Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 10—DECEMBER 1957—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Almond \ictor in Virginia
Test of ‘Resistance’ Plan
RICHMOND, Va.
emocratic Candidate J. Lind
say Almond Jr. was elected
governor of Virginia by a nearly
2-to-l vote generally interpreted
here as a demonstration of Vir
ginians’ strong support for the
state’s policy of “massive resist
ance” to school integration. (See
“Political Activity.”)
The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court
reversed a federal district judge
who had refused to set a definite
deadline for the beginning of de
segregation in Prince Edward
County. (See “Legal Action.”)
Two General Assembly investigative
committees issued reports charging the
National Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People with unauthor
ized practice of law and individual
NAACP attorneys with violating laws
governing the conduct of members of
the legal profession. (See “Legislative
Action.”)
Democrat J. Lindsay Almond Jr., who
resigned as attorney general to nm for
governor of Virginia, swept to an easy
victory on Nov. 5 over his Republican
opponent, Theodore Roosevelt (Ted)
Dalton.
The complete unofficial vote:
Almond—327,933.
Dalton—188,538.
This gave Dalton about 36.5 per cent
of the total vote. Four years ago, when
he ran against the present governor,
Thomas B. Stanley, he received about 45
per cent of the vote.
lower proportionately
Dalton’s total this time was a few
thousand above his vote in 1953. How
ever, far more votes were cast in this
election, so his proportion of the total
was well below that of four years ago.
Dalton agreed with the Democrats that
the President’s use of troops to enforce
school integration in Little Rock had
cost the Republicans many votes. De
clared Dalton: “Little Rock knocked me
down to nothing. It wasn’t a little rock
it was a big rock.”
He said that after the Little Rock in
cident, some of his friends urged him
to withdraw as the Republican candi
date. “I couldn’t do that,” he said. “I
just took another hitch in my galluses
and told them I wasn’t built that way.”
CARRIES ONE DISTRICT
516,000 Virginians who voted. Three Ne
groes running for the House of Dele
gates—one in Richmond, one in Nor
folk and one in Southampton County—
were all defeated.
Developments of the final few days
prior to the election included a state
ment from James C. Hagerty, the Presi
dent’s press secretary, that Mr. Eisen
hower hoped Dalton would be elected.
Also, Walter P. Reuther, president of
the United Auto Workers, said in an
address to a labor group in Washington
on Nov. 1 that the AFL-CIO was sup
porting Dalton.
WIN OTHER OFFICES
Democrats captured the two other
statewide offices at stake in the election.
A.E.S. Stephens was re-elected lieu
tenant governor over Republican Horace
E. Henderson, and state Sen. Albertis
S. Harrison Jr. was named attorney
general over J. Livingstone Dillow. Al
mond, Stephens and Harrison take of
fice Jan. 11.
Among the significant local contests
was one in Arlington County, northern
Virginia, for the county’s governing
board.
Herbert L. Brown Jr., 44-year-old
managing editor of Kiplinger’s Chang
ing Times magazine, candidate of the
liberal-moderate Arlingtonians for a
Better County, won over J. Maynard
Magruder, 57-year-old former member
of the House of Delegates, who was sup
ported by the conservative Arlington
Independent Movement. The unofficial
vote was 14,015 to 11,560.
BROWN GROUP CONTROLS
The victory gave the Brown group a
3-2 edge on the county board, and thus
long-range control of the schools, since
the county board makes school board
appointments. The opposing faction had
been in control for five years. Brown
goes into office Jan. 1.
Two terms on the five-member school
board expire Dec. 31, 1957. The ques
tion whether the two replacements are
to be named by the present county
board or by the board as it will be
constituted after Jan. 1, is at issue in
a suit pending before the state supreme
court.
During the campaign Brown took the
position that if the courts order Arling
ton schools to integrate and the state
forces the school to close, he would fa
vor trying to find ways to reopen the
schools. He said that if the schools did
reopen and if the state withheld state
funds, he would favor taking legal ac
tion to force the state to provide the
money withheld.
LEGAL ACTION
Prince Edward County should make
“a prompt and reasonable start” toward
desegregation of its public schools, even
though such action might result in clos
ing the schools, the Fourth Circuit
Court said in an opinion on Nov. 11.
