• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Front Matter
 Subject matter index
 Appendices
 Appendix B
 Preliminary statement
 Part One
 Part Two
 Part Three
 Part Four
 Part Five
 Appendix A
 Appendix B














Title: Amicus curiae brief of the Attorney General of Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000050/00001
 Material Information
Title: Amicus curiae brief of the Attorney General of Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Florida State Office of the Attorney General
Publication Date: 1954
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: AM00000050
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAA1480

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title page
    Front Matter
        Front matter
    Subject matter index
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Appendices
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Appendix B
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    Preliminary statement
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Part One
        Page 3
        Page 4
        The need for time in revising the state legal structure
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
        The need for time in revising administrative procedures
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
        The need for time in gaining public acceptance
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
        Intangibles in education
            Page 41
            Page 42
        Reason for hope
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
        Regional variations
            Page 53
            Page 54
        Discussion
            Page 55
            Page 56
    Part Two
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Introductory note
            Page 59
            Page 60
        Specific suggestions
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
    Part Three
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Judicial cases permitting time
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
        Administrative discretion cases
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
        Remarks
            Page 85
            Page 86
    Part Four
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Changes in the law
            Page 89
            Page 90
        Plans for integration
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
    Part Five
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Appendix A
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
    Appendix B
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
Full Text





IN THE

Oupreme courtt of te 3lnitrbh tatea
OCTOBER TERM, 1954


N o.....................


OLIVER BROWN, ET AL.,
Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUN-
TY, KANSAS, ET AL.

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., ET AL.,
Appellants,
v.
R. W. ELLIOTT, ET AL.


DOROTHY E. DAVIs, ET AL.,
Appellants,
V.
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF
PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, ET AL.

FRANCES B. GEBHART, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
V.
ETHEL LOUISE BELTON, ET AL.


AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA


RICHARD W. ERVIN
Attorney General of the
State of Florida
State Capitol Building
Tallahassee, Florida

RALPH E. ODUM
Assistant Attorney General
State of Florida






)JA
CPO, C'


























40299
/1C~/
37 /










Subject Matter Index


Page
Preliminary Statement ........................................................ 1

PART ONE

A Discussion of the Reasons for a Period of Gradual
Adjustment to Desegregation to be Permitted in Florida
with Broad Powers of Discretion Vested in Local School
Authorities to Determine Administrative Procedures...... 3

A. The Need for Time in Revising the State Legal
Structure .. ....................................................... ......... 5
I Examples of Legislative Problems ............... 7
(a) Scholarships ................................... ........... 7
(b) Powers and Duties of County School
B oards ..................................................... ......... 10
(c) State Board of Education and State Super-
intendent .................................................. ...... 12
II. Discussion of Legislative Attitudes .................. 14
B. The Need for Time in Revising Administrative
Procedures ................................................. ........ 17
I. Examples ........................................... ........... ... 18
(a) Transportation .. ......................................... 18
(b) Redistricting .................................. ........... 19
(c) Scholastic Standards .................................... 19
(d) Health and Moral Welfare ........................ 20
0. The Need for Time in Gaining Public Acceptance.. 23
I. A Survey of Leadership Opinion ...................... 23
II. General Conclusions ............................................ 24
Regional Variations ............................................. 32






Page
A Note on Responses of Legislators ................ 33
III. The Dade County Report .................................... 34
IV. Discussion ............................................ ........... ... 34
D. Intangibles in Education ........................................... 41
E. Reason for Hope ....................................... ............ 43
F. Regional Variations ................................... ........... 53
G. Discussion ............................................... ........ .... 55

PART TWO
Specific Suggestions to the Court in Formulating a
D ecree ...................................................... .......................... 57
Introductory Note ...................................... ........... 59
Specific Suggestions ................................... ............ 61

PART THREE
Legal Authority of the Court to Permit a Period of
Gradual Adjustment and Broad Powers of Administra-
tive Discretion on the Part of Local School Authorities.. 67

A. Judicial Cases Permitting Time ............................ 69
I. United States v. American Tobacco Co ............ 69
II. Standard Oil v. United States ............................ 70
III. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. ...................... 72
State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., etc..... 72
IV. State of New York v. State of New Jersey, etc... 75
V. Martin Bldg. Co. v. Imperial Laundry ................ 75
B. Administrative Discretion Cases ............................ 77
I. United States v. Paramount Pictures ................. 77
II. Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern
Railw ay Co. ................................... ............ 78
People of the State of New York v. United
States ................................................ ....... .... 79
III. Burford v. Sun Oil Co. ......................................... 80






Page
IV. Far Eastern Conference, United States Lines
Co., etc. v. United States and Federal Mari-
tim e Board .............................................. ......... 82
V. Minersville School District v. Gobitis .............. 82
VI. Cox v. New Hampshire .......................................... 83
VII. Barbier v. Connolly ............................................. 84
VIII. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. .............................. 84
C. R em arks ....................................................................... 85


PART FOUR

Considerations Involved in Formulating Plans for
Desegregation .................................................. ........ ..... 87

A. Changes in the Law ................................... ........... 89
B. Plans for Integration ............................................. 91


PART FIVE

Conclusion .................................... .................................... 97










Appendix A


Page
RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF FLORIDA LEADER.
SHIP OPINION ON THE EFFECTS OF THE U. S.
SUPREME COURT DECISION OF MAY 17, 1954,
RELATING TO SEGREGATION IN FLORIDA
SCH OOLS ................................... ........................................ 99
Introduction ........................................................... .......101
Attorney General's Research Advisory Committee for
the Study of Problems of Desegregation in Florida
Schools ..........................................................................102

THE REPORT AND THE CONCLUSIONS ..................105
General Conclusions ..................................................107

LEADERSHIP OPINION BY QUESTIONNAIRE-
AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................113
The Questionnaires ............................................... .....115
Questionnaire Returns and Method of Analysis............116
Findings ........................................................................... 118
Regional Variations ..................................................124
Responses of Legislators ....................................... ...126
Conclusions ................................... ..................................127
Sample Questionnaire ...............................................129
Sample Questionnaire ...................................................132
Table 1-Questionnaires Sent and Returned,
by Groups .....................................................................135
Table 2-Per Cent Expressing Various Attitudes
Towards Decision, by Groups ..............................136,137
Table 3-Per Cent Agreeing or Disagreeing with
the Decision, by Groups ............................................ 138
Table 4-Per Cent Willing or Unwilling to Comply
with Courts and School Officials, by Groups............39







Page
Far Eastern Conference, United States Lines Co., States
Marine Corporation, et al. v. United States and Federal
Maritime Board, 342 U.S. 570, 96 L. Ed. 576, 72 S. Ct.
492 (1952) ................................... ............................................ 82
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230, 51 L. Ed.
1038, 27 S. Ct. 618 (1907) ................................... ............ 73
Martin Bldg. Co. v. Imperial Laundry Co., 220 Ala. 90,
124 So. 82 (1929) .............................................. ............ 75
Minersville School Distict v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.
Ct. 1010, 84 L. Ed. 1375 (1940) ........................................56, 82
New York v. United States, 331 U.S. 284, 334-336 (1947).. 79
New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 473, 75 L. Ed. 1176,
51 S, Ct. 519 (1931); 284 U.S. 585, 75 L. Ed. 506, 52 S. Ct.
120; 289 U.S. 712; 296 U.S. 259, 80 L Ed. 214, 56 S. Ct.
188 ...................................................................................70, 71, 72
People of the State of New York v. State of New Jersey
and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, 256 U.S.
296, 65 L. Ed. 937, 41 S. Ct. 492 (1921).............................. 75
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed.
256 (1896) ................................... ................. ............... 6, 55
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649........................................177
Standard Oil Co. v. U.S., 221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55
L. Ed. 619 (1910) ............................................. ......... ... 70
State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. and Ducktown
Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., Ltd., 237 U.S. 474, 59 L. Ed.
1054, 35 S. Ct. 631 (1915); 237 U.S. 678, 59 L. Ed. 1173,
35 S. Ct. 752 (1915); 240 U.S. 650, 60 L. Ed. 846, 36 S. Ct.
465 (1916) ............................................................................ 73, 74
United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106, 31
S. Ct. 632, 55 L. Ed. 663 (1911)....................................... 69
United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 92 L.
Ed. 1260, 68 S. Ct. 915 (1948) ............................................ 77







Page
Table 5--Per Cent of Each Group Predicting Mob
Violence and Serious Violence ..................................140
Table 6-Per Cent of Each Group Doubting Ability
of Peace Officers to Cope with Serious Violence..........141
Table 7-Per Cent of Each Group Who Believe
Peace Officers Could Cope with Minor Violence........142
Table 8-Per Cent of Groups Polled Who Believe
Most of Other Specified Groups Disagree with the
D decision .......................................................................143
Table 9-Per Cent of Each Group Designating
Various Methods of Ending Segregation as Most
E effective ........................................................................ 144
Table 10--Per Cent of Each Group Designating
Specified Grade Levels as Easiest Place to Start De-
segregation ..................................................... ...........145
Table 11-Per Cent of Each Group Designating
Various Problems as Being Likely to Arise................146
Table 12--Confidence of Peace Officers in Ability
to Cope with Serious Violence, by Attitude Towards
Desegregation .................................................. .........147
Table 13-Confidence of Peace Officers that Police
Would Enforce School Attendance Laws for Mixed
Schools, by Attitude Towards Desegregation............147
Table 14-Per Cent of Peace Officers Expressing
Various Attitudes, by Region ....................................148
Table 15--Per Cent of White Principals and Super-
visors Agreeing or Disagreeing with the Decision,
by R egion ......................................................... ............149
Table 16-Per Cent of White Principals and Super-
visors Willing or Unwilling to Comply, by Region....149
Table 17-Per Cent of Peace Officers Predicting
Mob Violence, by Region .............................................. 150
Table 18-Number and Per Cent of Peace Officers
and White Principals and Supervisors Predicting
Serious Violence, by Region ......................................150







Page
Table 19-Number and Per Cent of Peace Officers
and White Principals and Supervisors Doubting
that Peace Officers Could Cope with Serious
Violence, by Region ...............................................151
Table 20-Number and Per Cent of Legislators
Favoring Each of Five Possible Courses of Legisla-
tive A action ......................................................... ..........152

LEADERSHIP OPINION BY PERSONAL INTER.
VIEW-AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................153
Selection of Counties ................................................... .....153
M ethod of Study ....................................................... ......154
F findings ................................................................................155
The Personal Interview Schedule ..................................160
Personnel Interviewed ......................................................162
Reliability of Judgments in the Analysis of Recorded
Interviews on the Subject of the Supreme Court's
Segregation Decision ......................................................164
Table 1-Per Cent Agreement Between Judges......167
Table 2-Frequencies of Ratings of Interviewee
Feeling by Judges I & II .............................................. 168
Table 3-Frequencies of Ratings of Interviewee
Feeling by Judges III & IV ........................................169
Table 4-Frequencies of Ratings of Interviewee
Feeling by Judges V & VI...................... ...............170
Table 5-Frequencies of Ratings of Interviewee
Feeling by Judges VII & VIII ....................................171
Table 6-Frequencies of Classification of Interviews
by Judges I & II ..................................................... .....172
Table 7-Frequencies of Classification of Interviews
by Judges III & IV ........................................................173
Table 8-Frequencies of Classification of Interviews
by Judges V & VI ................................................. ....174
Table 9-Frequencies of Classification of Interviews
by Judges VII & VIII ...................................................175







Page
ANALYSIS OF NEGRO REGISTRATION AND
VOTING IN FLORIDA, 1940.1954............................ ....177
Summary Sheet of Attorney General's
Questionnaire, July 15, 1954......................................180-184

EXISTING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES IN
FLORIDA AND FACTORS OF SCHOOL ADMINIS-
TRATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
AFFECTING SEGREGATION ..........................................185
Achievement Test Scores .............................................. 189
Counties with No Negro High Schools..........................191
Examples of Inter-Racial Cooperation ........................191
Table 1-Summary of Expenditures-all funds-
Both Races, 1952-53 .............................................. ....193
Table 2-Significant Trends in the Growth of
Florida Schools under Dual System of Education
1930 to 1953 ....................................................................194
Table 3- Enrollment ................................................ ....195
Table 4-Comparison of Percentile Ranks for White
and Negro Examinees in the Florida Statewide
Twelfth-Grade Testing Program Spring 1949
through Spring 1953 ............................................196
Table 5-Counties with No Negro High School
1952-53 ................................... .....................................197
Table 6-Status of Elementary Principals 1953-54....198
Map-Amount and Per Cent of Nonwhite Popu-
lation: 1950 .......................................................... ......199
Map-Proportion of Negro Enrollment to Total
Enrollment by Counties 1952-53 ................................200

AN INTENSIVE STUDY IN DADE COUNTY AND
NEARBY AGRICULTURAL AREAS -AND CON-
CLU SIO N S ..................................................................... .........201
General Conclusions ..................................................... ....201
Factors Indicating a Gradual Approach as the So-
lution to this Problem ...................................................204

