Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 10—JUNE, 1964—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
VIRGINIA
Court Orders Schools Reopened
(Continued from Page 1)
Supreme Court, meanwhile, had ruled
that closing of the schools did not
violate the state constitution.)
On the question of tuition grants, the
Supreme Court appeared to take the
view that grants, per se, are not uncon
stitutional.
The court said Judge Lewis was right
in enjoining the use of grants in Prince
Edward as long as public schools there
are closed. By implication, the court
would approve tuition grants in Prince
Edward, at least under some circum
stances. The court has not faced the
question whether tuition grants are
constitutional if used by students at
tending a school which practices racial
segregation.
In a press conference May 27, Gov.
Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., said it was
significant that the court did not in
validate the state’s tuition grants.
“If the court wanted to say they were
illegal, it had a wonderful opportunity
to do so,” Harrison said.
Governor’s Position
The governor told reporters he would
refrain from exerting the influence of
his office to resolve the Prince Edward
school dilemma. He said any moves to
reopen the schools must come from the
county board of supervisors or from the
federal courts.
The National Association for the Ad
vancement of Colored People, which
represented the plaintiffs in the Prince
Edward County school case, said the
U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision
would affect “general implementation
of the historic 1954 anti-segregation
ruling throughout the South.”
NAACP General Counsel Robert L.
Carter said in New York the decision
“has broken the back of the South’s
unlamented ‘massive resistance’ to
school desegregation and should mark
the end of open defiance of the Supreme
Court’s decree.” He added that the
ruling on Prince Edward would end
“one of the most shameful chapters in
the history of the school desegregation
crisis.”
The NAACP request to speed formal
notification of the lower court was not
opposed by Virginia or by Prince Ed
ward County, but Prince Edward Com-
Virginia Highlights
The U. S. Supreme Court ordered
the reopening of Prince Edward
County’s public schools.
The U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued rulings in three school
desegregation cases.
A Negro girl will be enrolled at
Mary Washington College next fall,
marking the first desegregation of the
regular winter session at the state-
supported institution.
monwealth’s Attorney William F.
Watkins said he hoped the district court
judge in Richmond would give the
county “some time to ponder.”
★ ★ ★
Measure Would Bar Courts
From Requiring Taxation
U.S. Rep. Watkins M. Abbitt, whose
Fourth Congressional District includes
Prince Edward County, introduced a
bill in the House of Representatives
May 26 that would prohibit federal
courts from compelling a state or its
localities to levy any tax.
“Never in the history of our nation,”
said Abbitt, “has the [Supreme] court
intimated or held that it had the au
thority to compel a legislative body to
levy taxes upon its people to carry out
an order of the court.
“The court, with brazen power, is
arrogating unto itself legislative func
tions that the Constitution has never
conferred upon the court. It breaks
down and tears asunder the separation
doctrine that has meant so much to
America.
“If our people sit idly by and permit
a continuation of such arrogated power,
our necks will be under the heel of a
judicial dictatorship such as has never
been known before in the free world.”
Attorney General
Sees Free Schools
In Prince Edward
U.S. Attorney General Robert F.
Kennedy visited the Prince Edward
Free Schools May 11 to accept $£9.64 in
pennies donated by the pupils for the
Kennedy Memorial Library in Boston.
The library is being built as a memorial
to President John F. Kennedy.
The attorney general visited four of
the schools, and also spoke to students
of Longwood and Hampden-Sydney
Colleges. Longwood is a state-supported
women’s school, and Hampden-Sydney
is a men’s college associated with the
Presbyterian Church.
During the day, Kennedy described
the Free School system as “unnatural
and unsatisfactory” and said education
could best be handled by the state and
the locality.
The Free School Association, which
is privately financed, was set up last
year to provide formal schooling for
Prince Edward County Negroes who
had been out of classes since 1959 when
public schools were closed to avoid
court-ordered desegregation.
Late President Cited
The attorney general said that his
brother, the late President, had been
instrumental in bringing about the
formation of the Free Schools. The
negotiations last year which led to the
organization of the Free School Asso
ciation were spearheaded by a special
assistant to the attorney general, Wil
liam L. vanden Heuvel.
Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy, Mr. and Mrs.
vanden Heuvel, and Edwin O. Guth-
man, an aide to the attorney general,
arrived at the Farmville Airport short
ly after 9:30 a.m. Town and county of
ficials were on hand to greet the visitors
but did not join the motorcade that was
formed.
As the motorcade passed the campus
of Longwood College, hundreds of stu
dents came into the street, and Kennedy
got out of his car and shook hand:
with many of the young women. He
Major Excerpts from Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling of
May 25 in the Prince Edward Coun
ty, Vo., school desegregation case
follows in part:
... For reasons to be stated, we
agree with the District Court that, un
der the circumstances here, closing the
Prince Edward County Schools while
public schools in all the other counties
of Virginia were being maintained, de
nied the petitioners and the class of
Negro students they represent, the
equal protection of the laws guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I.
