Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 14—JANUARY 1956—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Virginia Voters Face Referendum Jan. 9, Discuss ‘Interposition’
RICHMOND, Va.
irginia voters — possibly in an
all-time record turnout—will go
to the polls Jan. 9 to pass judgment
on the first phase of a program de
signed to prevent enforced integra
tion in the state’s public schools.
They will decide, in effect, wheth
er to amend their state constitution
in order to permit the use of public
funds to educate children in private
schools. (See “Legislative Action.”)
Tuition grants to children in
segregated private schools, so they
won’t have to attend integrated
public schools, is a key factor in the
program recommended by the 32-
member segregation study commis
sion and strongly endorsed by near
ly everyone connected with the state
government.
Other major parts of the program
include:
1) Enactment of laws to permit lo
cal school boards to assign pupils to
particular schools on the basis of
health, aptitude and other factors.
2) Amendment of the compulsory
attendance law to say that no child
would be forced to attend an inte
grated school.
All possible influence of the state
government is being brought to bear
to secure a favorable vote for the
constitutional change on Jan. 9.
CAN’T PREDICT
But strong forces also are lined up
against it. Newsmen trained in an
alyzing political campaigns say it is
impossible to predict with any de
gree of certainty how the vote will
go.
This does not mean that segrega
tion and integration sentiment in
Virginia are evenly divided — far
from it. The white population, as a
whole, is predominantly for segrega
tion. But some segregationists will
oppose the constitutional change be
cause, they declare, it would imperil
the public schools.
As the referendum controversy
proceeded, debate was stirred over a
Richmond newspaper’s campaign in
favor of “interposition.” (See “Mis
cellaneous.”)
For five days the entire editorial
page was devoted to editorials and
reprints of historical documents
bearing on the subject, and a pro
posed resolution was suggested for
submission to the legislature in Jan
uary.
Here’s the background of the
forthcoming referendum:
In mid-November, 14 months af
ter it was appointed by Gov. Thomas
B. Stanley, the Commission on Pub
lic Education (the segregation study
group) handed in its report, which
had been unanimously adopted.
The report said that Section 141
of the Virginia constitution, which
now prohibits use of public money
to educate children in private
schools, should be amended to per
mit such use, except in the case of
sectarian schools.
Gov. Stanley immediately called
the General Assembly into special
session on Nov. 30 to start the ball
rolling toward the proposed consti
tutional change.
The legislators gave overwhelm
ing approval to the plan. They au
thorized a statewide referendum at
which voters will decide whether a
constitutional convention will be
called to draft the constitutional
change.
4-DAY SESSION
The special legislative session
lasted four days. The first day was
devoted largely to a public hearing,
at which those who appeared were
about evenly divided for and against
the referendum. But the proposal
went through the House of Dele
gates on a 93-to-5 vote and through
the Senate 38-to-l. Gov. Stanley
signed the bill on Dec. 3, the same
day the Assembly completed action,
and he set Jan. 9 as the date for
the referendum.
This touched off one of the most
spirited campaigns in the state’s his
tory.
By the end of the following week,
those leading the fight for the con
stitutional change had opened state
headquarters in the Hotel Richmond
in Richmond.
Dr. Dabney S. Lancaster, former
state superintendent of public in
struction and now president emer
itus of Longwood College, is director
of the information center. Among
those working with him is Rep. Wat
kins M. Abbitt, of the Fourth con
gressional district, as coordinator.
ADOPT SLOGAN
Ten days later, opponents of the
tuition grant plan opened state head
quarters—in (he suite directly above
that of their antagonists in the Hotel
Richmond. The “anti” group is called
the Virginia Society for Preservation
of Public Schools. Its slogan “Don’t
Vote for Private Schools for the Rich,
Integrated Schools for the Poor.”
The organized fight against the
amendment is being led by Armis-
tead L. Boothe, of Alexandria, who
was one of the five members of the
House of Delegates to vote against
the referendum. He will take his seat
as a member of the State Senate
when the legislature convenes in
regular session early in January.
Meanwhile, organizations and
prominent individuals by the scores
began lining up on one side or the
other of the hotly controversial is
sue.