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................207











Appendix B


Page
EXAMPLES OF FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTIONAL,
STATUTORY AND STATE SCHOOL BOARD
REGULATORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO
SEGREGATION ................................... .............................211

Florida Constitution ................................................213
Florida Statutes .................................... ............. 215-218
State School Board Regulations ............................219-243





Table of Authorities




Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Rail-
way Company, 341 U.S. 341, 95 L. Ed. 1002, 71 S. Ct. 762
-1951 .............. ....................................... ............................ 78
Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed.
923 (1885) ................................................ ........................ 84
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 87 L. Ed. 1424, 63
S. Ct. 1098 (1943) ............................................ ........ ... 80
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S. Ct. 762, 85
L. Ed. 1049 (1941) ........................................ ........... ... 83
Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114,
71 L. Ed. 303 (1926) ........................................ ............ .. 84







UNITED STATES LAW
Page
26 State at L., 209, Ch. 647, USC Title 15, 1
(Anti-Trust Act) ........................................... ............ ... 70


FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

Art. 12, Sec. 1, Florida Constitution ................................213
Art. 12, Sec. 12, Florida Constitution.................5, 6, 15, 213
Sec. 228.09, Florida Statutes ............................................ 215
Sec. 229.07, Florida Statutes ........................................12, 215
Sec. 229.08, Florida Statutes ........................................12, 216
Sec. 229.16, Florida Statutes ......................................13, 216
Sec. 229.17, Florida Statutes ........................................13, 217
Sec. 230.23, Florida Statutes ........................................10, 217
Sec. 239.41, Florida Statutes ................................7,8, 9, 218
Sec. 242.46, Florida Statutes ............................................. 41


STATE SCHOOL BOARD REGULATIONS

The Calculation of Instruction Units and Salary
Allocations from the Foundation Program................13, 219
Administrative and Special Instructional Service......13, 220
SUnits for Supervisors of Instruction ............................13, 221
Establishment, Organization and Operation of Small
Schools .................................. ..............................................225
School Advisory Committees ........................................13, 226
Qualifications, Duties and Procedure for Employment
of Supervisors of Instruction ........................................13, 228
Isolated Schools .............................................................. 13, 232
The Distribution of General Scholarships..................13, 235
Scholarship Committee .....................................................240







Page
Scholarship for Preparation of Teachers and House and
Senatorial Scholarships .....................................................241
State Supervisory Services..............................................13,242
Transportation of Pupils ....................................................243


MISCELLANEOUS

Ashmore, Harry S., "The Negro and the Schools" ........34,39
Carter, Hodding, Reader's Digest, September 1954, p. 53.. 20
Clark, Kenneth B., "Findings," Journal of Social Issues,
IX, No. 4 (1953), 50 .......................................................... 25, 109
Dietrich, T. Stanton, Statistical Atlas, Florida's popula-
tion; 1940 and 1950; Research Report No. 3, Florida State
University, June, 1954 ..................................................189
Emory University Law School, Journal of Public Law,
Vol. 3, Spring 1954, No. 1..............................................37, 38, 89
Florida Facts, Florida State University, School of
Public Administration ....................................................32,124
Florida State Board of Health, Annual Report 1953,
Supp. No. 1, Florida Vital Statistics.................................. 21
Florida State Board of Health, Annual Report 1953,
Supp. No. 2, Florida Morbidity Statistics 1953, Table
No. 5, p. 25 ...................................................................... 21
Katz, Daniel and Hadley Cantril, "Public Opinion
Polls," Sociometry, I (1937), 155-179 ..............................116
Psychol. Bull., 1949, 46, 433-489 ........................................166
Semi-Weekly Floridan, Tallahassee, Florida, April 23,
1867, page 2 .......................................................................... 95
State of Florida, Biennial Report, Superintendent of
Public Instruction 1950-51 ............................................. 32
The Antioch Review, VIII (Summer 1948), 193-210........128
"The Impending Crisis of the South," New South, VIII,
No. 5, (May 1953) (Atlanta: Southern Regional Coun-
cil)5 ......................................................................................105
U. S. News & World Report, page 35, August 27, 1954...... 31

xi










Preliminary Statement


This amicus brief filed by the Attorney General of the
State of Florida pursuant to permission granted by the
Court in its decision of May 17, 1954, in the above cases, con-
tends that the Court should resolve its implementation de-
cision in favor of the propositions stated in questions 4B
and 5D.
The Court will find from a study of this brief that a sin-
cere and thorough effort has been made by the Attorney
General of Florida to present reasonable and logical an-
swers to questions 4 and 5. These answers are respectfully
submitted by way of assistance to the Court and are based
upon a scientific survey of the factual situation in Florida,
embracing practical, psychological, economic and socio-
logical effects, as well as an exhaustive research of legal
principles.
However, in filing this brief in answer to the hypothetical
questions propounded, the Attorney General is not inter-
vening in the cause nor is he authorized to submit the State
of Florida as a direct party to the instant cases. Neither can
his brief preclude the Florida legislature or the people
of Florida from taking any legislative or constitutional ac-
tion dealing with the segregation problem.







1

















Part One


A discussion of the reasons for a period of
gradual adjustment to desegregation to
be permitted in Florida with broad pow-
ers of discretion vested in local school
authorities to determine administrative
procedures.













A. The Need For Time
In Revising The State
Legal Structure



There is a need for reasonable time and planning by
State and local authorities in any revision of the existing
legal structure of the State of Florida, (which now provides
an administrative framework for the operation of a dual
system of public schools) in order to provide a legal and
administrative structure in which compliance with the
Brown decision can be accomplished in an orderly manner.
Examples of Florida constitutional, statutory, and state
school board regulatory provisions related directly or in-
directly to segregated public schools are set forth in Ap-
pendix B.
The basic change which must be made if Florida is to
comply with the non-segregation decision is either a repeal
or revision of Article XII, Section 12, of the Florida Con-
stitution, which provides:

"White and colored; separate schools.-White and
colored children shall not be taught in the same school,
but impartial provision shall bo made for both."

This provision in the basic law of Florida has been in
existence since 1885. During the past 69 years it has been
rigidly observed and has provided the foundation for an in-
tricate segregated public school system, in accord with so-
cial customs which cannot be changed overnight without

40299 5







completely upsetting established school administrative pro-
cedure in school planning, transportation, teacher employ-
ment, capital outlay, districting, scholastic standards, pub-
lic health, school discipline as well as many other facets of
the tremendously complicated school structure in Florida.
Assuming that the basic law of Florida pertaining to a
dual system of schools (Art. XII, Section 12, of the Florida
Constitution) is rendered nugatory by the decision of this
court in the Brown case, the Florida legislature must re-
vise the entire School Code of Florida to the extent that the
present code is predicated upon a dual system of education,
and all administrative procedures which have developed
under said code are grounded on the fundamental principle
of a segregated system. A simple repeal of the various
statutory and administrative procedures now provided for
the operation of the school system (which may prove to be
in conflict with the Brown decision) could only result in the
creation of a vacuum in methods of school administration.
The consequent immediate inrush of turbulent ideas into
this vacuum without legal guidance or administrative regu-
lation might well cause a tornado which would devastate
the entire school system.
This system has grown through the years since the es-
tablishment of the "separate but equal" doctrine by the
Court in the Plessy v. Ferguson case (163 U.S. 537), into
a mammoth and intricate system of public education in
Florida involving the annual expenditure of $138,895,123.15
and the welfare of 650,285 children. We do not believe that
this system, which took over half a century to develop, can
be transformed overnight.
The bare mechanical process of enacting legislation re-
quires reasonable time for study by legislative committees,
the time depending upon the complexity of the problem, and
must conform to the legally established time for convening
the legislature. On a problem of the magnitude of the one at







issue, the study of legislative committees must be preceded
by exhaustive study on the part of school officials and citi-
zens' educational committees in order that the legislature
may have the benefit of their recommendations.


L EXAMPLES OF LEGISLATIVE PROBLEMS


(a) Scholarships

An example of the type of legislative problem which must
be considered by school officials and the legislature is con-
tained in Section 239.41, Florida Statutes.1
This law at present provides for 1,050 scholarships of
$400 each year for students desiring to train for the teach-
ing profession.2
According to the State Department of Education, award-
ing of the scholarships is done on a basis of county repre-
sentation, race, and competitive test scores of psychological
and scholastic aptitude. A compilation of the scores of the
740 white twelfth grade applicants in the Spring of 1954
yielded an average score of 340. Compilation of the 488
Negro twelfth grade applicants yielded an average score
of 237. In the previous year, 1953, 664 white applicants
made an average score of 342 while the Negro applicants
made an average score of 237. This difference is classified as
very significant, and should be interpreted as meaning that
factors other than chance explain the different results be-
tween white and Negro scores.
In view of the wide divergence in achievement levels be-
tween the white and Negro races, as demonstrated by the
scholarship examinations, and desiring to make these schol-
arship opportunities available to students of both races, it

1. See page 218, Appendix B.
2. See page 235, Appendix B.







was recognized that provision would have to be made
whereby Negro students would not have to compete against
white students for these awards. Therefore, the legislature
of Florida provided that the scholarships should be ap-
portioned to white and Negro applicants according to the
ratio of white and Negro population in the counties. Only
in this way can Negro students in this state be assured of
receiving a proportionate share of state scholarships
awarded on the basis of competitive examinations.
If the Court's decision in the Brown case is to be inter-
preted that no distinction can be made on the basis of race
in the operation of Florida's school system, it is apparent
that Section 239.41, Florida Statutes, will have to be re-
vised if the state is to continue its policy of encouraging
Negro as well as white students to enter the teaching field.
It is apparent that the overall problem of teacher short-
ages cannot be solved immediately by law. It can be solved
eventually by provisions such as Section 239.41, Florida
Statutes, which is calculated to encourage a larger number
of people to qualify themselves as teachers. If Section
239.41, Florida Statutes, is revised, however, to preclude
immediately any recognition of a difference in scholastic
achievement between Negro and white applicants for teach-
er scholarships, such revision would make it virtually im-
possible for the great majority of Negro students in
Florida to receive scholarships, and from an economic stand-
point they form the group of potential teachers who need
such assistance most.
The problem can be solved, however, by time, without
working an undue hardship on Negro students or creating
an even greater shortage of teachers in Florida.
Dr. Gilbert Porter, Executive Secretary of Florida State
Teachers Association had this to say on the subject in
addressing a meeting of Negro teachers in Tallahassee on
August 19, 1954:






"It is of no avail to blind ourselves to the marked
difference in scholastic achievement between white and
Negro students. This difference is not our fault, but it
is there and must be recognized. If the doors to the
state white universities were thrown open to Negro
students today, it would make little difference because
a great majority of Negro students could not pass an
impartial entrance examination. We, as Negro teach-
ers, can provide the only solution to this dilemma if
given a reasonable amount of time, but it will mean an
absolute dedication to his work on the part of every
Negro teacher. Negro teachers can close the gap be-
tween Negro and white students if they will work hard
enough. We have come a long way already in closing
that gap and it can be closed completely within the
foreseeable future if we will work hard enough. Any
Negro teacher who is not willing to dedicate himself to
this purpose should step out of the way because he is
standing in the way of the progress of our race. Either
we must remove this difference in scholastic standing
or admit that we are inferior-and I will die and go
to the hot place before I will ever admit that I am
inferior."


Whatever is done by school offices and the Florida
legislature to fit the Florida teacher scholarship act (Sec.
239.41, Florida Statutes) into the framework of the new
concept of a non-segregated school system enunciated by
the Court, should take into consideration the human rights
and legal equities of members of the Negro race who would
like to enter the one professional field which is now open to
them on a large scale, and which they are now not only
invited but urged to enter on a basis of absolute economic
and professional equality. A strict legal application of the
principle that no distinction can be made on the basis of
race in public schools would necessarily have to ignore
practical and human factors as they now exist which are
of fundamental importance to the operation of a public
school system in Florida. One thing is apparent. No equi-







table and workable solution can be found unless sufficient
time is permitted by the Court in the application of its
decree abolishing segregated schools, to allow for an abate-
ment of the problems involved and an equitable adjustment
by the school system to so drastic a change in its basic
structure.


(b) Powers and Duties of County School Boards

The problems which will necessarily confront the Florida
legislature in revising the provision of Section 230.23,
Florida Statutes,1 alone, are so involved and complicated
if practical questions of school administration are to be
considered, that no immediate solution is feasible.
Section 230.23, Florida Statutes, provides the powers and
duties of county school boards and establishes a framework
within which they may authorize schools to be located and
maintained. It provides in part:

"Authorize schools to be located and maintained in
those communities in the county where they are needed
to accommodate as far as practicable and without un-
necessary expense all the youth who should be entitled
to the facilities of such schools, separate schools to
be provided for white and Negro children; and approve
the area from which children are to attend each such
schools, such area to be known as the attendance area
for that school "

Bearing in mind that this provision of the law has been
followed throughout the development of the Florida school
system and the location of schools decided in accord with its
intent, a simple repeal of this provision would provide no
systematic guide or formula for local school boards to fol-
low in attempting to redesign and reorganize the dual sys-

1. See page 217, Appendix B.







ter now in operation, which at present involves real estate
estimated to be valued at $300,000,000 and a current build-
ing program now under way involving from $90,000,000 to
$100,000,000,1 into a single non-segregated system.
The conversion of this $300,000,000 school plant into a
non-segregated system will clearly take a great deal of
planning if the old primary factor of racial segregation is
removed in school location, construction and operation.