(a) It is contended that the amended
supplemental complaint presented a
new and different cause of action from
that presented in the original com
plaint. The supplemental pleading did
add new parties and rely in good part
on transactions, occurrences, and
events which had happened since the
action had begun. But these new
transactions were alleged to have oc
curred as a part of continued, persist
ent efforts to circumvent our 1955
holding that Prince Edward County
could not continue to operate, maintain,
and support a system of schools in
which students were segregated on a
racial basis. The original complaints
had challenged racial segregation in
schools which were admittedly public.
The new complaint charged that Prince
Edward County was still using its
funds, along with state funds, to assist
private schools while at the same time
closing down the county’s public
schools, all to avoid the desegregation
ordered in the Brown cases. The
amended complaint thus was not a
new cause of action but merely part
of the same old cause of action arising
out of the continued desire of colored
students in Prince Edward County to
have the same opportunity for state-
supported education afforded to white
people, a desire thwarted before 1959
by segregation in the public schools
and after 1959 by a combination of
closed public schools and state and
county grants to white children at the
Foundation’s private schools . . . Such
amendments are well within the basic
aim of the rules to make pleadings a
means to achieve an orderly and fair
administration of justice.
(b) ... Respondents contend that
the single judge erroneously passed on
the issues raised by the supplemental
complaint and that we should now de
lay the case still further by vacating
his judgment along with that of the
Court of Appeals and remanding to
the District Court for a completely
new trial before three judges. We re
ject the contention . . . While a holding
as to the constitutional duty of the
Supervisors and other officials of
Prince Edward County may have re
percussions over the State and may
require the District Court’s orders to
run to parties outside the county, it is
nevertheless true that what is attacked
in this suit is not something which the
State has commanded Prince Edward
to do—close its public schools and give
grants to children in private schools—
but rather something which the coun
ty with state acquiescence and coop
eration has undertaken to do on its
own volition, a decision, not binding
on any other county in Virginia. Even
though actions of the State are in
volved, the case, as it comes to us,
concerns not a state-wide system but
rather a situation unique to Prince Ed
ward County. We hold that the single
district judge did not err in adjudi
cating this present controversy.
(c) It is contended that the case is
an action against the State, is forbid
den by the Eleventh Amendment, and
therefore should be dismissed. The
complaint, however, charged that state
and county officials are depriving pe
titioners of rights guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment. It has been
settled law since Ex parte Young . . .
that suits against state and county
officials to enjoin them from invading
constitutional rights are not forbidden
by the Eleventh Amendment.
(d) It is argued that the District
Court should have abstained from
passing on the issues raised here in
order to await a determination by the
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
as to whether the conduct complained
of violated the constitution or laws of
Virginia The Court of Appeals so held
. . . and this Court has, in cases deemed
appropriate, directed that such a course
be followed by a District Court or ap
proved its having been followed . . .
But we agree with the dissenting
judge in the Court of Appeals . . . that
this is not a case for abstention. In the
first place, the Supreme Court of Vir
ginia has already passed upon the state
law with respect to all the issues here.
County School Board of Prince Ed
ward County v. Griffin . . . But quite
independently of this, we hold that the
issues here imperatively call for deci
sion now. The case has been delayed
since 1951 by resistance at the state
and county level, by legislation, and by
lawsuits. The original plaintiffs have
doubtless all passed high school age.
There has been entirely too much de
liberation and not enough speed in
enforcing the constitutional rights
which we held in Brown v. Board of
Education, supra, had been denied
Prince Edward County Negro children.
We accordingly reverse the Court of
Appeals’ judgment remanding the case
to the District Court to abstain, and
we proceed to the merits.
II.
In County School Board of Prince
Edward County v. Griffin . . . the Su
preme Court of Appeals of Virginia
upheld as valid under state law the
closing of the Prince Edward County
public schools, the state and county
tuition grants for children who attend
private schools and the county’s tax
concessions for those who make con
tributions to private schools. The same
opinion also held that each county had
“an option to operate or not to operate
public schools” ... We accept this case
as a definitive and authoritative hold
ing of Virginia law, binding on us, but
we cannot accept the Virginia court’s
further holding, based largely on the
Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case
. . . that closing the county’s public
schools under the circumstances of the
case did not deny the colored school
children of Prince Edward County
equal protection of the laws guaranteed
by the Federal Constitution.
Since 1959, all Virginia counties have
had the benefits of public schools but
one: Prince Edward. However, there
is no rule that counties, as counties,
must be treated alike; the Equal Pro
tection Clause relates to equal protec
tion of the laws “between persons as
such rather than between areas.” Sals-
burg v. Maryland . . . Indeed, showing
Robert Kennedy in Prince Edward
‘Unnatural and unsatisfactory.’
also spoke briefly, expressing the hope
that they would find ways of con
tributing to the general welfare of Vir
ginia and the United States.
The motorcade stopped again in front
of the county courthouse in downtown
Farmville, where Kennedy shook many
outstretched hands. It was estimated
that about two-thirds of the approxi
mately 100 persons gathered there were
Negroes.
