Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 2—JULY, 1961—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Political Interest Centers
\ t g * O*
On Race For Ft. Governor
(Continued From Page 1)
—by the county if it will, or by the
state, if necessary. He has said that if
this is done, it will not mean integra
tion, because whites will continue to
go to their private schools while Ne-
' Schoolmen
Negroes Announce
‘Crash Remedial’
groes go to the public schools.
Boothe’s proposal has been attacked
by Harrison and Godwin. They have
said that such action would result in
desegregation, and that the people of
Prince Edward ought to be left alone
to solve their own problems.
While both Stephens and Harrison
have endorsed tuition grants, the for
mer has said that the program is being
“abused” by some persons, while the
latter defends the program as it is now
operating.
Support of Byrd
The Harrison ticket has the support
of the Byrd organization, which backed
massive resistance.
In the General Assembly, Sen. God
win has been a leader of the massive
resistance forces, while Sen. Boothe
has been a leader of the opposing
group.
So a victory by Boothe over Godwin
might be considered as indicating an in
creasingly “moderate” attitude of Vir
ginians toward the segregation issue.
On the other hand, a Godwin victory
might be construed as demonstrating
the opposite.
A win by either Boothe or Godwin
would have added significance in a split
ticket result. For example, if Harrison
takes the governorship nomination but
his running mate Godwin loses to
Boothe, then Boothe’s victory prob
ably will be attributed by many po
litical observers to his “moderate”
school stand. Or if Stephens wins the
top nomination, but Godwin takes the
second spot, it doubtless will be at
tributed by many persons to Godwin’s
strong stand against desegregation.
In summary, then, Virginians and
non-Virginians interested in figurative
ly feeling the pulse of the people of
this state on the school question prob
ably will find the Boothe-Godwin con
test result more meaningful than that
of the Stephens-Harrison race.
School Program
Plans for a “crash remedial” educa
tional program for Prince Edward coun
ty’s school-less Negro children were
announced by Negro leaders June 5.
A subsequent offer from the school
board for use of county public school
buildings was rejected.
This was the sequence of events:
The Rev. L. F. Griffin, Prince Ed
ward Negro leader, announced June 5
that the Virginia
Teachers Associa
tion (VTA) and
the Prince Ed
ward County
Christian Associ
ation (PECCA),
both Negro or
ganizations, were
planning a sum
mer program “to
upgrade Negro
children in read-
griffin ing, writing and
numbers skills.”
On June 16 the Prince Edward school
board offered use of the county’s idle
public schools for the remedial pro
gram.
‘Deeply Distressed’
In a letter to Dr. J. Rupert Picott,
executive secretary of the VTA, board
chairman Dr. W. E. Smith wrote, in
part:
“The school board of Prince Edward
county, along with the public generally
throughout the county, has been deeply
distressed that a substantial segment
of the children of the county have now
for two years been without schools.
“The members of the school board
have noted with the keenest interest
that the Virginia Teachers Association
proposes this summer to attempt to
operate a ‘crash remedial program’ for
so many of these children as will avail
themselves of it. We trust this program
will meet with great success . . .
“The school board believes that it
Plan Remedial Studies in Prince Edward
Officials of the Virginia Teachers Association work on a “crash” summer program
for the county’s Negro children. From left, Miss Sadie V. Lawson, Roanoke; Dr. J.
Rupert Picott, executive secretary; William M. Cooper, Norfolk; and Mrs. Louise
H. Carter, Norfolk.
should do all it can to help. We have,
as you know, the buildings formerly
used as public schools. They stand idle.
I am directed by the board to offer
such of them as may be helpful to your
organization for the furtherance of this
program without cost to your organiza
tion . . . The board still owns some
school buses, and perhaps a plan for
Virginia Highlights
Federal District Judge Oren R.
Lewis rejected the U. S. Justice De
partment’s petition to intervene in
the Prince Edward county school
case on the side of the Negro plaint
iffs.
The school racial issue continued
to be a major topic of discussion by
candidates seeking Democratic nom
inations for the state’s top offices
July 11.
Prince Edward Negro leaders an
nounced plans for a “crash remed
ial” educational program for the
county’s school-less Negro children
this summer, but Negro leaders
turned down an offer for free use
of the county’s idle public school
buildings.
The Prince Edward Board of Su
pervisors. for the third successive
year, adopted a budget with no pro
vision for public schools.
making them available could also be
perfected.”
Lacks Authority
On June 19 Dr. Picott replied that
the VTA “does not have the authority
... to accept or reject the offer.”
He explained that under an agree
ment between the VTA and the Chris
tian Association, the latter was respon
sible for providing buildings for the
educational program. The question
whether to accept the offer was one
“for determination by citizens of the
county,” he added.
On the following day, June 20, the
school board chairman announced that
the offer for use of the schools would
be made to the Christian Association.
Four days later, on June 24, the Rev.
Mr. Griffin, announced that the associ
ation’s executive board had rejected
the offer. Churches, lodge halls and
other facilities would be used to house
the program, he explained.
