Newspaper Page Text
a
TEXAS
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—JULY, 1961—PAGE 3
on ^
Virginia
> Ni
ie ?
(Continued From Page 2)
nj-j-i assigned to desegregated schools
d Y ^Charlottesville on June 10. This
' js 10 total number of Ne-
- scheduled to be enrolled in the
two desegregated schools in Sep-
1,,,. Twenty Negroes initially were
4t ber -
ed at the beginning of the 1960-
WS*fc°°l y ear ’ ' 3Ut three withdrew be-
L die end of the year.
Negoes were admitted to the
" ie r session at Charlottesville’s
1 Irf High, marking the first summer
' "Ll desegregation in that city.
UUjj
te ttifflunity fiction
whin —
Prince Edward Board
Omits School Fund
r om Annual Budget
uden;
>d &
uden
tuita
sched
Mo#
ietn
aids
id $
ne 1
Hit
Boa#
PPfe
tin
decs
for the third successive year, the
jjnce Edward County Board of Su-
of 4 ^visors on June 9 adopted a county
jjjget with no provision for public
shools.
The budget did include $285,000 for
durational purposes in furtherance of
-e elementary and secondary educa
te of children residing in Prince Ed-
nrd county in private, nonsectarian
iools.” This money will be available,
i were similar funds during the past
tar, to reimburse parents for tuition
ies and for costs of transporting Chil
ian to and from school.
Action on the budget followed a pub
ic hearing at which five persons urged
opening of public schools and seven
ake against it.
Among those asking re-opening was
>. C. Gordon Moss, dean of Long-
md College, a
ate - supported
ranen’s college
rated in the
amity.
"Public educa-
:on,” Dr. Moss
aid, “is an essen
tial to any nation
fat attempts to
be up to the
iallenges of de
mocracy.” It is, he
jdded, “an abso-
he compulsion
* any nation that attempts to lead
ie world.”
M. Henry Tittinger, professor of his-
*7 at Longwood, urged the supervis-
MOSS
Judge Orders Dallas School Desegregation
AUSTIN, Tex.
U . S. District Judge T. Whit
field Davidson issued his or
der for Dallas public schools to
start desegregation in the first
grade on September 6, and criti
cized federal courts for causing
“forced” mixing of the races.
(Borders v. Rippy, Southern
School News, June and previ
ous.)
Judge Davidson originally had or
dered a “salt-and-pepper” plan for Dal
las schools, which would give both
races a choice of attending segregated
or biracial schools. This was set aside
by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Ap
peals in favor of a “stairstep” system
starting in the first grade, and scheduled
for completion in 12 years.
The 84-year-old jurist said the order
for Dallas schools reflected the man
dates from higher courts.
“The court’s decree may take effect
through the office of the U.S. marshal
or with the soldiers’ bayonets,” said
Davidson. “It is forced just the same.”
Noting that Dallas voters by four to
one rejected a proposal for voluntary
desegregation, the judge continued:
“They have integration now not by
consent, not by choice, but by force.”
Davidson said of the U.S. Fifth Circuit
court’s reversal of his decision:
“It by-passes Article 10 of the Bill of
ors to appropriate at least enough to
operate schools for the county’s Ne
gro children.
Three Negroes—two ministers and a
woman-—also urged re-opening of the
schools.
Six white men and one white woman
spoke against re-opening. They said
educational grants for private school
ing are available to Negroes as well as
to whites, and that this method of hand
ling the situation is favored by a ma
jority of the people of the county.
The Virginia Conference of the Meth
odist Church, in annual session June 14
at Virginia Beach, adopted a resolution
urging Gov. Lindsay Almond or the
General Assembly to take immediate
steps to provide public education in
Prince Edward. # # #
Rights as though it had never been
written.
“History will mark this as an epoch
in the lives of the American people and
particularly so as a rip in the judicial
powers of our nation.”
But Judge Davidson urged white and
Negro citizens alike to accept the
courts’ decision calmly.
“Stand calmly by constituted author
ity,” he said.
To white citizens, he admonished: “Do
not, though you disapprove, resort to
violence in any form. It injures your
cause. It does harm and subjects you to
ultimate defeat and humiliation.”