Mary E. Branch School No. 1, Mary
E. Branch School No. 2 and the Wor
sham School were the next stops. Rep
resentatives of the student bodies in
each case presented pennies for the
Kennedy Memorial.
Presents Checks
The main ceremony was at the Rob
ert R. Moton High School. There, Ken
nedy presented checks for $12,700 to the
Free School Association. One check, for
$5,466, came from the Washington State
Education Association Foundation. An
other, for $6,824, was from the southern
section of the California Teachers Asso
ciation. Several smaller checks made
up the remainder of the $12,700.
Kennedy praised the Free School As
sociation, commenting: “I am more than
mpressed by my visit.” But he em
phasized that he believed the schools
should be operating as public institu
tions, and he expressed hope the
Supreme Court would soon hand down
a decision ending the Prince Edward
school dilemma.
At the Moton School program, Ken
nedy was introduced by Virginia’s for
mer Gov. Colgate W. Darden Jr,
chairman of the Free School Associa
tion’s board of trustees.
The attorney general’s visit to Prince
Edward concluded with a luncheon re
ception at Hampden-Sydney, where he
answered questions asked by Hampden-
Sydney and Longwood students.
★ ★ ★
For the first time in five years, high
school graduation exercises for Negro
students will be held in Prince Edward
County this year.
Twenty-three students, including one
white youth, will receive diplomas at
the R. R. Moton High School June 15.
Moton is one of the schools operated
during the past year by the Prince Ed
ward Free School Association.
Speaker for the occasion will be Wil
liam vanden Heuvel, a special assistant
to Attorney General Robert F. Ken
nedy, who handled many of the negotia
tions leading to formation of the pri
vately financed association through
federal, state and local co-operation.
(See VIRGINIA, Page 11)
on Prince Edward
that different persons are treated dif
ferently is not enough, without more,
to show a denial of equal protection.
Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot
Comm’rs. ... It is the circumstances
of each case which govern. Skinner v.
Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson . . .
Virginia law, as here applied, un
questionably treats the school children
of Prince Edward differently from the
way it treats the school children of all
other Virginia counties. Prince Edward
children must go to a private school or
none at all; all other Virginia children
can go to public schools. Closing Prince
Edward’s schools bears more heavily
on Negro children in Prince Edward
County since white children there
have accredited private schools which
they can attend, while colored chil
dren until very recently have had no
available private schools, and even the
school they now attend is a tempo
rary expedient. Apart from this ex
pedient, the result is that Prince Ed
ward County school children, if they
go to school in their own county, must
go to racially segregated schools which,
although designated as private, are
beneficiaries of county and state sup
port.
A State, of course, has a wide dis
cretion in deciding whether laws sha'l
operate statewide or shall operate only
in certain counties, the legislature
“having in mind the needs and desires
of each.” Salsburg v. Maryland, supra
... A State may wish to suggest, as
Maryland did in Salsburg, that there
are reasons why one county ought not
to be treated like another . . . But the
record in the present case could not
be clearer that Prince Edward’s public
schools were closed and private schools
operated in their place with state and
county assistance, for one reason, and
one reason only: to ensure, through
measures taken by the county and the
State, that white and colored children
in Prince Edward County would not,
under any circumstances, go to the
same school. Whatever nonracial
grounds might support a State’s allow
ing a county to abandon public schools,
the object must be a constitutional one,
and grounds of race and opposition to
desegregation do not qualify as con
stitutional.
In Hall v. St. Helena Parish School
Board ... a three-judge District Court
invalidated a Louisiana statute which
provided “a means by which public
schools under desegregation orders
may be changed to ‘private’ schools
. . .” We affirmed the District Courts
judgment invalidating the Louisiana
statute as a denial of equal protection
. . . While the Louisiana plan and the
Virginia plan worked in different ways,
it is plain that both were created to
accomplish the same thing: the per
petuation of racial segregation b >
closing public schools and operating
only segregated schools supported di
rectly or indirectly by state or coun >
hands. See Cooper v. Aaron . . •
plan works to deny colored studen
equal protection of the laws. Accor
ingly, we agree with the District Co
that closing the Prince Edward schoo^
and meanwhile contributing to the sUP
port of the private segregated w
schools that took their place
petitioners the equal protection of
laws.
III.
e now to the question of
lecree necessary and a PP,
put an end to the racial
n practiced against these^^
under authority of the ^
s. That relief needs, f pn d-
effective. The party e
the Board of S ^^ 0 n
>ard, Treasurer, and , U
ident of Schools of Lj
-ounty, and the State ^
ion and the State S P? ye
' Education. All of these W
lich relate directly or . 0 r
the financing, su P < j!~ v . 1S L Ed-
o" the schools in Pl 7 n c up er'
mty. The Board of to
the special responsi
il taxes to operate
r to aid children a tion ing
te schools now _( un „ strict
white children. The
joined the coun ^"’„„ n ts o r
ing county tuition gr
ix exemptions an
applications for state Uc