The State Department of Education reports2 that:
"Florida provides annually $400 per instruction unit
for Capital Outlay needs which for the 67 counties
totaled $9,451,600 in 1953-54 and has been computed
at $10,199,448 for the 1954-55 estimate. This money is
spent in each county according to the needs recom-
mended by a state-conducted school building survey.
With the help of these individual county surveys it was
estimated as of January, 1954 that $97,000,000 will be
needed to provide facilities for white children and
$50,000,000 will be needed to provide facilities for
Negro children. Since the activation as of the effective
date January 1, 1953 of a Constitutional Amendment
providing for the issuance of revenue certificates by
the State Board of Education against anticipated state
Capital Outlay funds for the next thirty years more
than $43,000,000 in state guaranteed bonds have been
issued to provide additional facilities for both races.
By the fall of 1954 there will have been a total of $70,-
000,000 of these bonds issued and in the foreseeable
future the total will be $90,000,000 to $100,000,000. At
the present time 2182 classrooms are under construc-
tion as a result of the issuance of these bonds."

The planning included in making necessary surveys, ac-
quisition of sites, financing and engineering involved in the
present construction program, although performed at top
speed under the compulsion of a critical shortage of school

1. See page 188, Appendix A.
2. See page 187, Appendix A.






buildings in Florida, is a continuing process and requires
several years to carry out successfully.
Much of this school planning with regard to the allocation
and use of existing structures as well as new construction
will have to be re-evaluated and revised in accord with the
entirely new and basic change to a non-segregated system.

These facts, when considered in the light of the over-
crowded conditions now prevailing in many Florida schools,
must be studied by the legislature and school officials in any
effort to provide adequate administrative means of comply-
ing with the Court's decision. According to the State De-
partment of Education, during the school year 1953-54,
eighty-one schools in 18 Florida counties were forced to
operate double sessions because of the lack of classroom
space and trained teachers. In many instances to integrate
immediately in particular schools would mean overcrowd-
ing of school facilities resulting in serious administrative
problems too numerous to detail.
When these problems are further complicated by the
drastic change in the legal framework of segregated schools
in Florida, it is apparent that such factors should be rec-
ognized by the Court and sufficient time allowed for their
orderly solution.

(c) State Board of Education and State Superintendent
A third example of the complex problems which will con-
front school officials and the Florida legislature in re-
vising the framework of laws within which the school sys-
tem can operate efficiently in compliance with the Brown
decision is found in Sections 229.07,1 229.08,2 Florida Sta-
tutes, relating to the authority and rule-making powers

1. See page 215, Appendix B.
2. See page 216, Appendix B.






and duties of the State Board of Education; and Sections
229.168 and 229.174 relating to the duties of the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Although these provisions may not directly relate to seg-
regated schools, they have in each instance been enacted
and administered in accord with the basic provision of
Florida law requiring a dual school system, and some re-
vision will be necessary in the administrative powers
granted therein in order to insure compliance with the
Court's decree.
Specific problems in this regard are found in State Board
Regulations adopted April 27, 1954 (page 154, State Board
Regulations, page 219, Appendix B) related to the calcu-
lation of instruction units and salary allocations from the
Foundation Program; State Board Regulation adopted
March 21, 1950 (page 164, State Board Regulations, page
220, Appendix B), related to Administrative and Special
Instructional Service; State Board Regulation adopted
March 21, 1950 (page 171, State Board Regulations, page
221, Appendix B), related to units for supervisors of in-
struction; State Board Regulation adopted July 3, 1947
(page 28, State Board Regulations, page 226, Appendix
B), related to School Advisory Committees; State Board
Regulation adopted March 21, 1950 (page 148, State Board
Regulations, page 228, Appendix B), related to the quali-
fications, duties and procedure for employment of super-
visors of instruction; State Board Regulation adopted July
3, 1947 (page 156, State Board Regulations, page 232, Ap-
pendix B), related to isolated schools, State Board Regu-
lation adopted July 21, 1953 (page 225, State Board Regu-
lations, page 235, Appendix B), related to the distribution
of general scholarships; State Board Regulation adopted
July 3, 1947 (page 229, State Board Regulations, page 242,
Appendix B), related to State Supervisory Services.
3. See page 216, Appendix B.
4. See page 217, Appendix B.






II. DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE ATTITUDES

In setting out these examples of legislative problems
which will require reasonable time for solution, we do not
intend to imply that the members of the Florida legislature
are at present willing to accept a desegregated school sys-
tem. In fact, from such information as is now available on
this point there is reason to believe that members of the
Florida legislature are to a large extent unsympathetic
to the Court's decision in the Brown case. A survey of
leadership opinion regarding segregation in Florida con-
ducted by the Attorney General included the following
statement in the survey report (page 126, Appendix A):

"Although the 79 members of the state legislature who
returned questionnaires constitute almost 45% of the
176 legislators and legislative nominees, to whom the
forms were sent, generalizations as to the entire mem-
bership of the legislature on the basis of their responses
are entirely unwarranted. Any attempt to predict the
action of the legislature at its next session would be
even more presumptuous. The responses of these legis-
lators to two special questions asked of them are pre-
sented below as a matter of interest, however.
"The legislators were asked to indicate which of five
possible courses of action should be followed at the
next session of the legislature. The percentage check-
ing each course, and the details of the five courses of
action, are shown in Table 20 (Appendix A). The legis-
lators were also asked whether they believed that there
is any legal way to continue segregation in Florida
schools indefinitely. Of the 79 respondents, 34.20% re-
plied 'yes', 25.31% replied 'no' and 39.32% answered
'Don't know' or gave no answer."
Table 20, Appendix A, indicates that 40.5% of the mem-
bers of the legislature who responded to the questionnaire
wanted to preserve segregation indefinitely by whatever
means possible.





It is even more significant that the Florida legislature in
its 1951 session amended the appropriations act for the
State Universities to provide that in the event Section 12
of Article 12 of the Florida Constitution shall be held un-
constitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction or in
the event the segregation of races as required by Section
12, Article 12 of the Florida Constitution should be dis-
regarded, that no funds under the appropriations act shall
be released to the Universities (page 683, Journal of the
Florida House of Representatives, May 10, 1951). This
amendment contained in Chapter 26859, General Laws of
Florida, 1951, was vetoed by the Governor.
On the other hand, it is not our purpose to imply that the
Florida legislature will refuse to take any action to provide
a framework of laws designed to implement the Court's
decision. Only the legislature itself under our form of gov-
ernment can determine what course of action it will pursue
and we know of no way it can be coerced in making this
determination except through the will of a majority of the
people voiced through the ballot.
One thing seems apparent, however, under these cir-
cumstances. The Court upon equitable principles ought to
extend to our legislature a reasonable period of forbearance
during which the normal processes of legislative authority
can be afforded time and opportunity to implement the
Court's decision. The great multitude of problems the de-
cision has created in the legal structure of our school system
should warrant the Court in granting our legislature full
opportunity to revise our school laws.
Such a period of forbearance is in keeping with the
spirit of confidence which, under our system of democracy,
is essential to maintain among the three branches of gov-
ernment. It is in keeping with the spirit of confidence
which must be maintained between state governments and
the Federation of States which has delegated to this Court





its judicial authority. A fundamental precept in the prac-
tical workings of this spirit of confidence is the use of per-
suasion rather than coercion or compulsion. We believe
that this Court will not attempt to use its powers of coer-
cion precipitately and prematurely against any state whose
legislature has not had time to revise its basic school laws
to meet the requirements of transition.
Our Florida legislature under our Constitution does not
convene again until April, 1955 for its biennial 60-day ses-
sion.
Even at that session there may not be known the terms
of the implementation pattern, since they are dependent
upon whether the Court acts prior to April, 1955. Further-
more, whether the necessary spade-work and drafting of
legislation to adequately provide for the transition can be
accomplished within said session is largely a matter of
conjecture, so multitudinous and complex are the problems.
We reiterate: the State, having so long relied on and lived
under the Plessy doctrine, should have no unseemly haste
visited upon its legislature in trying to meet the needs of
transition, especially when it is considered by many to be,
at best, a "bitter pill" for the legislature to swallow.
Rather, the reasonable, considerate and tempered course
would be to allow our legislature a requisite and ample
period of time to study, debate and enact implementation
legislation. This we believe the court from innate principles
-of equity will allow.








B. The Need For Time In
Revising Administrative
Procedures



In addition to the problem of statutory revision, the
Court should consider the need for time in adjusting the
literally thousands of administrative policies and regula-
tions of local school boards and school superintendents
which have been formulated within the framework of law
to meet local conditions in each of the 67 counties of Florida
which will have to be revised and reorganized to conform
to new legislative enactments resulting from the Brown
decision. It is apparent that considerable time must be al-
lowed before workable administrative policies of this kind
can be evolved. Speaking to a group of Negro leaders in
Jacksonville on July 30, 1954, Florida State School Super-
intendent Thomas D. Bailey, said:
"As I see it, the ultimate problem is to establish a
policy and a program which will preserve the public
school system by having the support of the people. No
system of public education will endure for long without
public support. No program of desegregation in our
public schools can be effective, unless the people in
each community are in agreement in attempting it."
School board members, school trustees and school super-
intendents are elective officials in Florida. They are ob-
viously well aware that any administrative policies they
adopt implementing state laws enacted pursuant to the
Brown decision must meet with at least some degree of ac-
ceptance on the part of the people in the community if they
are to prove workable.
17





I EXAMPLES


(a) Transportation
Perhaps the best example of this type of problem is the
practical difficulties which will be encountered in convert-
ing the present dual school bus transportation system into
a single system.
During the school year 1953-54 Florida's school system
operated 2212 buses. These buses traveled 30,910,944 miles
to transport 209,492 pupils at a cost of $4,506,667 (see page
186, Appendix A). These figures may be compared with
Florida Greyhound Lines, the largest motor bus common
carrier in Florida, which operates 175 buses in the state.
A court order merging Florida Greyhound Lines with a
competing line would necessarily allow a considerable pe-
riod of time for revising routes and schedules to avoid dupli-
cation and insure maximum service to the public, but such
a merger would be relatively uncomplicated compared to
the problems involved in merging Florida's dual school bus
system.
The problems of merging what amounts to two bus sys-
tems into one system without regard to race are obviously
complicated. Hundreds of bus routes and schedules will
have to be revised in line with the school redistricting which
must take place. In accomplishing such a drastic revision of
bus routes and schedules the paramount factor in school
bus transportation, i.e., safety, must be considered at all
times in the light of the fact that discipline among the pas-
sengers is directly related to safety. Discipline on school
buses is maintained by one person, the driver. The ability
of the driver to maintain discipline and a reasonable degree
of safety while transporting mixed racial groups which
may be antagonistic must clearly be considered in re-
routing and re-scheduling school bus routes. Such consider-
ation on the part of local school boards will require degrees





of time in direct ratio to the complexity of the local situa-
tion in relation to the size and distribution of the Negro
population and the intensity of opposition to desegregated
schools on the part of the citizens.

(b) Redistricting

The redistricting of school attendance areas along normal
geographic lines on the basis of a single school system
rather than a dual system as it now exists is another prob-
lem which will require a great deal of time in proper plan-
ning and execution.

(c) Scholastic Standards

Perhaps an even greater problem which will confront
school officials on both the state and county level is the
maintenance of scholastic standards in the intermingling of
two groups of students so widely divergent on the basis of
achievement levels. According to the State Department of
Education (see page 190, Appendix A):

"A comparison of the performance of white and
Negro high school seniors on a uniform placement-test
battery given each spring in the high schools through-
out the State of Florida is shown in Table 4, page 196,
Appendix A. The number of participants corresponds
with the total twelfth grade membership during the
five-year period, 1949-1953. This table shows, for ex-
ample, that on all five tests 59% of the Negroes rank
no higher than the lowest 10% of the whites. On the
general ability scale, the fifty percentile or mid-point
on the white scale corresponds with the ninety-five
percentile of the Negro scale. In other words, only 5%
of the Negroes are above the mid-point of the white
general ability level. Studies of grades at the Univer-
sity of Florida indicate that white high school seniors
with placement test percentile ranks below fifty have
less than a 50% likelihood of making satisfactory
grades in college. While factors such as size of high





school, adequacy of materials, economic level, and home
environment are recognized as being contributing fac-
tors, no attempt is made here to analyze or measure
the controlling factors."
In some large schools it is possible to divide students in
the same age groups into different classes, taking into con-
sideration their achievement level, but smaller schools do
not have sufficient classroom space or teachers to make
such a division possible. In the latter class of schools it is
clear that an immediate and arbitrary intermingling of
students falling into such widely divergent achievement
level groups could only result in lowering the scholastic
standards of the entire school and adding to the problems
of discipline and instructional procedures. The Negro stu-
dents would suffer if compelled to compete against white
students of the same age but whose achievement level was
2 or 3 grades higher and the white students would be
seriously retarded.
This problem is not insoluble and it is not advanced as a
reason for permanent segregation in the schools. It is, how-
ever, a problem which must be taken into consideration by
school officials in any attempt at integration of the races
in the schools and it is a problem which will require careful
planning, new techniques, and a great deal of time if it is
to be solved without doing serious harm to both races and
to the school system.