(Allen v. County School Board of Prince
Edward County.)
The three-judge court held that Dis
trict Judge Sterling Hutcheson of Rich
mond had erred in failing to tell Prince
Edward it had to comply with the Su
preme Court’s desegregation decision by
a definite date. (See text on this page.)
Judge Hutcheson, on Jan. 23,1957, had
rejected an attempt by the NAACP to
get a deadline by which Prince Edward
schools would have to be desegregated.
“In the present state of unrest and
racial tension in the county,” Judge
Hutcheson wrote at that time, “it would
be unwise to attempt to force a change
of the system until the entire situation
can be considered and adjustments
gradually brought about.” (Southern
School News, February 1957.)
PLAN TO APPEAL
Counsel for the county school board
announced that they would appeal the
circuit court decision to the U.S. Su
preme Court.
Officials of the county appeared not to
be surprised by the circuit court’s rul
ing. They said the white citizens of the
county many months ago made plans to
close the public schools, if necessary, to
prevent integration, and to operate pri
vate schools for white children. Money
has been raised and detailed arrange
ments made for such operation.
The validity of the Virginia Pupil
Placement Act as it affects white chil
dren was upheld last month by Federal
District Judge Albert V. Bryan of Alex
andria.
Parents of Joel Klein, a white youth,
had refused to sign pupil placement
form as required by the law, and Falls
Church school officials thereupon had
denied the boy admittance to the school.
The parents appealed to Judge Bryan
for a rehearing on their petition for an
order to require school officials to admit
the youth.
MOTION DENIED
In denying the motion, Judge Bryan
said, “it does not appear that the plain
tiffs are being denied any right or privi
lege because of their race or color. . . .”
Judge Bryan’s action, along with other
recent developments, indicates that the
Pupil Placement Act is still valid in so
far as white pupils are concerned but
is dead as a means of preventing inte
gration—which was the whole purpose
of the act. In October the U.S. Supreme
Court refused to review the Norfolk -
Newport News desegregation case in
GOV.-ELECT ALMOND
Wins By Wide Margin
which a lower court had held that the
placement act provided inadequate ad
ministrative remedy for Negroes seek
ing admission to white schools.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The NAACP and affiliates were de
nounced by two legislative committees
in reports to the General Assembly last
month.
The Committee on Offenses Against
the Administration of Justice and the
Committee on Law Reform and Racial
Activities were set up by the special
session of the General Assembly in 1956.
Their investigations centered primarily
on the role of the NAACP in desegrega
tion cases in Virginia.
The Committee on Offenses Against
the Administration of Justice charged
that the NAACP, the NAACP Legal De
fense and Educational Fund, Inc., and
various NAACP branches in Virginia
have been guilty of the common law
offense of “maintenance” (an offense in
which “a person without interest in a
suit officiously intermeddles therein”).
10 ARE CHARGED
The NAACP and certain NAACP at
torneys were charged with the common
law offense of barratry, and 10 NAACP
lawyers were charged with unprofes
sional conduct. The NAACP and certain
of its state officials were charged with
unauthorized practice of law.
The committee itself did not take
steps to bring any legal action against
those it claimed had violated the laws.
Instead, it recommended, in effect, that
the General Assembly tell the proper
enforcement authorities to proceed
Dalton carried only one of the state’s
10 congressional districts. He won by a
margin of a little less than 2,000 votes
(out of about 60,000 cast) in the Tenth
District. This is the northern section of
the state, home of thousands of federal
employes who work in the Washington
area. It is the section where desegrega
tion sentiment is considered strongest
in Virginia.
The feeling of most observers here
was that the GOP candidate would have
lost in any event, but that the Little
Rock incident caused resistance senti
ment to harden and thereby sent some
of his former supporters into the Dem
ocratic camp.
Rep. Joel T. Broyhill, Republican, who
represents the Tenth District in Con
gress, saw Little Rock as a major cause
of the defeat of his party’s nominee. He
said voters identified Dalton with mod
eration in the school fight or with acqui
escence in the court’s desegregation
ruling. “Any Republican in the South
who supports integration is a dead
duck,” he said. “If the Republican
Party takes up the position of trying
to sell the South on integration, it
might as well pack up its bags and go
home.”
