In the meantime, there stands
Prince Edward County, that is, the
school board. It asks for an appro
priation of $373,500. The statute law
of Virginia requires of School Supt.
Mcllwaine and the school board to
present that budget on or before
April 1 of this year, and he did. The
statutory law of Virginia requires
the board of supervisors to make
their levy on or before May 31 of this
year; they did. But, instead of appro
priating $373,500 for the operation of
schools at the local level, they only
appropriated 45 per cent of that
amount and $50,000 of it must go to
the debt service on the obligations
which they owe.
Now, if Your Honors please, in all
honesty and with all the fervor of my
being, I say to this court that this
question is vitally and ineradicably
affected with the public interest.
You are sitting as a court of equity-
We appeal to you... to adjust.--
this conflict between public and pri
vate interests. And shall we destroy
the public interest in this county for
the coming school session because the
school authorities are helpless, b e "
cause from conditions over which
they have no control there are no
schools in Prince Edward County-
I say to Your Honors, contrary f°
the position of the opposition, that
granting a decree contrary to the one
we ask for is utterly inconsistent with
the latest deliverance of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
They ask you to punish and they
come here and say, “We are willing
to cooperate.” They are willing
cooperate if they dictate every VJ°~
cedure of the process of cooperation-
Their willingness to cooperate has
been answered already by the fib™
of petitions with various
boards in other localities demanding
that integration be accomplished -
September 1955. Their willingness
cooperate has been evidenced by
advent of the Kleagles of
NAACP and the holding of concla«®
throughout Virginia and churning ^
the emotions of their sensitive P e °P
and passing around the hat for co
sel fees for further litigation. • •
Now, they have not been conte ^f
to even wait upon the deliverance
this court to implement the
of the high court. They sought
decision and they obtained it- s •
in effect, what the NAACP has ^
doing is in defiance of the S u P r .
Court of the United States in 1
vocation of the flexibility and f a
of equitable principles for adffi ^^
and reconciling public and P 1 " 1 ^.,
needs. They defy the policy ° t0
ginia in its efforts in good
hold together and operate ib P
schools during the prerequisi ^
terim when the state must, w ^
it wants to or not, honestly 311
peditiously endeavor to bring j of .
an adjustment. This is all we : .*f ^ e nt
Yes, drunk with power and he
to present chaos, they place
own construction on the term
(Continued on Next Page-i