(d) Health and Moral Welfare

Still another example of school administrative problems
in achieving an integrated school system is related to
health and moral welfare. Writing in the Readers Digest,
September, 1954, page 53, Mr. Hodding Carter, Editor and
Publisher of the Delta Democrat Times, Greenville, Miss-
issippi, said:





"If only because of economic inequalities, there is a
wide cultural gap between Negro and white in the
South, and especially in those states where dwell the
most Negroes. These heavily Negro states are also
largely agrarian. Among the rural and small-town Ne-
groes, the rates of near-illiteracy, of communicable
diseases, of minor and major crimes are far higher
than among the whites. The rural Negro's living stand-
ards, though rising are still low, and he is still easy-
going in his morals, as witness the five to ten times
higher incidence of extramarital households and ille-
gitimacy among Negroes than among whites in the
South. The Southern mother doesn't see a vision of a
clean scrubbed little Negro child about to embark on a
great adventure. She sees a symbol of the cultural lags
of which she is more than just statistically aware."

Specifically, with regard to Florida, the State Board of
Health reports that during the year 1953 there was a total
of 58,262 white births in the state, of which 1,111 were ille-
gitimate. During this same period there was a total of
21,825 Negro births of which 5,249 were illegitimate. Per-
centagewise, this means that 1.9% of white births in Florida
during 1953 were illegitimate and 24% of Negro births
were illegitimate1.

According to the State Board of Health there was a total
of 11,459 cases of gonorrhea reported in Florida during
1953 of which 10,206 were among the Negro population.2
We feel that this cultural gap should be honestly recognized
by both white and Negro leaders as a problem requiring
time for solution rather than an arbitrary and blind refusal
to admit that it exists or that it is related to public school
administration.

1. Annual Report, Florida State Board of Health for 1953, Sup-
plement No. 1, Florida Vital Statistics.
2. Annual Report, Florida State Board of Health 1953, Supple-
ment No. 2, Florida Morbidity Statistics 1953, Table No. 5,
page 25.











C. The Need For Time
In Gaining Public Acceptance



There is a need for time in gaining public acceptance of
desegregation because of the psychological and sociological
effects of desegregation upon the community.

I. A SURVEY OF LEADERSHIP OPINION

A sincere and exhaustive effort has been made by the
Attorney General of Florida to ascertain, as accurately as
possible, the feelings of the people of Florida with regard
to segregation in public schools. This survey was author-
ized by the Florida Cabinet which allocated $10,000 for the
purpose. This effort was made primarily for the purpose
of obtaining information which would be of use to the
Court in formulating its final decree in the Brown case.
In making the survey and study, every possible precau-
tion was taken to insure its impartiality and scientific ac-
curacy. It was made with the advice and under the supervi-
sion of an interracial advisory committee composed of in-
dividuals chosen on the basis of their professional standing
in the field of education; specialized knowledge which would
be helpful in making such a study; reputation for civic-
mindedness and impartiality and because they were will-
ing to devote their time without pay in carrying out a task
so enormous in scope in the brief time available. A more
detailed explanation of the scientific methods and tech-
niques employed in making this study is given with the





complete survey report itself, which is made a part of this
brief and included as Appendix A. The General Conclusions
of this report are as follows:

I. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

1. On the" basis of data from all relevant sources in-
cluded in this study, it is evident that in Florida white lead-
ership opinion with reference to the Supreme Court's de-
cision is far from being homogeneous. Approximately
three-fourths of the white leaders polled disagree, in prin-
ciple, with the decision. There are approximately 30% who
violently disagree with the decision to the extent that they
would refuse to cooperate with any move to end segregation
or would actively oppose it. While the majority of white
persons answering opposed the decision, it is also true that
a large majority indicated they were willing to do what
the courts and school officials decided.
2. A large majority of the Negro leaders acclaim the
decision as being right.
3. Only a small minority of leaders of both races advocate
immediate, complete desegregation. White leaders, if they
accept the idea that segregation should be ended eventually,
tend to advocate a very gradual, indefinite transition period,
with a preparatory period of education. Negroes tend to ad-
vocate a gradual transition, but one beginning soon and last-
ing over a niuch shorter period of time.
4. There are definite variations between regions, coun-
ties, communities and sections of communities as to whether
desegregation can be accomplished, even gradually, with-
out conflict and public disorder. The analysis of trends
in Negro registration and voting in primary elections,
shows similar variations in the extent to which Negroes
have availed themselves of the right to register and vote. At
least some of these variations in voting behavior must be ac-





counted for by white resistance to Negro political participa-
tion. This indicates that there are regional variations not
only in racial attitudes but in overt action.
Regional, county and community variations in responses
to questionnaires and interviews are sufficiently marked to
suggest that in some communities desegregation could be
undertaken now if local leaders so decided, but that in
others widespread social disorder would result from im-
mediate steps to end segregation. There would be prob-
lems, of course, in any area of the state, but these would
be vastly greater in some areas than in others.
5. While a minority of both white and Negro leaders
expect serious violence to occur if desegregation is at-
tempted, there is a widespread lack of confidence in the
ability of peace officers to maintain law and order if serious
violence does start. This is especially true of the peace offi-
cers themselves, except in Dade County. This has im-
portant implications. While it is true that expressed
attitudes are not necessarily predictive of actual behavior,
there seems little doubt that there is a minority of whites
who would actively and violently resist desegregation,
especially immediate desegregation. It has been concluded
from the analysis of experiences with desegregation in
other areas, "A small minority may precipitate overt re-
sistance or violent opposition to desegregation in spite of
general acceptance or accommodation by the majority."1
6. Opposition of peace officers to desegregation, lack of
confidence in their ability to maintain law and order in the
face of violent resistance, and the existence of a positive
relationship between these two opinions indicates that less
than firm, positive action to prevent public disorder might
be expected from many of the police, especially in some
communities. Elected officials, county and school, also show
1. Kenneth B. Clark, "Findings," Journal of Social Issues, IX,
No. 4 (1953), 50.





a high degree of opposition. Yet it has been pointed out,
again on the basis of experience in other states, that the
accomplishment of efficient desegregation with a minimum
of social disturbance depends upon:
A. A clear and unequivocal statement of policy by
leaders with prestige and other authorities;
B. Firm enforcement of the changed policy by author-
ities and persistence in the execution of this policy
in the face of initial resistance;
C. A willingness to deal with violations, attempted
violations, and incitement to violations by a resort
to the law and strong enforcement action;
D. A refusal of the authorities to resort to, engage in
or tolerate subterfuges, gerrymandering or other
devices for evading the principles and the fact of
desegregation;
E. An appeal to the individuals concerned in terms of
their religious principles of brotherhood and their
acceptance of the American traditions of fair play
and equal justice.
It may be concluded that the absence of a firm, enthusi-
astic public policy of making desegregation effective would
create the type of situation in which attitudes would be
most likely to be translated into action.1
7. In view of white feelings that immediate desegregation
would not work and that to require it would constitute a
negation of local autonomy, it may be postulated that the
chances of developing firm official and, perhaps, public sup-
port for any program of desegregation would be maximized
by a decree which would create the feeling that the Court
recognizes local problems and will allow a gradual transi-
tion with some degree of local determination.
8. There is a strong likelihood that many white children
would be withdrawn from public schools by their parents
1. Experience shows that where the steps listed above have been
taken, predictions of serious social disturbances have not been
borne out.





and sent to private schools. It seems logical, however, that
this practice would be confined primarily to families in the
higher income brackets. As a result, a form of socio-
economic class segregation might be substituted for racial
segregation in education.

9. It is evident that a vast area of misunderstanding as
to each other's feelings about segregation exists between
the races. White leaders believe Negroes to be much more
satisfied with segregation than Negroes are and Negro
leaders believe that whites are much more willing to accept
desegregation gracefully than whites proved to be. Hence
a logical first step towards implementing the principle set
forth by the Court, and one suggested by both whites and
Negroes, would seem to be the taking of positive, coopera-
tive steps to bridge this gap and establish better under-
standing between the two groups.

10. Although relatively few Negro leaders and teachers
show concern about the problem, white answers indicate
that Negro teachers would encounter great difficulty in
obtaining employment in mixed schools. To the extent that
desegregation might proceed without parallel changes in
attitudes towards the employment of Negro teachers in
mixed schools, economic and professional hardships would
be worked on the many Negro teachers of Florida.

11. Since 1940, and particularly since 1947, the State of
Florida has made rapid and steady progress toward the
elimination of disparities between white and Negro edu-
cational facilities as measured by such tangible factors as
teacher salaries, current expenditure per pupil, teacher
qualifications, and capital outlay expenditure per pupil.

12. In spite of the current ambiguity as to the future of
dual, "separate but equal" school facilities the State is pro-
ceeding with an extensive program of construction of new
school facilities for both white and Negro pupils, with a





recommended capital outlay of $370 per Negro pupil and
$210 per white pupil. Both this and the previous finding in-
dicate that, while these steps have been taken within the
framework of a dual educational system, there is a sincere
desire and willingness on the part of the elected officials
and the people of Florida to furnish equal education for all
children.
13. Available achievement test scores of white and Ne-
gro high school seniors in Florida indicate that, at least in
the upper grades, many Negro pupils placed in classrooms
with white pupils would find themselves set apart not only
by color but by the quality of their work. It is not implied
that these differences in scores have an innate racial basis,
but it seems likely that they stem from differences in eco-
nomic and cultural background extending far beyond the
walls of the segregated school, into areas of activity not
covered by this decision.
14. Interracial meetings, and cooperative activities al-
ready engaged in by teachers and school administrators in
many counties demonstrate steps that can be, and are being
taken voluntarily and through local choice to contribute to
the development of greater harmony and understanding
between whites and Negroes in Florida communities.
The specific findings of this survey regarding leadership
opinion as expressed through mailed questionnaires are:
1. White groups differ greatly from each other in
their attitudes towards the Court's decision, ranging
from nearly unanimous disagreement to a slight pre-
dominance of favorable attitudes. (See Table 2, page
136, Appendix A)
2. White groups also differ from each other in will-
ingness to comply with whatever courts and school
boards decide to do regardless of their personal feel-
ings. (See Table 4, page 139, Appendix A)
3. Peace officers are the white group most opposed
to desegregation. (See Table 3, page 138, Appendix A)





4. Almost no whites believe that desegregation
should be attempted immediately. (Table 2, page 136,
Appendix A)
5. A large majority of both Negro groups are in
agreement with the Court's decision declaring segre-
gation unconstitutional. (Table 3, page 138, Appendix
A)
6. While only a small minority of both Negro groups
believe that desegregation should be attempted imme-
diately, an even smaller minority would oppose at-
tempts to bring about desegregation or refuse to co-
operate. (Table 2, page 136, Appendix A)
7. Only a minority of whites in all groups believe
that opponents of desegregation would resort to mob
violence in trying to stop it. A larger proportion, but
still a minority, believe that serious violence would re-
sult if desegregation were attempted in their commu-
nity in the next few years. (Table 5, page 140, Ap-
pendix A)
8. A yet smaller minority of both of the Negro
groups anticipate mob violence or serious violence as
a result of steps towards desegregation. (Table 5,
page 140, Appendix A)
9. The majority of all white groups are not sure that
peace officers could cope with serious violence if it
did occur in their communities, replying either "no"
or "don't know" to the question. (Table 6, page 141,
Appendix A)
10. A much smaller proportion of both Negro groups
expresses doubt as to the ability of law enforcement
officials to deal with serious violence. (Table 6, page
141, Appendix A)
11. The majority of most of the white groups believe
that peace officers could maintain law and order if
minor violence occurred. (Table 7, Appendix A)
12. The Negro groups did not differ greatly from the
white groups in the proportion believing that police
could cope with minor violence. (Table 7, Appendix A)