CAMPAIGN STAND
During the campaign, Dalton had said
that he favored segregation and that the
best way to keep the schools virtually
segregated would be to adopt the local
ly-administered pupil assignment plan
used in North Carolina. He argued that
“token compliance” with the court de
cision—that is, permitting a handful of
Negroes to enter white schools—would
satisfy the courts while forestalling any
large-scale race-mixing. He argued that
the Democrats’ “massive resistance”
would collapse in the courts and lead
inevitably to “massive integration”.
An analysis of the returns shows that
the Negro vote went to Dalton. While
no exact figures are available, estimates
are that there were between 40,000 and
70,000 Negroes among the approximately
Court Told: Order a ‘Prompt and Reasonable Start’
The Fourth U.S. Circuit of Appeals on Nov. 11 issued the
following decision in the case of Allen v. Prince Edward
County School Board:
This action was commenced to enjoin racial segregation in
the public schools of Prince Edward County, Va., on the
ground that provisions of the state constitution and statutory
code requiring such segregation were violative of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
therefore void. A court of three judges was properly consti
tuted, as required by 28 USC sections 2281 and 2284, and
judgment was entered denying the relief sought. See Davis v.
Cbunty School Board of Prince Edward County, D.C., 103 F.
Supp. 37. This judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court
and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686,
98 L. Ed. 1083.
On the remand the court of three judges entered a decree
which vacated and set aside its original decree, declared in
valid the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring
segregation in the schools, and enjoined and restrained the
defendants from refusing on account of race or color to admit
to any school under their supervision any child qualified to
enter such school . . . The court found that it would not be
practicable to require that this provision be made effective
before the commencement of the school term in September
1955; but the finality and binding force of the order was not
otherwise affected. ... In July 1956 the court of three judges
was dissolved. . . .
•
After the dissolution of the three judge court, the case
came on for hearing before the district judge on a motion of
plaintiffs for an order fixing a time limit for compliance with
the order theretofore entered, and a motion of defendants
that the motions of plaintiff be dismissed for failure to comply
with the Pupil Placement Act. . . . The district judge held
that the court of three judges need not be reconvened, de
clined to pass on the applicability of the Pupil Placement Act,
and denied the motion for an order fixing a time limit for
compliance with the order theretofore entered because of op
position to the order and racial tension prevailing in the
community and the possible closing of the schools under Vir
ginia statutes, if the order were enforced.
The holding of the judge that the three judge court need not
be reconvened was unquestionably correct. We have recently
held, however, that the Pupil Placement Act provides no ade
quate administrative remedy. (School Board of Newport News
v. Atkins 4 Cir. 246 F. 2d. 325, cert. den. U.S.); and we think
that the district judge was in error in not fixing a time limit
for compliance with the order theretofore entered in the
cause....
In the case at bar the order entered on June 29, 1955, while
finding that it was impracticable to place the schools on a
nondiscriminatory basis before September 1955, enjoined the
defendants “from refusing on account of race or color to admit
to any school under their supervision any child qualified to
enter such a school, from and after such time as the defend
ants may have made the necessary arrangements for admis
sion of children to such school on a nondiscriminatory basis
with all deliberate speed. . . .” More than a year and a half
had elapsed after the entry of this order, the school year of
1955-56 had come and gone, another year had been entered,
and no steps had been taken to comply with the order. The
time had unquestionably come to say plainly to the defend
ants that they must comply without further delay.
This does not mean that the defendants should require
mixing of white and Negro children in the schools but merely
that they should abolish the requirement of discrimination. If
the children of the different races should voluntarily attend
different schools, this would not be violative of the Constitu
tion or of the court’s order, so long as there was no require
ment of the school authorities to that effect. Furthermore, it
would not be necessary for the requirement as to segregation
to be removed at once with respect to all grades in the schools,
if a reasonable start were made to that end with “deliberate
speed” considering the problems of proper administration. See
order in the Arlington case, approved by this court, 240 F. 2d.
at 61, also Aaron v. Cooper 8 Cir 243 F. 2d. 361.