Quotes Gen. Grant
Negroes were told by Judge Davidson
to remember that their victory came in
the courts.
“If it calls for a triumph, remember
the precept of General Grant at Appo
mattox: ‘Never crow over the reverses
of an honorable adversary,’ ” he said.
“In our courts, your lawyers will tell
you never to provoke a difficulty. . . .
It well behooves you to help avoid such
untoward scenes and conditions as pre
vailed in other cities.”
Community Action
Dallas Editors
Urge Peaceful
Desegregation
Newspaper editors in Dallas, urg
ing peaceful desegregation of public
schools there in September, met with
civic leaders to discuss how to ac
complish this goal. Desegregation
under a court order will begin in
September in the first grade.
Approximately 200 top business offi
cials attended the meeting to discuss
the problem.
“We will not tolerate in Dallas any
sort of action that scars the life and
warps the memories of our six-year-old
children of whatever race,” said Robert
Cullum, a supermarket chain chairman,
who presided at the session. His re
mark drew spontaneous applause.
Principal speakers were Dick West,
editor of the editorial page, the Dallas
Morning News, and Felix R. McKnight,
vice president and executive editor,
Dallas Times-Herald.
“Although thousands believe that the
Supreme Court decree was premature
and without basis in law, it is possible
for Dallas to comply and go ahead
calmly and prayerfully,” said West.
“Dallas must turn a deaf ear to the
Ku Klux Klan thinking, on the one
hand, and the NAACP thinking on the
other.”
West cited examples of desegregation
of schools in other Southern cities.
Must Be Fair
“The transition from segregation to
integration must be fair and just to
everybody,” he said. “The tragedies that
have engulfed a few cities must be
avoided at all costs. The community
you love cannot afford the trouble of
senseless strife that benefits nobody.”
“We have nothing to gain by extrem
ism,” West said. “We have everything
to gain—including our own self-respect
—by harmony.”
The editor praised Dallas Negro lead
ers for “a marvelous self-control, which
has profited their race far beyond the
incitement of those selfish Negro lead
ers who stir just for the sensation of
stirring.”
Times-Herald Editor McKnight said:
“Worthy citizens do not resort to vio
lence because they disapprove of a law.
Only chaos and anarchy could result
from such impulsive action.”
Will Not Suppress
McKnight said that his newspaper
will not suppress “true, newsworthy
events . . . but will exercise editorial
judgment concerning “manufactured
emotional outbursts.”
The effects of desegregation disputes
on business also were discussed. West
declared that Little Rock lost “15 major
industries because of its tragic integra
tion experience.”
“We will back to the hilt our proud
school system—one of the greatest in
America,” said Cullum. “We will sup
port in full measure our law enforce
ment agents as they discharge their sol
emn duty to keep the law.”
McKnight declared “a very small but
very vocal group in this community
will not let this change go unnoticed.
We know instances will be created; but
we know who they are. We will be able
to put values on their action. We do not
Texas Highlights
U.S. District Judge T. Whitfield
Davidson issued his decree ordering
desegregation of Dallas schools in
September, and criticized the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Dallas newspaper editors urged
school desegregation without strife
in September.
Two Negroes attempted unsuc
cessfully to enroll in summer school
with whites at Texas City, near
Houston.
want the nation to regard us as a re
bellious community.”
Schoolmen
White Summer School
Refuses Admission
To 2 Negro Students
Two Negro students (names unavail
able) attempted to enroll in summer
high school with white pupils at Texas
City, near Houston, but were rejected.
The city’s Negro high school does not
offer summer courses.
Supt. B. R. Brooks of Texas City was
quoted as saying that the applicants
were refused admittance because state
law prohibits racial desegregation with
out approval of the district’s voters,
which has not been given at Texas City.
The Houston Informer, a newspaper
for Negroes, said the two students at
tended Booker T. Washington High,
the Negro school. It quoted local re
ports that legal action may follow. The
paper’s headline said “No NAACP Role
in Texas City Enrollment Attempt.”