“While we appreciate this overture
on the part of the school board of
Prince Edward to help alleviate a nasty
condition in the county,” Griffin said,
“the Prince Edward County Christian
Association is governed in its decision
by the overwhelming sentiment of the
Negro people.”
Sentiment Against
The Negroes’ sentiment, he added,
was “overwhelmingly against the use
of former public school buildings which
have been denied them for the past
two years.”
The remedial program was si
to begin about July 1. Instructional
to be provided by from 30 to 40 ’’
public school teachers on a voW? -
basis, and classes were to be held j? t
day through Friday from 8 aj^ 1
nrvnn ■'
1
noon.
During the past year the
Association sponsored 15 “training"^;
ters” for Negro children in the eon
otM m
These were described by Negro W
leade i
as being more “morale builders” tkhe
schools. A total of 441 children.
ceived certificates of attendance vLa
the program ended about June 1. p
Meanwhile, 66 students
gradijj.
June 2 from the Prince Edward Aij.
emy, the high school of the private & m
regated system operated for 1 ”
Most of the graduates had had 10 vi, „
-{ —l 1:—. j it 4 |F]
¥ * *
High school desegregation is schi
uled to be experienced in Richmtn
for the first time in the fall. The tn
Negro girls who have been attends
Chandler Junior High completed tj
eighth grade there, and on June I
were assigned to John Marshall Hij
by the State Pupil Placement Boar
Meanwhile, 48 Negroes have appliej
for admission to Chandler, and the
others to John Marshall.
★ ★ ★
Warren County High School, desej-
regated by court order in 1959, |
uated its first Negro students June I
The two were James Menefee Kilt
and Frank Edward Grier.
The day after their graduation tin
two youths were arrested and charge:
with disorderly conduct, following a it-
ported rock-throwing attack by He
groes on two white boys.
On June 16 Kilby was convictd
fined $50 and given a 30-day suspend
jail sentence. He appealed the contt
tion to a higher court. Grier was ac
quitted.
V ¥ 4
Fourteen additional Negro student
(See VIRGINIA, Page 3)
0
of public schooling and then two
at the academy following closing 0 f
county’s public schools in 1959.
Enrollment in the private system 4
ing the past year was 870 element# r
pupils and 475 secondary student fl
Each of the elementary pupils paidfe
tuition, while the secondary stud®;
paid $265. County and state tuitj
scholarships covered all but $15 0 f | ^
tuition in each case.
Text Of Court Opinion Denying U. S. Intervention . .
U.S. District Judge Oren Lewis refused
a request hy U.S. Attorney General Robert
F. Kennedy to intervene in the Prince Ed
ward County, Va., school desegregation
case. Excerpts from the fudge’s June 14
decision follow:
Under date of April 26, 1961, the United States,
by Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General, and
Joseph S. Bambacus, United States Attorney for
the Eastern District of Virginia, moved the Court
for leave to intervene as a plaintiff in this action
and to file a complaint in intervention, and to
add as parties defendant the Prince Edward
School Foundation, a corporation, the Common
wealth of Virginia, and Sydney G. Day, Jr.,
Comptroller of Virginia.
The United States, in support of its motion to
intervene, alleges that intervention
“is necessary in order to prevent the cir
cumvention and nullification of the prior
orders of this Court and to safeguard the
due administration of justice and the in
tegrity of the judicial processes of the
United States.
“The claim of the United States, as set
forth in the complaint in intervention,
involves questions of both law and fact in
common with those raised by the amended
supplemental complaint filed by the plain
tiffs herein.”
The motion was made under and pursuant to
Sections 309 and 316, Title 5, United States Code,
and Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. . . .
Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure pro
vides for intervention of right and permissive
intervention.
Rule 24. (a) “Intervention of Right.
Upon timely application anyone shall be
permitted to intervene in an action: (1)
when a statute of the United States con
fers an unconditional right to intervene;
or (2) when the representation of the ap
plicant’s interest by existing parties is or
may be inadequate and the applicant is or
may be bound by a judgment in the action;
or (3) when the applicant is so situated as
to be adversely affected by a distribution
or other disposition of property which is
in the custody or subject to the control or
disposition of the court or an officer there
of.”
It is therefore necessary to first determine
whether or not the United States, as a matter
of right, may intervene in this suit as a party
plaintiff. If it has such a right, its application
therefor must be “timely” filed; the rule spe
cifically so provides. The able Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, both in his oral
argument and in his written brief, totally ig
nored this requirement of the rule. The Govern
ment offered no excuse or extenuating circum
stances justifying a delay of more than a year in
the filing of the Government’s motion in inter
vention. (Footnote: The order of this Court
which they allege as being circumvented, was
entered April 22, 1960. The Government’s motion
in intervention was filed April 26, 1961.)
Question of Timeliness
In view of the necessity of scheduling an early
hearing on the merits of the plaintiff’s amended
supplemental complaint and the unexplained de
lay on the part of the Government in filing its
motion in intervention, there is a serious question
in the Court’s mind as to whether or not the
motion was “timely” filed.
The Government does not contend that it has
a statutory right to intervene in this suit. How
ever, the Court’s attention has been called to the
fact that several bills have been introduced in the
Congress of the United States and some are now
pending, specifically granting unto the Attorney
General of the United States the right to inter
vene in suits of this type as a party plaintiff.