To cite a few (as representative
examples), on the side favoring the
constitutional change are U. S. Sen
ators Harry Flood Byrd and A. Willis
Robertson; former Gov. John S. Bat
tle, now a Charlottesville attorney;
former Gov. Colgate W. Darden, now
president of the University of Vir
ginia and a U. S. delegate to the
United Nations; Dr. Dowell J. How
ard, state superintendent of public
instruction; all members of the State
Board of Education; Robert White-
head, member of the legislature,
leader of Democrats opposing the
dominant Democratic faction in Vir
ginia politics, and a probable candi
date for governor in 1957; Virginia
Farmers Union; Miss Cornelia Adair,
of Richmond, teacher and principal
in the public schools for more than
half a century and former president
of the National Education Associa
tion; Dr. Walter S. Newman, presi
dent of Virginia Polytechnic Insti
tute; state Sen. S. Floyd Landreth,
state GOP chairman; the executive
committee of the League of Vir
ginia Counties, and various local
school boards and school superin
tendents.
‘ANTI’ FACTION
Lining up on the “anti” side are
three church publications, the Baptist
Religious H er aid, the Virginia
Methodist Advocate and the Presby
terian Outlook; Republican state
Sen. Ted Dalton, who made a strong
race for governor against the incum
bent two years ago; H. B. Boyd,
president of the Virginia Federation
of Labor, and Julian F. Carper, ex
ecutive vice president of the Vir
ginia State Industrial Union Council;
the Virginia League of Women Vot
ers; the Virginia Teachers Associa
tion (Negro); Charlottesville chap
ter of the American Association of
University Women; the National As
sociation for the Advancement of
Colored People, and the Virginia
Council on Human Relations.
An incident involving the last-
named organization gives an idea of
the intensity of feeling on the ref
erendum issue in Virginia.
The Rev. Dr. John H. Marion, a
Presbyterian minister and executive
director of the Council on Human
Relations, was invited to address
the Sphinx Club of Acca Temple, a
Shriners group, of Richmond. At its
luncheon meeting the previous week,
the club had heard a member of the
segregation study commission urge a
favorable vote in the referendum.
Before the luncheon meeting be
gan on the day that Dr. Marion was
to speak, club officials discussed with
4 . . . It’s as Simple as That’
m
m
THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT TO
CALL A CONVENTION TO
AMEND THE STATE
CONSTITUTION SO THAT THE
STATE CAN USE PUBLIC
FUNDS FOR TUITION GRANTS
TO INDIVIDUAL PUPILS.
-Richmond News Leader
Marion the remarks he planned to
make. Then A. L. Tenser, potentate
of Acca Temple, told reporters who
were present: “I’m afraid Dr. Ma
rion will not make a speech. We
can’t have him say anything that
would put us behind the eight-ball.”
Marion, who favors integration,
left with the speech tucked under
his arm.
(It should not be inferred from the
representative pro and con lineup
listed above that there necessarily is
a solid front, either for or against the
amendment, among all members of
any groups represented.)
QUESTIONS RAISED
While integrationists are opposing
the tuition grant plan in principle,
many persons who are against it, or
who are raising questions about it,
are concerned primarily over the ef
fect they fear it might have on the
public schools. Some religious
groups also fear that while the pro
posal would not cover grants to chil
dren attending sectarian schools,
policies might later be changed to
permit such grants.
The Richmond District Methodist
Ministers’ Association, by a 26-to-10
vote, adopted a statement which
raises questions typical of those
asked by other individuals and or
ganizations:
“How will standards be main
tained in these private schools with
out state supervision? If the state
supervises or controls, how can these
schools be ‘private’ schools? How can
we be sure that this is not an ‘en
tering wedge’ for the support of sec
tarian or parochial schools by pub
lic funds? . . .
WHAT PRICE?
“Q. If public school buildings are
sold, what factors would determine
the price?
“A. The present law provides that
a school building may be sold when
it is no longer needed for public
school purposes. The sale is conducted
in the same manner as a sale of other
county property. It may be either a
private or public sale but must have
the approval of the court.”
In connection with the pupil assign
ment plan, the list of questions and
answers contains this significant one:
“Q. Is the general assumption cor
rect that the assignment plan is de
signed to control a minimum amount
of integration in those school divisions
that might so elect, but that it would
not prevent some integration?
“A. It is conceivable that the oper
ation of the assignment plan will mean
some integration in certain parts of
the state.”
PROVIDES FOR CHOICE
In other words, the Virginia plan
does not attempt to prevent any in
tegration whatever from taking place.
But if the governing board of a lo
cality chooses to integrate its school,
the plan would make it possible for
any parent who opposed integration
to withdraw his child and put him in
a private school. Such a child would
receive a state grant of an amount
which would not exceed the cost to
the locality of educating the child had
he remained in the public school.
Meanwhile, the referendum battle
rages most fiercely in the northern
Virginia area in the vicinty of Wash
ington, D. C. There are relatively few
Negroes in that part of the state. Also,
many white residents of that area are
federal employes from other parts o'
the country where schools are inte
grated.