★ ★ ★
The school board at Aldine, a Hous
ton suburb, received a petition asking
it to build a new $1 million junior high
school for Negroes. A spokesman for
the 27 petitioners said the construction
“might deter controversies concerning
(See TEXAS, Page 10)
I
s
ink
res
la®
;alt£
ti*
ait?
it*
sk
a®
af-
ttec
a.
;t
i
if
a
it
t-
i
ie
!■
e
i<
i‘
r
r
»i
i
tf
it
*
t
f-
• •
In Case Involving Prince Edward School Closure
(Continued from Page 2)
** statutes give very broad authority to the
“tomey General to institute and conduct liti—
in order to establish and safeguard Gov-
^ent rights and properties.
* our view of the matter, having reached the
™jon that the United States does not have such
if interest” in the instant case as is required by
jy* 24 (a), these statutes are not applicable, for
e y likewise require the United States to have
an “interest.”
,, therefore this Court is of the opinion that the
States has no absolute right of interven-
*5® this suit under Rule 24 (a).
- ;6 Attorney General further argues, how-
# that if the Court be of such opinion, the
’ te d States, in any event, ought to be per-
to intervene under Rule 24 (b) Permis-
intervention, which reads as follows:
Upon timely application anyone may be
i | ® 1 nitted to intervene in an action: (1)
^ en a statute of the United States confers
conditional right to intervene; or (2)
.ten an applicant’s claim or defense and
thg
fact
Biain action have a question of law or
Ri common. When a party to an action
, e * es for ground of claim or defense upon
.7 statute or executive order administered
y a federal or state governmental officer
agency or upon any regulation, order,
jHUu-ement, or agreement issued or made
a suant to the statute or executive order,
offl cer or agency upon timely applica-
a J? may be permitted to intervene in the
shall 11 ^ exer °i s ™S its discretion the court
L?” consider whether the intervention will
tir y dela y or prejudice the adjudication
^the rights of the original parties.”
4s of the motion under this section
4 the sound discretion of the Court and
determining the Court must consider
the intervention will unduly delay or
*igj-,. ce the adjudication of the rights of the
^Parties.
judicial exercise of this discretion it is
/j se<j CU P r °per that the allegations of the pro-
T^mpla int of intervention be carefully
and compared with the allegations of
'*? k^ded supplemental complaint now pend-
,Ih 6 ° re ^dus Court. . . .
,f J Urt Corn Plaint in intervention prays that this
ffj , | lter an order enjoining the defendants
mg or refusing to maintain free public
Prince Edward County; for an order
the defendants from paying tuition
grants to students attending Prince Edward
School Foundation so long as public schools are
closed; for an order enjoining certain defendants
from allowing any credit to taxpayers on ac
count of contributions to the Prince Edward
School Foundation, during the time public
schools are closed in Prince Edward County; for
an order enjoining all the defendants, including
the State of Virginia, from the payment of any
funds of the State for the maintenance of public
schools anywhere in Virginia during such period
as public schools are closed in Prince Edward
County.
The allegations of the amended supplemental
complaint are substantially the same except that
paragraph 16 of the amended supplemental com
plaint alleges that the County School Board of
Prince Edward County is considering and con
templating the conveyance, lease or transfer of
the public schools and public school property to
some private corporation, etc.
The amended supplemental complaint does not,
however, seek to make Prince Edward School
Foundation, the State of Virginia, or its Comp
troller General parties defendant.
Government Requests Cited
The prayers of the amended supplemental
complaint request this Court to enter an order
enjoining the present defendants (not the State
of Virginia) from refusing to maintain free pub
lic schools in Prince Edward County; from ex
pending public funds for the direct or indirect
support of any private school which excludes the
infant plaintiffs and others similarly situated by
reason of race; from crediting any taxpayer with
money paid or contributed to any private school
which excludes the infant plaintiffs and others
similarly situated for the reason of race; from
conveying, leasing or otherwise transferring title,
possession or operation of public schools and
facilities incidental thereto to any private corpo
ration.