None of these bills, however, have been enacted
into law. Thus to grant intervention in this case,
in the absence of statutory authority, would ap
pear to be contrary to the intent of Congress.
This, however, the Court need not decide, be
cause the Attorney General relies primarily on
Section (2) of Rule 24 (a).
He contends:
“The interest of the United States, which
is unique, is not represented by any of the
existing parties. The plaintiffs seek to se
cure their constitutional rights, but the
United States seeks to preserve its judicial
processes against impairment by obstruc
tion. These clearly are distinct interests.
Moreover, the due administration of justice
is a sovereign interest that cannot properly
be entrusted for safeguarding to private
parties. The representation of the interest
of the United States by the plaintiffs is
plainly inadequate.”
The Attorney General further contends:
“The United States, by its complaint in
intervention, has joined the State of Vir
ginia in order to secure complete relief in
this action, in which the United States con
tends that the State is circumventing this
Court’s order by action which is unlawful
in that it denies to the residents of Prince
Edward County the equal protection of the
laws. But the State of Virginia can be made
a defendant only by the United States,
since the Eleventh Amendment of the
United States Constitution bars the plain
tiffs from suing a state without its con
sent.”
Comparisons Said Unjustified
In support of this contention, the Attorney
General seeks to parallel the situation in Prince
Edward County with the former situation in
Little Rock and New Orleans. The facts in these
cases do not justify such a comparison. In the
latter cases, open defiance of Federal Court or
ders was obvious. In Virginia, this complex prob
lem has been and is being solved in a lawful and
proper manner through the courts. There has
been no known defiance of this Court’s orders by
either the State of Virginia or the County of
Prince Edward. Even under the situation then
existing in Little Rock and New Orleans, the
Attorney General, insofar as this Court knows,
did not move to intervene as a party plaintiff for
any purpose. To the contrary, the Government’s
participation in those cases was at the Court’s
invitation as amicus curiae. (Footnote: A party
plaintiff assumes the role of a party litigant. It is
allowed to file pleadings, offer evidence, file briefs
and seek relief. It has a right to reasonably con
trol its side of the case; amicus curiae is tech
nically “a friend of the Court,” as distinguished
from an advocate. It arises only via an ex parte
order of the Court and fully advises the Court on
the law in order that justice may be attained.)
The precise question before this Court, in the
case under consideration, is whether or not the
defendants, or any of them, are violating or cir
cumventing its orders. To find the defendants
guilty of so doing without a hearing would be a
clear violation of the defendants’ constitutional
rights. That, this Court will not do. The United
States has no right to intervene as a party plain
tiff in this case on that ground until this Court
has first determined that its orders are in fact
being violated or circumvented.
The Attorney General further argues, how
ever, that the plaintiffs are unable to represent
adequately the interest of the United States be
cause the plaintiffs can not make the Common
wealth of Virginia a party defendant by virtue of
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution. (Footnote: See United States
Texas, 143 U.S. 621; United States v. Califon*
332 U.S. 19.) Surely, that is not the “inters
referred to in the statute. If the
has a cause of action against the
of Virginia, in this or any other t; _
right to maintain that cause of action is **
predicated upon the right to intervene as a pa£
plaintiff in a suit instituted by private plain®
seeking to secure their constitutional rights
The Attorney General cites numerous cases c
support of his contention that the United Sh®
by virtue of its national sovereignty has a s#»
cient general interest in this case to be pernuttf-
to intervene of right. Suffice it to say that
of the cited cases are sufficiently in point
the facts in this case to sustain his contention
“It is well settled that the only inter#;
which will entitle a person to the right of
intervention in a case is a legal interest a®
distinguished from interests of a genera
and indefinite character which do not ff**
rise to definite legal rights.” See Jewd
Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, etc>
FRD 251. See also Radford Iron Co. I nC - *'
Appalachian Electric Power Co., 62 F. **
United State
Commonweal
V'pe of suit to
4,
it
9
a
3t
i
a
h
4
9
IS
a
*
940.
The Attorney General next contends R^ e :
must be considered in connection with
Sections 309 and 316, U.S.C.A. (Footnote:
309. “Conduct and argument of cases by Att°
General and Solicitor General. Except wher ^
Attorney General in particular cases
directs, the Attorney General and Solicit 01 f
eral shall conduct and argue suits and wtf >
error and appeals in the Supreme Court and
in the Court of Claims in which the tl
States is interested, and the Attorney ftis
may, whenever he deems it for the interest o ^
United States, either in person con< ^ C gtat^
argue any case in any court of the United ,
in which the United States is interested, of j .j,
direct the Solicitor General or any
Department of Justice to do so.” Section g*
terest of United States in pending suits.
licitor General, or any officer of the Dep^J^j
of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney & «
to any State or district in the United S ta . i
attend to the interests of the United S* a j tf.<
any suit pending in any of the courts 0
United States, or in the courts of any stat®^^
attend to any other interest of the <
States.”) With this we do not disagree.
(Continued on Next Page)