In the western part of the state,
where the number of Negroes also is
small, prospects are for a strong vote
against the tuition grant plan. On the
other hand, Southside Virginia (ex.
cept for Negroes there) apparently
will vote almost solidly for it.
LEGAL ACTION
A packed chamber of deputies surveyed by the largest gallery ever to turn out for a legislative hearing heard Vir
ginia’s Gov. Thomas Stanley present proposals for amending the state’s constitution to permit the use of public funds
for private schools.
“What assurance do we have that
our public school buildings will not
be sold to private groups for nom
inal amounts? Where will these pri
vate schools meet? How can we ex
pect to attract qualified teachers
when our public school system is put
on such a precarious basis?”
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The proponents have put out a list
of questions and answers in which
they seek to deal with points raised
by opponents.
Some examples:
“Q. If people prefer to withdraw
from public schools that may become
integrated, where and how will pri
vate schools be established?
“A. Private schools will not be
established through state aid or ac
tion. They must be established
through the individual and commu
nity efforts of those parents who ob
ject to sending their children to in
tegrated public schools.
“Q. In case private schools are
started, what buildings will be used
for them?
“A. The . . . commission report
does not recommend any direct aid
to private schools, and the people in
a given locality will have to provide
such schools if their children are to
become eligible for tuition aid. The
commission has visualized that in cer
tain sections of Virginia the people
will attempt to educate their children
in any structures that may be avail
able. It is also visualized that exist
ing private schools will be available
to some and that new private schools
will be established for others.
A legal effort to prevent holding
of the Jan. 9 referendum met defeat
in Richmond’s Circuit Court.
Joseph A. Jordan Jr., a Norfolk at-
torney, tried to get an injunction to
stop the referendum on the grounds
that the purpose of the proposed con
stitutional change was illegal. He
contended that it was a plan to main
tain segregated schools, which the
Supreme Court had ruled unconsti
tutional.
But Judge Harold F. Snead ruled
that the motive of the legislature in
calling the referendum could not be
questioned by the court. He refused
to grant an injunction.
In another case, the State Supreme
Court of Appeals agreed to hear an
appeal brought by the Hanover
County School Board from a decision
of Circuit Judge Leon M. Bazile.
On June 28, Judge Bazile enjoined
the board from spending the proceeds
of a school bond issue, previously au
thorized by the voters. He ruled that
the Supreme Court decision outlaw
ing segregation had changed the cir
cumstances under which the voters
originally had approved the issue.
Editor James J. Kilpatrick of the
Richmond News Leader has been
conducting a campaign for “interpo
sition” that has drawn widespread
attention throughout the South.
Kilpatrick devoted his entire edi
torial page for several days to the
reprinting of historical documents and
to his own editorial discussion of
interposition. Under the plan, Vir
ginia—and other states which cared
to join with her—would by legisla
tive action declare that the Supreme
Court in its segregation decision had
exceeded its authority and that its
decision was null and void.
A resolution of interposition is ex
pected to be introduced into the Vir
ginia General Asembly at its regu
lar session convening here early m
January.
Under a draft proposed by Kilpat-
(rick. the Virginia legislature, after ex
pressing the state’s views on the
whole segregation controversy, would
declare:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
“Therefore, the General Assembly
of Virginia, appealing to our sister
states for that decision, which only
the states are qualified to make, sub
mits this question of contested power
to them for resolution; and calls upon
the Congress to propose for submis
sion to the states, pursuant to Artie e
V of the constitution, a suitab e
amendment that would declare, uj
plain and unequivocal language, tha
the states do surrender their power
to maintain public schools, and other
public facilities, on a basis of separa
tion as to race; and that if t^ re ®T
fourths of the states assent to suc^
amendment of our compact, Yirguj*
agrees that it will be bound there y>
“Be it further resolved, that urU“
the issue between the state of Vir
ginia and the general govemmen
so decided, the General Assembly
Virginia declares the decisions an
orders of the Supreme Court of
United States relating to separa o
of the races in its public institutio
are, as a matter of right, null, v 31
and of no effect; and the General ^
sembly declares to all men that as
matter of right, this state is not bo
to abide thereby ...” p .j. t
But the Norfolk Virginian- '
said that such a resolution wou
“futile” and that the General Ass e _
bly would “look a little silly
adopts such a measure. The
said interposition was once a v
doctrine but that it is not now, .
light of the Thirteenth, Fourteen
and Fifteenth amendments to
Constitution.