13. Only 13.24 per cent of 1669 peace officers believe
that most of the peace officers they know would en-
force attendance laws for mixed schools.
14. A majority of the members of all white groups
except peace officers, (who were not asked): radio sta-
tion managers; and ministers, believe that most of the
people of Florida and most of the white people in their
communities disagree with the Court's decision. (Table
8, Appendix A)
15. In the five white groups asked, from one-fourth to
one-half of the respondents believed that most of the
Negroes in their community were opposed to the de-
segregation ruling. (Table 8, Appendix A)
16. A much smaller proportion of both Negro groups
believe that most of the people of Florida, most of the
whites in their community, and particularly the Negroes
in their communities are in disagreement with the prin-
ciple of desegregation. (Table 8, Appendix A)
17. Only a small minority of all groups, white and
Negro believe that immediate assignment of children
to schools on the basis of geographical location rather
than race would be the most effective way of ending
public school segregation. (Table 9, Appendix A)
18. All groups think a gradual program of desegre-
gation would be most effective. Negroes, however, pre-
fer that the process start within the next year or two
with immediate, limited integration much more fre-
quently than do whites. The whites prefer a very grad-
ual transition with no specified time for action to begin.
(Table 9, Appendix A)
19. Whites who expressed an opinion believe that the
primary grades and the colleges are the levels on which
desegregation could be initiated most easily. On the
other hand, almost as many Negroes believed that
segregation should be ended on most or all grade levels
simultaneously as believed it should be ended first at
the lowest and highest grade levels.
20. The maintenance of discipline in mixed classes by
Negro teachers is regarded as a potential problem by a





majority of white principals, supervisors and PTA
leaders. A much smaller proportion of Negroes re-
garded this as a problem, with a majority of Negro
principals believing that colored teachers could main-
tain discipline in mixed classes. (Table 11, Appendix
A)
21. A majority of all white groups believe that white
people would resist desegregation by withdrawing
their children from the public schools, but a much
smaller proportion of Negroes, less than a majority
believe that this would happen. (Table 11, Appendix A)
22. Almost two-thirds of white school officials-su-
perintendents, board members, and trustees-believe
that application of Negroes to teach in mixed schools
would be rejected. (Table 11, Appendix A)

It should be noted at this point that this opinion is sup-
ported by the experience of other states where desegrega-
tion of schools has already taken place. The August 27,1954,
issue of U. S. News and World Report, page 35, states,
"In the north, protests from white parents tend to drive
Negro teachers out of the schools to which their children go.
The same thing is expected in the South when desegregation
comes to the schools there. An illustration of what happens
in the North is shown by the experience of Jeffersonville,
Indiana. The town lies in the southern part of the State,
just across the Ohio River from Kentucky. A great deal of
Southern tradition and many Southern customs have
reached across the river. Jeffersonville is just completing
desegregation of its schools. There have been few un-
happy incidents. But there has been a greater problem with
teachers than with children in the schools. There were 16
Negro teachers in Jeffersonville when desegregation was
started in 1948. By 1951 their number had dwindled to
11 as school enrollments were consolidated. For the school
year starting in autumn, 1951, only three Negro teachers
were retained. They had achieved permanent tenure under
State law, and could be discharged only for cause."





Florida now employs 19,848 persons in instructional po-
sitions not including supervisors. 4,721 of these teachers
are Negroes. (Biennial Report, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, State of Florida, 1950-51)

23. Nearly three-fourths of school officials believe
that it would be difficult to get white teachers for
mixed schools. (Table 11, Appendix A)
24. Almost half of school officials and a little over
40% of white PTA leaders believe that the people of
their communities would not support taxes for desegre-
gated schools, but only about 20% of Negro PTA lead-
ers believe that such support would not be forthcoming.
(Table 11, Appendix A)
25. In the case of all potential problems on which
both Negroes and whites were questioned a smaller
proportion of Negroes than of whites indicate belief
that problems would arise as a result of desegregation.
(Table 11, Appendix A)
26. In the case of peace officers there is a positive
relationship between personal disagreement with the
decision and lack of confidence in the ability of peace
officers to cope with serious violence. There is an even
higher positive relationship between belief that segre-
gation should be kept and belief that peace officers
would not enforce school attendance laws for mixed
schools. (Table 12, Appendix A)

Regional Variations. The responses to certain items of
the two largest groups polled, the peace officers and the
white school principals and supervisors, were analyzed by
region of the state in which the respondents lived. The 67
counties of Florida were grouped into 8 regions defined by
social scientists at the Florida State University in "Florida
Facts" (Tallahassee, Florida; School of Public Adminis-
tration, The Florida State University).
Clear-cut regional variations in attitudes and opin-
ions are found to exist, as is indicated by the following
findings;





27. Although the majority of peace officers in all
regions feel that segregation should be kept, the per-
centage feeling so varies from 83% in two regions to
100% in one region. (Table 14, Appendix A)
28. The percentage of white principals and super-
visors who are in disagreement with the decision varies
from 20% to 60% in different regions. (Table 15, Ap-
pendix A)
29. A large majority of white principals and super-
visors in all regions indicate that they would comply
with the decision regardless of personal feelings, but
the percentage varies from 76% in Region VII to ap-
proximately 94% in Regions VI and VIII. (Table 16,
Appendix A)
30. The percentage of peace officers predicting mob
violence as a method of resisting desegregation varies
from 20% in Region VIII to nearly 63% in Region
VII (Table 17, Appendix A).
31. Percentages of both peace officers and white
principals and supervisors predicting serious violence
in the event desegregation is attempted vary widely
between some regions (Table 18, Appendix A).
32. The majority of both peace officers and white
principals and supervisors in all regions doubt that the
police could maintain law and order if serious violence
occurred, but there are some regional variations.
(Table 19, Appendix A)

A Note on Responses of Legislators. Although the 79
members of the state legislature and legislative nominees
who returned questionnaires constitute almost 45 per cent
of the 176 legislators to whom the forms were sent, general-
izations as to the entire membership of the legislature on
the basis of their responses are entirely unwarranted. Any
attempt to predict the action of the legislature at its next
session would be even more presumptuous. The responses
of these legislators to two special questions asked of them
are presented below as a matter of interest, however.





The legislators were asked to indicate which of five pos-
sible courses of action should be followed at the next ses-
sion of the legislature. The percentage checking each course,
and the details of the five courses of action, are shown in
Table 20.
The legislators were also asked whether they believed
that there is any legal way to continue segregation in
Florida schools indefinitely. Of the 79 respondents, 34.20
per cent replied "Yes," 25.31 per cent replied "No," and
39.32 per cent answered "Don't Know," or gave no answer.

III. THE DADE COUNTY REPORT

A separate intensive study was made by the Attorney
General's Advisory Committee under the immediate super-
vision and direction of a research team from the Depart-
ment of Government of the University of Miami. This study
was made of the greater Miami area and some outlying
sections in neighboring counties in the belief that this part
of Florida might have different problems of integration
from other parts of the state due to its geographic location
and density of population. The results of this study are in-
cluded as a part of the overall project and set out in
Appendix A.

IV. DISCUSSION

The implications found in the Florida survey are many
and varied but it is significant that to a remarkable extent
they verify and coincide with the conclusions and observa-
tions set forth in the book by Mr. Harry S. Ashmore, "The
Negro and the Schools". The book is the result of an
exhaustive research study sponsored by the Ford Foun-
dation for the Advancement of Education of the problem
of segregation in the south as the title implies.





For example, Mr. Ashmore states (page 81, "The Negro
and the Schools):

"The most important factor in integration of the
public schools in the non-South, finally, is community
attitudes. It is axiomatic that separate schools can be
merged only with great difficulty, if at all, when a great
majority of the citizens who support them are actively
opposed to the move. (Italics supplied) No other
public activity is so closely identified with local mores.
Interest in the schools is universal, and it is an interest
that directly involves not only the tax-payer but his
family, and therefore his emotions. Those who are in-
different to all other community affairs tend to take a
proprietary interest in the schools their children at-
tend, or will attend, or have attended. State influence
in public education has grown in recent years in pro-
portion to the increase in state aid, but state policies
rarely are so important as local forces in the shaping
of public educational policies and practices ....

"The most meticulous house-to-house poll in any
American community with a sizeable Negro population
would doubtless turn up a negative response to a pro-
posal to integrate the separate public schools. In the
case of the whites this might reflect deep-seated race
prejudice, or it might be no more than the normal,
instinctive resistance to any marked change in the ac-
customed patterns of everyday living. In many cases
the basis of objection might be the demonstrable fact
that the great majority of American Negroes are still
slum-dwellers; many a parent who proudly considers
himself wholly tolerant in racial matters will object
to having his child associate with classmates of inferior
economic and social background. It is probable that
some resistance to integration would even be recorded
among Negroes, who might respond negatively out of
simple fear of the unknown, or the desire to protect
their children against possible overt discrimination by
white classmates or teachers. The great problem for
schoolmen who have been moved to consider integration
by their own convictions, or by the prodding of higher
authority, has been to determine whether the passive





resistance which they can readily sense will be trans-
lated into active resistance once the issue is drawn.
"In any event the superintendent who is called to
take his school system from segregation to integration
must be prepared to function as a 'social engineer'
(Italics supplied). He will deal on a mass scale with
delicate problems of human relationships involving
not only pupils and teachers but the community at
large.
These case studies demonstrate that wherever there
has been an active and well-planned program to 'sell'
integration to the community at large it has succeeded
-but here again there is no way to measure just how
difficult the selling job really was. The most notable
examples are to be found in New Jersey, where a well-
staffed state agency made it its business to work closely
with those communities which had long practiced seg-
regation and appeared resistant to the change required
by the new constitution. Although New Jersey's Divi-
sion Against Discrimination was armed with the power
to withhold state funds and even to bring misdemeanor
charges against school officials who refused to comply,
it accomplished the integration of 40 formerly segre-
gated school districts without invoking these powers
in a single instance...
"At the other end of the scale is Cairo, Illinois,
where the effort of the NAACP to force a reluctant
school board to accept the state ban on segregation
led to violence. Cairo in almost every aspect of its
community life, may be classified as a 'sick city,'
and there is no indication of anything approximating
an orderly interracial approach to the problem either
before or after integration became an explosive issue.
"Between these two extremes lie most of the non-
Southern cities. They are, for the most part, beyond the
reach of any possible decision of the Supreme Court
in the test cases, for segregation in the schools of the
non-South is now rarely bolstered by law, and where
it is it would hardly miss the legal prop if it were struck
down. Desegregation is proceeding there at a rate
determined by the willingness of individual communi-





ties to accept the change-or by the willingness of
community leaders to put the issue to the test."

The same recognition of the problems involved in de-
segregation and the obvious need for adequate time to give
local school administrators an opportunity to devise plans
and means of overcoming the problems is found in the
thinking of almost all authorities who have made a study
of the subject.

In discussing the Problems of Desegregation, Dr. Tru-
man M. Pierce, Professor of Education, George Peabody
College for Teachers, and Director of the Cooperative Pro-
gram in Educational Administration (Southern Region)
had this to say (see page 91 Journal of Public Law, Emory
University Law School, Vol. 3, Spring 1954, Number 1).

"People respond well, in general, to the opportunity
of discussing with each other mutual concerns and in-
terests. Controversial subjects discussed in the public
arena under skillful leadership can often be resolved
with a minimum of conflict. Effective public forums on
the community level provide experiences in self-govern-
ment which can hardly be surpassed in satisfactions
which they bring and in progress they stimulate. How-
ever, questions tinged with a high degree of emotion-
alism offer ready-made opportunities for rabble rous-
ers and self-seekers to do serious harm. Consequently,
the calm, sane and relatively objective approach, which
can be expected from most of the substantial citizens
of the average community, is essential in the types of
discussion suggested. It is hardly necessary to point
out that such public forums should avoid emotional
binges and concentrate on the study of facts. The third
principle is that responsible and public spirited citizens
of both races should discuss together the facts con-
cerning their school system and together make plans
for its improvement. This does not imply that the board
of education should be by-passed, for final policy must
be determined by this legally constituted body.





"Ill-advised and hasty action, determined without
benefit of a period in which calm deliberation takes
place (Italics supplied) can do more harm than good.
Urgency need never take precedence over wisdom.
Piecemeal and stopgap policies are likely to prove un-
sound and wasteful in the long run. Therefore, the
final principle which is suggested is that extensive
policy setting based on thorough study and careful
thought should provide the framework for a thorough
and comprehensive program of work extending as far
into the future as is practical."

Dr. Howard W. Odum,1 in discussing "An approach to
diagnosis and direction of the problem of Negro segregation
in the public schools of the South" says (Journal of Public
Law, Emory University Law School, Vol. 3, Spring 1954,
No. 1, page 34):

"Final assumptions must rest upon continuing ex-
ploration, education, testing grounds for federal and
state programs, and for a working balance between
voluntaristio and coercive action. For, from special
studies, general observations, and recorded experi-
ences, it must be clear that all our exhibits of evidence
appear as a sort of tug of war, now moving this way,
now that. The real definition of the situation comes
back again and again to inferences about issues, cul-
tural values that are characteristic of the region, and to
exploration and survey, projection of trends and pre-
dictions, and potentials that can be identified with
alternatives. In this dilemma it would seem that never
have the old classical, 'On the one hand and on the
other,' and 'but also,' appeared to carry such a multi-
tude of dichotomies, paired contradictions, major pre-
mises assumed, hands, 'ors,' and butss,' in the loom of
interaction processes. And rarely ever have we run
across so many generalizations based upon so little
basic research or tested observations. All of this is

1. Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina; past
president of the American Sociological Society; editor, Social
Forces; author, American Sociology (1951) and other books.





relevant not only to the elemental cataloguing of facts
and the appraisal of causal factors, but to the orienta-
tion of value judgments and strategy priorities.''
Everyone concerned in the State of Florida with the
problems inherent in any attempt to desegregate schools,
whether he be a member of the legislature or a school official
cannot help but be aware that any change which is under-
taken from the status quo must be made with at least the
passive approval of the people in the community who will be
affected by the change. Mr. Ashmore (The Negro and the
Schools, page 135) states:

"Finally, there is the hard fact that integration in a
meaningful sense cannot be achieved by the mere phys-
ical presence of children of two races in a single class-
room. No public school is isolated from the community
that supports it, and if the very composition of its clas-
ses is subject to deep-seated and sustained public dis-
approval, it is hardly likely to foster the spirit of united
effort essential to learning. Even those who are dedi-
cated to the proposition that the common good demands
the end of segregation in education cannot be unaware
that if the transition produces martyrs they will be the
young children who must bear the brunt of spiritual
conflict."