The fact that the schools might be closed if the order were
enforced is no reason for not enforcing it. A person may not
be denied enforcement of rights to which he is entitled under
the Constitution of the United States because of action taken
or threatened in defiance of such rights.
The order appealed from will accordingly be reversed and
the case will be remanded to the court below with direction
to enter an order directing defendants to make a prompt and
reasonable start toward complying with the court’s order en
joining discrimination on the ground of race or color in ad
mitting children to the schools under their supervision.
Reversed and remanded with directions
# # #
against the groups and individuals
named in the report as offenders.
The committee declared it found
many of the plaintiffs in desegregation
suits in Virginia were not advised that
they were to be plaintiffs in law suits,
and that these plaintiffs testified they
had not authorized anyone to bring suits
on their behalf. The committee said the
suits were “prompted, directed and con
ducted” by the NAACP and its affiliated
groups and that expenses were paid by
these organizations.
IN SAME VEIN
The report of the Committee on Law
Reform and Racial Activities was in the
same vein, though less specific in
charges of law violations. The group
said it would forward the information
it had to any committee of the Virginia
State Bar “which seeks to take action”
against the NAACP or its lawyers. The
committee did accuse the NAACP of
“unauthorized” practice of law.
This committee also made a brief
study of textbooks used in the Tenth
District (northern Virginia) and said
that while it had not had the time to
arrive at any definite conclusions, it
did recommend that “a further study be
made of text and reference material in
the public schools systems of the Com
monwealth of Virginia by an appropri
ate agency of the state government.”
It recommended that the General As
sembly create a new committee to carry
on the work of the two investigative
committees which have been working
in the racial field. The new committee
would have broadened powers to inves
tigate, among other things, “subversive
activities generally, and more specific
ally as they relate to the question of
segregation or integration in the public
schools.”
MINISTER IS CRITICAL
Earlier this month, the Rev. Ross Al
len Weston of Arlington Unitarian
Church, speaking from the pulpit, com
pared “Byrd Democrats” to the “brutes
of prehistoric times.” In that same ad
dress he criticized the Committee on
Law Reform and Racial Activities for
reportedly questioning certain witnesses
as to their religious beliefs.
State Del. Kathryn Stone of Arling
ton wrote to the committee’s chairman,
Del. James M. Thomson of Alexandria,
concerning the matter, and Thomson re
plied, in part:
“On two occasions I can recall the
question of religious affiliations arising
during the hearing. In both instances,
the witnesses either volunteered or were
asked if they were Episcopalians and
they acknowledged that they were.”
CALLED ‘ENIGMATIC’
Mrs. Stone found Thomson’s reply “as
enigmatic as has been the committees
entire procedure.”
David H. Scull, Annandale printer,
who had refused to answer questions
asked by the Thomson committee, was
found guilty of contempt of court by
Judge Emery N. Hesmer of Arlington
Circuit Court. He was sentenced to 10
days in jail and fined $50, but the sen
tence was suspended pending an appeal-
(The background on this case may be
found in last month’s Southern School
The Virginia Teachers Association
(Negro) adopted a resolution at its a 11 '
nual meeting in Richmond asking state
officials to perform their state constitU'
tional duty by keeping public schoo
open. The resolution, approved at a bus*
iness session attended by about 150 pe r "
sons, says that the Virginia constitution
requires the maintenance of a free p ub '
lie school system in the state.
The Department of Elementary P
cipals of the Virginia Education AssO"
ciation (white) defeated by a vote o
49 to 29 a resolution opposing two *ir
ginia laws aimed at preventing integm
tion. <
The principals’ advisory board bn
recommended the resolution by a v0
of 24 to 1. But when the resoluh
reached the full department, it was
jected.
The two laws in questions are
thos«
which would cut off state funds h°^
any integrated schools and which W°
close any school which integrates. M
bers of the advisory board, who 0TI S
nally recommended the resolution & 1
cizing those laws, said their action
not mean they condone integral
Rather, they said, it was an express 1 ^
of dissatisfaction with the present 3
and an expression of hope that the
eral Assembly could devise better
fenses against integration than tb
laws.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Richmond Times-Dispatch
ducted a poll which showed, the P?^
said, that about two out of three
adult Virginians would prefer to
the public schools than to have
(Continued On Next Page)