It is apparent from a comparison of the com
plaint in intervention with the amended supple
mental complaint that the material difference
therein is that the United States in its complaint
in intervention seeks to make the Prince Ed
ward School Foundation, the State of Virginia
and its Comptroller General parties defendant
and to have this Court enter an order enjoining
the State of Virginia from failing or refusing to
maintain free public schools in Prince Edward
County and enjoining the State from the expendi
ture of any of its funds for the maintenance of
free public schools throughout the rest of Vir
ginia so long as the free public schools of Prince
Edward County remain closed. Such relief, if
granted, would be unnecessarily punitive, in that
it would require the closing of most, if not all, of
the free public schools in Virginia. Whether the
means, if legal, justifies the end is questionable,
to say the least.
Would Jeopardize Education
Although the Assistant Attorney General, in
his argument before the Court, stated that “it
was not the intent of the Government to force
the closing of the public schools in Virginia; to
the contrary, the purpose of the Government was
to force the opening of the schools in Prince Ed
ward County,” he refused to delete this prayer
from the complaint in intervention, stating “he
did not have the authority to so do.” Therefore
this Court can only conclude, if the Government
is permitted to intervene as a party plaintiff, it
would urge this Court to enter an order that
could jeopardize the education of several hun
dred thousand Virginia children who have no
responsibility whatsoever for the closing of pub
lic schools in Prince Edward County.
If this Court were to entertain the complaint
in intervention in its present form, it would be
necessary for the Court to construe and interpret
certain sections of the Constitution of Virginia
and laws adopted pursuant thereto pertaining to
the maintenance of a system of free public
schools in the State of Virginia. Abstinence in
state affairs when not in conflict with the United
States Constitution has long been the federal
policy. (Footnote: This Court knows of no pro
vision of the United States Constitution which
provides that the states shall provide a system of
free public education and none has been cited.)
“This now well-established procedure is aimed
at the avoidance of unnecessary interference by
the federal courts with proper and validly ad
ministered state concerns, a course so essential
to the balanced working of our federal system.
To minimize the possibility of such interference
a ‘scrupulous regard for the rightful independ
ence of state governments should at all times
actuate the federal courts,’ Matthews v. Rodgers,
284 U.S. 521, 525, as their ‘contribution in fur
thering the harmonious relation between state
and federal authority.’ Railroad Comm’r. v. Pull
man Co., 312 U.S. 496.” Harrison v. NAACP, 360
U.S. 167.
Further, since the complaint in intervention
seeks to make the Commonwealth of Virginia a
party defendant, thereby making the suit a direct
action against the State, it would be necessary,
if an injunction were to issue against the State,
to convene a three-judge District Court as pro
vided for in Title 28, Section 2281 of the United
States Code. These are not questions of law or
fact in common with the main action. To the
contrary, they are new and independent asser
tions, which admittedly are not alleged in the
amended supplemental complaint. A determina
tion of these questions, whether heard by a
three-judge court or by the Supreme Court of
Appeals of Virginia, by virtue of the Doctrine of
Abstention, will materially delay the adjudica
tion of the private constitutional rights asserted
by the individual plaintiffs in the main action.
Further delay would inevitably occur as a result
of an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States, during which interim the “status quo”
would be maintained in Prince Edward County.
The Attorney General cites many of the same
authorities and arguments in support of permis
sive intervention as were asserted in support of
intervention of right. It is unnecessary to com
ment further on most of them. However, the
Attorney General insists that the Department of
Justice is better equipped than the private plain
tiffs to represent and defend the national interest.
He states:
“It has an experienced legal staff which
is conversant with the legal issues involved
herein. It also has the investigative facilities
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the services of the United States Attorney to
attend upon the Court. Thus, the public
interest in assuring that all the implications
of the issues are brought to the attention of
the Court warrants the Government’s inter
vention here.”
‘Court Need Not Decide’
This is undoubtedly true, but whether or not
the Department of Justice should use its vast
resources as a party litigant in a suit it admits
was instituted by private citizens to secure their
constitutional rights, is a question this Court
need not decide.
The Court being of the opinion the granting of
intervention will unduly delay and prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties,
the motion of the United States to intervene as
a party plaintiff and to add as parties defendant
the Prince Edward School Foundation, the Com
monwealth of Virginia, and Sydney C. Day, Jr.,
Comptroller of Virginia, is denied . . .
s/OREN LEWIS
United States District Judge
June 14, 1961