D. Intangibles
In Education




This Court has recognized the validity and significance of
certain intangibles in education. Quoting from the Brown
decision it said "In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that
a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide
them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in
large part on 'those qualities which are incapable of ob-
jective measurement but which make for greatness in a
law school'.
"In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the
Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white grad-
uate school be treated like all other students, again resorted
to intangible considerations: his ability to study, to
engage in discussions and exchange views with other stu-
dents, and, in general, to learn his profession.'
"Such considerations apply with added force to children
in grade and high schools. To separate them from others
of similar age and qualifications solely because of their
race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in
the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a
way unlikely ever to be undone."
The legislature of Florida was motivated by the same
consideration of "intangibles" in education when it en-
acted Section 242.46, Florida Statutes. This law prohibits
secret societies including fraternities and sororities in the
public schools. The legislature and school officials recog-
nized that in some instances fraternities generated feelings





of snobbishness on the part of the members and feelings of
inferiority on the part of those not invited to join. It was
considered that these feelings might in the words of the
court "affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever
to be undone."
We believe that this Court should recognize the validity
and significance in education of other "intangible consid-
erations" which may result from a precipitate attempt to
compel desegregated schools in all areas of Florida. It is
obvious that children reflect in their attitudes much of the
same deep-seated prejudices and antagonisms felt by their
parents. In the many areas of Florida where these feelings
are known to exist no school administrator could compel
an immediate desegregation without the certain knowledge
that he was placing the children in a situation which could
only result in generating feelings of hatred, inferiority and
bias which would "affect their hearts and minds in a way
unlikely ever to be undone."








E. Reason for Hope


There is some reason to believe that segregated schools
can be ended in Florida in an equitable manner without de-
stroying the school system itself. But there is no reason
to believe that this can be accomplished hurriedly or through
the legal coercion of school officials who would thus find
themselves caught in the impossible dilemma of confronting
on the one hand the irresistible force of a judicial edict
which must be obeyed and on the other hand the immovable
object of public opinion which cannot be altered. The
only hope for a solution is for this Court to restrain the
use of coercive measures where necessary until the hard
core of public opinion has softened to the extent that there
can be at least some measure of acceptance on the part of a
majority of the people.
This recognition of the need for time and tact and wis-
dom in bringing about a true realization of the goal set
by this Court, is shared by leaders of both the white and
Negro races in Florida.

Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of Bethune-Cook-
man College at Daytona Beach, Florida, and a recognized
leader of the Negro people throughout the nation for many
years, stated in a press release soon after the announcement
of this Court's decree in the Brown case:

"... The High Tribunal has put a legal foundation un-
der a belief many of us have long held and which is
clearly and concisely stated in the most basic Ameri-
can ideal, 'All men are created equal.'





"In quietness and patience, people of culture receive
this news, realizing the inevitable has at last come
about. They also realize, however, that the absorption
into our daily life of this new decision-the putting
of it into practice-must represent an organic cul-
tural assimilation which, like all social processes, will
take time. But eventually the wrongs and mistakes of
history are righted and remedied and inhumanities are
rectified. .... Let us enter into this integration calmly,
with good judgment. Let us give and take, working
out together the best possible means we can put into
action so that there may be peace and understanding,
and, may I say, the spirit of brotherhood.
"There is much for the Negro to do as well as the white.
We must use tact and wisdom. It will take conferences,
thinking and planning and working side by side. More
largely than is realized, we are good, loyal, American
citizens. And whether we be north, east, south or west,
we shall put forth every effort to meet the requirements
of our new status."

There is reason to believe that given the opportunity for
voluntary local action and sufficient time an effort will be
made on the part of educational leaders of both races in
Florida to work together to achieve the goal set by the
Court.
United States Senator Spessard L. Holland of Florida,
speaking of desegregation, said in a press interview (Tampa
Tribune, August 28, 1954, page 1):

"We cannot spend all our time in vain regrets, but
rather time must be spent in trying, as apparently the
State Cabinet has been doing along with officials and
educators of both races at the local level, to learn how
to bring it about."

On July 15 and 16, 1954, the Continuing Educational
Council of Florida met in Tallahassee to consider the prob-
lem of desegregation. This Council is composed of repre-
sentatives from virtually all civic, labor, veteran and edu-






national organizations in the state. Seventy members of
the Council were present at the Tallahassee meeting and
the future course of Florida schools in the light of the
Court's decision in the Brown case was discussed for two
days. At the end of its deliberations the Council adopted
the following motion:

"Based on information and reports at this time, the
Council joins with the request of the State Cabinet,
heretofore made, whereby the Attorney General of
Florida take every step necessary to prepare and file
a brief which Florida and several other states have
been invited to submit when consideration is given this
October to the 'when' and 'how' provisions of the
Court's judgment in the recent decision holding segre-
gation unconstitutional. It now appears that this brief
should emphasize among other things the following:
1. The maximum time possible should be granted the
states affected. 2. Compliance with regard to time
should be on a local basis; the time requirement be-
cause of mores and conditions will vary within coun-
ties of each state. 3. Enforcement provisions of the
judgment's requirements should be left to the Courts
of first instance."

Additional agreements which were reached by a large
majority of the Council in discussion of the Supreme Court
decision on segregation were as follows:
1. "The public school system of Florida should Be
maintained and improved. Nothing should be done
which will destroy these schools or cause them to retro-
gress in any way."
2. "The citizens of Florida will wish to abide by the
laws of our nation, but time for necessary adjustments
is essential if serious problems are to be avoided."
3. "The problems of adjustment are different in each
county and in various communities within each county.
Responsibility for solution of these problems rests
with the citizens and authorities within these local
areas. "





4. "A committee from the Continuing Educational
Council, with outside representation as well, is to be
appointed. Its function is to suggest multiple plans
by which desegregation may be,implemented. Among
the ideas developed would be the suggestion that local
groups of white and Negro citizens make careful ap-
praisal of existing conditions with the idea of pro-
ceeding gradually and in an orderly manner toward
compliance with our National Constitution."
5. "A committee of nine representatives from the Con-
tinuing Educational Council is to meet with a repre-
sentative group of State Negro leaders for the purpose
of developing a joint statement to serve as a guide to
both races in working out the problems ahead."


On July 30th, 1954, fifty representative Florida Negro
leaders met at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville to
study the problem of integration of Florida schools. As a
result of this meeting a committee of nine was selected to
meet with a similar committee of the Continuing Educa-
tional Council of Florida for the purpose of studying ways
and means of implementing the Supreme Court's decision
in Florida.
On September 10, 1954, a committee representing the
Continuing Educational Council, and a committee repre-
senting the Leadership Conference, a recently convened
meeting of Negro leaders, met in Tallahassee to consider
jointly some of the problems posed by the recent Supreme
Court decision that segregation in the public schools is
unconstitutional.

After lengthy consideration and frank discussions of the
various viewpoints of both whites and Negroes, the joint
committees agreed upon the following motion:
"1. THAT, in a democratic society, public education is
of paramount importance;
THAT the State of Florida has made significant gains






in recent years in the quality of its educational pro-
gram and in the educational opportunities for all the
youth of the State;
THAT the State of Florida cannot afford the educa-
tional or economic loss which would occur if we per-
mitted a disruption of this program;
THEREFORE, we believe that we must maintain and
support a strong system of public education for all the
youths of the State and that the citizens of Florida in
their local contacts, through constant education and
study, should work for the general education of all
the people as prescribed by the laws of our State and
Nation.
2. THAT we endorse the filing of the proposed brief by
the Attorney General for the purpose of preserving the
system of public education in the State of Florida when
a final interpretation has been rendered by the Supreme
Court.
3. THAT we urge this Committee to continue to work
on the processes necessary for ultimate compliance with
the law;
THAT we encourage the organization of similar groups
at the local level, i.e., school community by school com-
munity, to work toward the same objectives."
The motion was approved unanimously.

The Lakeland Ledger in an editorial August 29, 1954 said:
"In his annual speech to his home folk in Bartow on
Friday, Senator Holland took occasion to talk about
abolition of segregation in public schools...
"That attitude is the only one with which the problem
now at hand can be solved, and it is the attitude of all
clear thinking citizens in the South.
"If the process is not rushed, there will be a good
chance of making the adjustment harmoniously over
a period of years.
"If forces in the North that are unfamiliar with con-






editions in the South insist upon rushing matters, there
is certain to be harmful friction.
"The level-headed view such as that expressed by
Senator Holland must prevail."

The Tampa Morning Tribune in an editorial August 26,
1954, said:
"In the brief which he is preparing to submit to the
Supreme Court by October 1, Attorney General Ervin
asks the court to go slow in ordering actual compliance
with its edict of May 17 outlawing segregation. Mr.
Ervin said:
'My purpose in filing the brief is to try to show the
court that Florida, from practical considerations, is
not ready for desegregation immediately, but that if
it must come eventually, it should come only after a
reasonable period of time and then only on a county
to county or local basis pursuant to administrative de-
terminations made by local school authorities. It is en-
tirely possible that if the court will authorize this course
many of the situations will not be too difficult to solve,
given time to work them out.'
"That, in our view, is sound sense and should appeal
to the judgment of the high court. It is apparent that
a change in the existing order can be effected only
through careful and patient effort, on a local basis.
Also it may prove necessary to have action by the
Florida Legislature to properly implement the change.
The essential issue is the dividing line between federal
and state authority."

The St. Petersburg Times of August 27, 1954, reported
a speech by County School Superintendent Floyd Christian
of Pinellas County to a meeting of Negro school teachers,
as follows:

"Pinellas County Negro teachers were urged as leaders
of the community 'to work patiently, calmly and sen-
sibly' on the segregation problem so that all can con-






tinue working together for the growth of the com-
munity...
"We live under the law and must follow the law. Riot-
ing, hatred and action would wreck our school system
and is not the answer. Florida must never try to abolish
public education. Turning the schools into private in-
stitutions is certainly not the answer. Any such action
would prove disastrous to the quality of education and
in the end would be judged by the Supreme Court as
being an effort to circumvent the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States.
"What I am saying is in my opinion Florida should
not try to circumvent the law. Any such action would
encourage an attitude of general disregard for law
and in the long run will only increase the difficulties
without contributing anything toward the solution of
the problem...
"There is another reason why this problem will have
to be approached with education and understanding.
I don't believe that here in the South, where you have
had separate schools for nearly a hundred years, that
an immediate court decision to stop it and integrate the
students can be done successfully. I don't believe you
can legislate the people into doing this, they will have
to be led by a systematic plan of education and this, of
course, will take time.'

The Ft. Myers News-Press in an editorial August 28,
1954, said:
"A number of Fort Myers citizens have received by
S mail this week circular letters purporting to come from
the Ku Klux Klan which attempt to fan the flames of
S racial intolerance over the school segregation issue and
make a bid for Klan recruits.
"The letters enclose an application blank for mem-
bership in the Klan returnable to an Orlando post office
box. Whether they represent a bona fide recruiting
drive by the Klan or just an effort of some crackpot
or promoter trying to cash in on the current anxiety
over prospective desegregation in the schools, the re-






cipients have no way of knowing, although Orlando
always has been a hotbed of Ku Kluxism and the appli-
cation blank probably is genuine.
"There is nothing doubtful, however, about the hate
literature enclosed with the KKK circulars. The fat
envelopes-so bulky that most recipients had to pay an
extra three cents postage due-were crammed with
highly inflammatory articles against the Negro race
and slanders against various public officials and indi-
viduals fit only for the sewer. In the delicate situation
which now confronts both whites and Negroes arising
from the Supreme Court anti-segregation ruling-a
situation that calls for all the calmness and clear think-
ing that can be mustered-outpourings such as this are
not only unhelpful but dangerous."

The Orlando Sentinel in an editorial August 19, 1954,
said:
"As a result of a survey recently completed by an
interracial committee appointed by the attorney gen-
eral, it has been made perfectly clear that even in Flor-
ida many people of both groups are not ready to send
their children to the same school together, and that
law enforcement agencies are not prepared to enforce
such laws or to prevent the violence which would arise
under such circumstances.
"The problem varies from community to community
just as it does from state to state and the difficulty in-
creases in direct ratio to the number of Negroes present.
It would be a relatively simple matter to enforce de-
segregation in a community where there would be only
one or two Negroes in a classroom, as would be the case
in most northern cities. It is not so simple where the
numbers of the two races are more nearly equal.
"This happens to be the case in many of our smaller
north and west Florida towns, as well as in most of the
rural areas of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and
Mississippi. In some Florida cities, however, particu-
larly in South Florida, there are relatively few Negroes
and the opposition to their admittance to white schools
is not so prevalent.






"Clearly it would be unfair to expect public officials
to overcome the problems of integration all at the same
time without regard to the difficulties involved. The
Supreme Court should take cognizance of the inherent
differences among individuals as among communities
and leave the problem of when desegregation can safely
be accomplished to local authorities."

The Miami Herald in an editorial of May 24, 1954, said:
"Anticipating that the United States Supreme court
might end segregation in the schools, as it did last week,
Florida leaders have been quietly taking stock of the
state's educational resources.
They recognized that the change, when it came, would
be the most momentous since the War Between the
States, and no family would escape its effects.
"What this study showed was that Florida has made
more progress in Negro education, probably, than any
other state with segregation, and is in a better posi-
tion to meet the challenge of the court ruling."

These meetings and examples of editorial opinion may
appear insignificant but when considered in relation to the
fact that they took place in a State which still has three
counties where no Negroes have registered to vote (see
page 178, Appendix A), and whose peace officers are over-
whelmingly opposed to desegregation in any form (see
Table 3, page 138, Appendix A), they should not be ignored.
We believe that any attempt to compel an immediate de-
segregation in Florida schools would constitute a shock
treatment so drastic that any further efforts on the part
of these and similar groups would be promptly nullified.
Such efforts on the part of citizens' committees of both
races can only take place as voluntary manifestations of
good citizenship. They cannot take place in an atmosphere
of fear and coercion.



























































































































































I










F. Regional
Variations




One of the most important factors which has emerged
from our study of the segregation problem in Florida is the
clear indication of marked regional variations in the in-
tensity of the feelings of the people.
The State of Florida is unlike other Southern states in
one significant respect. Geographically it is large and
sprawled out over an area of a thousand miles extending
from Pensacola in West Florida to Key West on the south-
ernmost tip.
Between these two extremes can be found startling dif-
ferences in the social customs and traditions of the people
inhabiting the various counties.
Generally speaking, the influx of people from northern
states has tended to settle in South Florida and this has
altered to some extent the social pattern of South Florida
counties, whereas North and West Florida counties have
remained to a large extent populated by people of Florida
or Southern ancestry who cling to Southern traditions and
customs.
It must be emphasized, however, that this type of gen-
eralization is apt to be misleading because counties and
communities may be found in South Florida where the de-
gree of racial differences in feeling may be even more pro-
nounced than in the northern part of the state.
These variations indicate that there may be communities






in Florida where conditions are such that local school offi-
cials would feel justified in proceeding within a relatively
short time to integrate the white and Negro schools. On
the other hand, there are many counties, notably those
having a large Negro population, where it is apparent that
any attempt to bring about immediate desegregation would
result in violence and bring the school system to a complete
standstill.
These variations in community attitudes and conditions
preclude the practicability of any overall, statewide de-
tailed plan, time schedule or target date for desegregation
which might be evolved. We believe that whatever plan
and time schedule is adopted in each community must, if
it is to be workable, have been produced through the efforts
of the local school officials who understand the specific prob-
lems involved and who must be willing to undertake to
make the plan work. We do not believe that the courts
should undertake to perform the functions of local school
boards and we do not believe that this Court should insist
on a plan of action which, in its efforts to guard the rights
of some, must necessarily forsake the rights of all others.










G. Discussion




In suggesting an affirmative answer to question 4B, we
have attempted to take into consideration the wide range
and complexity of the problem. We know that from its
common-sense practical aspects a successful implementation
requires the blending of the best administrative and judicial
techniques over a reasonable period of time which will vary
in each school district or county, dependent upon the cir-
cumstances. Admitted that segregation has been held un-
constitutional as a class discrimination, that does not mean
that transition to the actuality of non-segregated educa-
tion can be accomplished immediately or without planning
and preparation and administrative actions.
The public welfare of the segregated states is involved
in the transition along with administrative details. It would
be unwise not to permit the exercise of reasonable regula-
tions under the police power during the transitional period
in the interest of peace in the community and good order
and safety in the schools. The white people of the segregated
states have too long relied upon the doctrines expressed in
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed.
256 (1896) to be expected to accept complacently the new
order. Our survey amply bears this out.
Therefore, we most earnestly and sincerely urge the
Court to permit that degree of latitude necessary to the
segregated states and the county school boards therein
to bring about an effective gradual adjustment to inte-
gration so as to soften and ameliorate the transition
and preserve peace and order in the communities and the






schools in the process and that these officials be accorded
the discretion to make the transition successfully and
effectively in good time and good order.
Even though it has been held the Negro child should not
be discriminated against in his public education nor unduly
postponed in his enjoyment of it, surely that right is not so
absolute, so compelling in its nature, that reasonable admin-
istrative procedures necessary for the public welfare can-
not be asserted during the transition period. If there ever
was a condition which needs elasticity in the application
of constitutional guaranties to meet it, certainly it is the
transition period from the segregated school system to the
non-segregated school system in the various schools of the
South.
By a concurrent application of prudent and sensible ad-
ministrative and judicial techniques the problem may even-
tually be solved. But the Court should always allow the
states involved and their officials, both state and local, the
opportunity to first work out the problem and accord to
their determinations a wide degree of discretion and lati-
tude in the integration. The Court has said in Minersville
School District v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84
L. Ed. 1375, (1940), it would not make itself the school board
of the country. That does not mean the Court, beginning
with the court of first instance, would not always reserve
the judicial authority to review and probe. It would ex-
ercise this authority where in proper cases duly brought
it was alleged the county school board had not made the
requisite effort in good faith to desegregate in line with
appropriate criteria or factors which we believe the Court
will outline in its implementation decision. Parenthetically
and most earnestly, we urge the Court to accept the factors
we have outlined, believing them to be essential to suc-
cessful implementation in the light of problems involved.















Part Two


Specific Suggestions
to the Court in
Formulating a Decree














Introductory Note


We do not suggest delay merely for the sake of delay
itself. We do suggest that sufficient time be permitted for
a gradual effective adjustment to desegregated schools to
take place in each community.
The period of time required will vary in each community
dependent upon its administrative problems and the attitude
of its people. The length of this period of transition in each
instance can only be determined by the local school authori-
ties subject to the review of the courts of first instance
when called upon to consider specific suits brought because
of a disagreement with the school authorities over admis-
sion policies.

We do not believe that any court should at any time
attempt to peremptorily compel school officials to integrate
schools in a community when it is apparent that such action
will create hostility and resentment to such a degree that
the schools cannot be operated in an orderly manner.

We believe that any attempt to establish an overall
specific plan for desegregation by the United States Su-
preme Court as a result of recommendations of a special
master would be totally unrealistic and would in effect place
this Court in the position of attempting to function as the
county school board of the counties affected.

We believe that the courts of first instance should also
avoid any attempt to exercise administrative powers nor-
mally delegated to school officials. They should not be







required to spell out in specific detail the means by which
they would require a school district to comply with the
new requirements of the law. Rather, let them leave to
responsible local school authorities the task of drafting
plans for transition, and then apply to each such plan pre-
sented in the course of litigation the test of good faith.
Widespread white hostility to immediate, enforced inte-
gration of the public schools is a fact of life in Florida, and
is just as real a factor in considering the future of public
education as school finance, school construction or any other.
We ask only this; that school officials not be deprived of
the right to recognize local factors related to the welfare of
public schools and to exercise the same discretion in dealing
with the feelings of the people regarding segregation that
they would exercise in dealing with any other local condition
or problem that directly affected the proper operation of the
public schools.
We urge, therefore, that the Supreme Court remand
these cases to the courts of first instance-in all but one
of these cases federal district courts-and that it vest in
the courts of first instance broad discretionary powers to
determine as findings of fact (1) what should be a reason-
able time for transition in any given case, and (2) whether
or not specific plans for compliance with the Court's general
directive prepared by responsible local school officials
measure up to the broad test of good faith.
We offer the following specific suggestions for the con-
sideration of the Court in the formulation of its decree:










Specific Suggestions


I. It is suggested that the United States Supreme Court
in its implementation decision or decree adopt the pro-
cedure contemplated in questions 4 (b) and 5 (d) as stated
in the footnote in the Brown decision:
"4 (b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity
powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be
brought about from existing segregated systems to a
system not based on color distinctions?"
"5 (d) should this Court remand to the courts of
first instance with directions to frame decrees in these
cases, and if so, what general directions should the
decrees of this Court include and what procedures
should the courts of first instance follow in arriving
at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?"


II. It is suggested that the United States Supreme Court
in its implementation decision in the Brown case direct that
the courts of first instance consider all suits brought to gain
admittance to a specific school and claiming discrimina-
tion because of color, in accord with the following general
directions:

A. The petitioner must affirmatively show;
(1) That admission to the school in question was re-
quested by the petitioner within a reasonable time
before the beginning of the school term.
(2) That the petitioner resides within the limits set
by normal geographic school districting of the school
he seeks to enter.






(3) That admission to said school was denied by
the local school authorities and that all other admin-
istrative remedies such as appeal to the State Board
of Education (where provided by law) have been
exhausted.
B. It is suggested that the court of first instance con-
duct hearings, take testimony, determine the merits
of the petition and the answer thereto and the equitable
reasons which may exist which would justify the school
authorities in refusing to approve the petitioner's ap-
plication for admission to the school in question. In
conducting such proceedings, the court should consider:
(1) Evidence as to whether the state school authori-
ties and legislature have had a reasonable amount
of time to reorganize the legal provisions of the
state school structure to comply with the Brown
decision.
(2) Evidence of good faith on the part of the school
authorities in seeking to comply with the Brown de-
cision and integrate the public schools. Such evi-
dence should include:
(a) Efforts previously made and in progress to
overcome practical, administrative problems en-
countered in integrating schools as proclaimed by
this Court.
(b) Efforts previously made and in progress to
promote citizens' educational committees and in-
terracial committees for the purpose of improving
racial relations in the community and avoiding
racial antagonisms in the schools.
(3) Evidence and recommendations submitted by in-
terracial citizens' committees which may be organ-
ized pursuant to law for the purpose of assisting the
local school authorities, or evidence and recommen-
dations submitted by impartial survey and fact-
finding teams which may be created by the State
Board of Education pursuant to its administrative
powers.
(4) Evidence of existing administrative problems






of integration which have not as yet been solved and
which would jeopardize the efficient operation of the
school system if the petitioner's application for ad-
mission was granted immediately.
(5) Evidence of such a strong degree of sincere op-
position and sustained hostility on the part of the
public to the granting of the petitioner's applica-
tion, as to give the school authorities reasonable
grounds to believe that immediate approval of the
petitioner's application would cause a disruption of
the school system or create emotional responses
among the children which would seriously interfere
with their education. Such evidence should be care-
fully analyzed by the court to determine its validity
and all evidence of this nature which might appear
to be simulated or fabricated for the purpose of con-
tinuing segregated schools in the community should
be rejected.
(6) Evidence that the petitioner's application was
made in good faith and not for capricious reasons.
Such evidence should demonstrate:
(a) That the petitioner personally feels that he
would be handicapped in his education, either be-
cause of lack of school plant facilities or psycho-
logical or sociological reasons if his application for
admission is denied.
(b) That the petitioner is not motivated in his ap-
plication solely by a desire for the advancement
of a racial group on economic, social or political
grounds, as distinguished from his personal legal
right to equality in public school education as
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This distinc-
tion should be carefully drawn. This Court has
ruled that segregated schools are forbidden by the
14th Amendment because they may deprive the
Negro of an equal opportunity in acquiring an edu-
cation. During the process of desegregating schools
it should always be kept in mind that the sole legal
purpose of public schools is to educate. The
public school system has never been permitted
under Florida law to extend its activities into the






field of public welfare or related purposes. It is
not the purpose or within the legal authority of
the Florida public school system to provide a di-
rect means of improving the social, political or
economic status of any group or individual except
as such improvement may in time result from edu-
cation itself. Public schools are not intended to
provide experiments in race relations or to use
children as sociological guinea pigs in the solution
of problems in many walks of life which adults
have not been able to solve by other means.

III. It is suggested that based upon the testimony and
evidence submitted, the court of first instance may either:

(A) Order that the petitioner's application for admis-
sion to the school in question be granted forthwith, if
it appears that the petition was made in good faith
and that there exist no reasonable grounds for delay
on the part of the school board in approving the peti-
tioner's application for admission.
(B) Dismiss the petition if it appears that it was not
made in good faith and well founded in law according
to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment by this
court in the Brown case.
(C) Order the school authorities to hold the petition-
er's application in abeyance for a reasonable period of
time to allow for further adjustment to a single school
system if necessary, with directions to the school au-
thorities to proceed to overcome as soon as possible
the practical or psychological and sociological factors
which prevent an immediate approval of the peti-
tioner's application.
If the latter alternative is found to be necessary by
the court it should include in its order the following:
(1) Fix a time for rehearing of the petitioner's appli-
cation by the court within a stated reasonable time
at which hearing additional testimony and evidence
will be received and the circumstances justifying
delay in approving the petitioner's application for






admission will be re-evaluated by the court in the
light of altered conditions and a supplemental order
entered in the case in accord with the findings of the
court.
(2) Direct the school authorities to formulate and
submit to the court within a reasonable time a plan
designed to overcome the practical and psychological
obstacles which tend to prevent an immediate inte-
gration of the schools under their jurisdiction. The
effectiveness of the plan submitted and the efforts
which the school authorities have made in good faith
to carry it out should be considered by the court on
subsequent rehearing of the case in determining
whether additional delay is justified in granting the
petitioner's application for admission.














i















Part Three


Legal Authority of the Court to Per-
mit a Period of Gradual Adjustment
and Broad Powers of Administrative
Discretion on the Part of Local School
Authorities.

















j










A. Judicial Cases
Permitting Time




Many decisions of the United States Supreme Court and
the State Supreme Courts have recognized the necessity for
granting a reasonable time in which to comply with the
decree of the Court to avoid hardship or injury to public
or private interests.

The present decision requires more consideration of the
problem of time and adjustment than in the earlier cases
since it is apparent that it involves a vast problem of human
engineering, as contrasted to previous delays for adjust-
ment granted in anti-trust cases, nuisance cases, and similar
cases where economic problems of great magnitude con-
fronted the courts.

I. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106,
31 S. Ct. 632, 55 L. Ed. 663 (1911). Recognizing the need
for adjustment to its remedies in dealing with the unlawful
combinations under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Court,
in order to avoid and mitigate possible injury to the interest
of the general public, decreed the commercial combination
to be illegal; and directed the Court below to hear the
parties, ascertain, and determine a plan or method of dis-
solution, and to recreate a condition in harmony in law.
To accomplish this, the Court granted a reasonable period
(8 months) to effectuate its decree, while prohibiting any en-
largement of the corporation's monopoly during this period.

Briefly stated, six months, with a possible extension of






sixty days, was granted in which to work out a plan for
dissolving a combination found to control the tobacco in-
dustry in violation of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890
(26 State at L. 209, Ch. 647, USC Title 15, sl), and creating
out of the elements composing it a condition which would
not be repugnant to the prohibitions of the Act.

II. In Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct.
502, 55 L. Ed. 619 (1910), the Court again recognized the
need for time in putting into effect its decision. In this
case Chief Justice White stated that the magnitude of the
interests involved and their complexity required that six
months be given in which to execute a decree for the dis-
solution of a holding company controlling the oil industry
in violation of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, and for
the transfer back to the stockholders of the subsidiary cor-
porations of the stock which had been turned over to the
holding company in exchange for its own stock.
In the area of nuisance litigation, the Supreme Court has
often recognized the need for a period of gradual transition
in order to effectuate decisions. In the Case of New Jersey
v. New York, 283 U. S. 473, 75 L. Ed. 1176, 51 S. Ct. 519,
(1931), the State of New Jersey sued New York City in
the United States Supreme Court for an injunction restrict-
ing the dumping of New York City's garbage into the ocean
off the New Jersey coast. Injunction was granted in the
opinion by Butler, J., affirming a special master's report.
A decree was entered, declaring that the plaintiff State of
New Jersey was entitled to an injunction as sought in the
complaint; but that before (italics supplied) an injunc-
tion was issued, a reasonable time would be accorded to the
defendant, within which to carry into effect its proposed
plan for the erection and operation of incinerators to
destroy the waste materials which, were being dumped off
the New Jersey coast, or to provide other means to be
approved by the decree for the disposal of such materials.






Reasonable time was a question of fact to be decided
upon by the same special master, after hearing and evalu-
ating all witnesses' testimonies from each party or witnes-
ses which the master may select to be heard. The master was
then to report to the court his findings and a form of decree.
On a rehearing of the case on December 7, 1931, (284 U. S.
585, 75 L. Ed. 506, 52 S. Ct. 120) a decree was entered by
the Supreme Court prohibiting any further dumping of
refuse, etc., into the ocean off the coast of New Jersey.
Said decree was to become effective on and after June 1,
1933, and progress reports were to be filed with the clerk
of the Supreme Court on April 1 and October 1 of each
year beginning April 1, 1932, setting forth the progress
made in the construction of incinerator plants, etc., for the
final disposition of garbage and refuse, and also the amount
of material dumped at sea during the periods covered by
such reports.
Provision was also made in the decree that upon the re-
ceipt of said reports, and on due notice to the other party,
either party to the suit could apply to the Court for such
action or relief with respect to the time allowed for the con-
struction, or method of operation of the proposed incinera-
tor plants, or other means of final disposition of garbage,
etc., as may be deemed appropriate. In other words, the
flexibility of the decree permitted frequent re-evaluation to
promote the greatest justice to all parties.
On May 29, 1933 (289 U. S. 712) Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
announced a new order, based on the failure of New York
City to comply with the decree of December 7, 1931. The
defendant asked that the time for taking effect of the in-
junction be extended from June 1, 1933 to April 1, 1934.
It was ordered that these applications be heard on Novem-
ber 6, 1933, that E. K. Cambell be appointed Special Master,
empowered to hear witnesses, issue subpoenas, take evi-
dence offered by interested parties, and also such as he
may deem necessary to show:






(A) What shall have been done by defendant city,
up to September 15, 1933, and the time reasonably re-
quired to enable it to comply with the decree.
(B) The amounts spent by the plaintiff New Jersey
to prevent harm to its beaches, waters, etc., subsequent
to: June 1, 1933, and the damages sustained by them as
a result of New York's failure to comply with the de-
cree.

The Special Master's findings were subject to considera-
tion, revision, or approval by the Court.

On December 9, 1935 (296 U. S. 259, 80 L. Ed. 214, 56
S. Ct. 188), Mr. Justice Butler announced a new decree
modifying in effect the decree of December 4, 1933. The
latter decree enjoined New York City from dumping refuse
off the New Jersey coast, stipulating a five thousand dollars
($5,000.00) a day penalty for failure to comply. On October
7, 1935, New York City sought a modification of the decree,
and asked for a petition to have New Jersey show cause
why a ruling could not be made to the effect that ten miles
(10) off shore dumping is satisfactory as to non-floating
material, or, in the alternative, why the Court should not
modify its decree so as to permit the defendant to dump
non-floating sewage as aforesaid.

Defendant's motion for leave to file was granted.

It should be noted that the original decree was handed
down in 1931 and continued modification took place for some
four (4) years in order to effectuate the original decree.
Recognition for additional time was given each time the
case reappeared before the Court.


III. The Supreme Court again recognized the need for a
calm period of gradual transition to effectuate its decree,
in the Gaseous Nuisance Cases in which it took some nine
(9) years to implement its decrees.







The first case was that of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper
Co., 206 U.S. 230, 51 L. Ed. 1038, 27 S. Ct. 618 (1907).
In this case the State of Georgia sought to enjoin the de-
fendant copper companies from discharging noxious gases
from their works in Tennessee over the plaintiff's territory.
The State alleged that such discharges were destroying
entire forest, orchard, and crop lands, and that irreparable
injuries were being done and threatened in five counties of
Georgia. A preliminary injunction was denied, but, as there
were grounds to fear that great and irreparable damage
might be done, an early day was fixed for the final hearing,
and the parties were given leave, if so minded, to try the
cases on affidavits. Mr. Justice Holmes held that if the
State of Georgia adhered to its determination, there was
no alternative to issuing an injunction, after allowing a
reasonable time for the defendants to complete the struc-
tures then being built, and efforts the companies were mak-
ing to stop the flow of fumes and gases into Georgia. The
plaintiff Georgia was permitted to submit a form of decree
on the coming in of the Court in the following October.

Eight (8) years later, on May 10, 1915, the Supreme
Court again heard the same case, in the State of Georgia
v. Tennessee Copper Co. and Ducktown Sulphur, Copper,
& Iron Co., Ltd., 237 U.S. 474, 59 L. Ed. 1054, 35 S. Ct. 631
(1915).

This case is a continuation of the earlier one, supra
(1907), in regard to the nuisance of gaseous fumes harming
the property within the State of Georgia. In the earlier case,
hope was entertained that some practical method of sub-
duing the noxious fumes could be devised and by consent,
the time for entering a final decree was enlarged. Both
companies installed purifying devices. The original de-
fendant, Tennessee Copper and Georgia, entered into a
stipulation whereby the former undertook annually to
supply a fund to compensate those injured by fumes from






its works, to conduct its plant subject to inspection in speci-
fied ways, and between April 10 and October 1, not to
"operate more green ore furnaces than it finds necessary to
permit of operating its sulphuric acid plant at its normal
full capacity." The State of Georgia agreed to refrain
from asking for an injunction prior to October, 1916, if
the stipulation was fully observed. Ducktown Company and
the State were unable to agree, and in February, 1914,
the latter moved for a decree according a perpetual in-
junction. Consideration of the matter was postponed upon
representation that conditions had materially changed since
1907, and leave was granted to present additional testimony
"to relate solely to the changed conditions," if any, which
may have arisen since the case was then decided. A decree
was granted restraining the Ducktown Company from con-
tinuing to operate its plant other than upon the terms and
conditions set out by the Court (Decree set forth in 237 U.S.
678, 59 L. Ed. 1173, 35 S. Ct. 752 (1915)).

A new decree was issued April 3, 1916 in 240 U. S. 650, 60
L. Ed. 846, 36 S. Ct. 465, (1916). This decree modified the
former decrees as to the escapement of fumes, as to records
to be kept in regard thereto, and also as to expense of in-
spection and division of costs.

The three(3) cases, dealing with the problem of escaping
nuisances, cover a span of nine (9) years (from 1907 to
1916). It illustrates how long a period is required to adjust
to incorporeal changes and strongly suggests that human
changes obviously require greater periods, since human
emotions are not as easily controlled as are gaseous mate-
rials from sulphur and copper plants. Recognition of the
need of calm planning in good faith to reconcile difficult
problems has often been illustrated by the Court in con-
texts of economic and social changes as a result of its
decisions.






IV. In People of the State of New York v. State of New
Jersey and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners,' 256
U.S. 296, 65 L. Ed. 937, 41 S. Ct. 492 (1921), at page 313,
Mr. Justice Clarke, in refusing to grant injunction relief
against the operation of sewerage disposal by New Jersey
into New York Harbor, wisely stated:

"We cannot withhold the suggestion, inspired by the
consideration of this case, that the grave problem of
sewage disposal presented by the large and growing
populations living on the shores of New York Bay is
one more likely to be wisely solved by cooperative study
and by conference and mutual concession on the part
of Representatives of the States so vitally interested
in it than by proceedings in any Court however con-
stituted."
This quotation strongly suggests the need for time to
work out these difficult intangible relations, in an atmos-
phere of cooperation and reason, rather than a tremendous
disruption of social and economic conditions.

V. In the case of Martin Bldg. Co. v. Imperial Laundry
Co., 220 Ala. 90, 124 So. 82, the Supreme Court of Alabama
recognized the need for time in the use of injunctive
relief. In a suit by the owner of an office building to en-
join a laundry from emitting smoke over the complain-
ant's premises, the basis of the suit was the discomfort to
the building's tenants, efidangering of their health, and the
resulting loss of tenants. The question of the abatement of
the nuisance by improved technological laundry methods
had to be further considered before the Court would grant
or refuse injunctive relief, in view of suggested means of
reducing amount of smoke by use of stokers. This acted to
delay the force of the injunctive relief sought.













B. Administrative Discretion
Cases




The use of administrative discretion and its limits have
often been spelled out by the Court in the areas of adminis-
trative agencies. The Court has consistently emphasized
that supervision and discretion should lie with the adminis-
trative agencies in the conducting of their functions as
economic and political governing boards. Such emphasis is
closely related to the administrative discretion which should
exist in school boards, also.

I. In United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S. 131,
92 L. Ed. 1260, 68 S. Ct. 915, (1948), Mr. Justice Douglas
reviewed a decree in an injunction suit by the United States
under the Sherman Act to eliminate or qualify certain busi-
ness practices in the motion picture industry. A provision
in the decree that films be licensed on a competitive bidding
basis was eliminated by the Supreme Court as not likely to
bring about the desired end as involving too much judicial
supervision to make it effective. This elimination was held
to require reconsideration by the district court of its pro-
hibition of the expansion of theatre holdings by distributors
and provisions for divesting existing holdings. The pro-
priety of including in the decree a provision for voluntary
arbitration of questions arising thereunder was indicated,
and denial of applications for leave to intervene by persons
challenging the eliminated provision for competitive bid-
ding was upheld.







Mr. Justice Douglas was strongly opposed to the judiciary
administrating industry, and favored voluntary arbitration:
At page 163 he stated:

"It would involve the judiciary in the administration
of intricate and detailed rules governing priority, per-
iod of clearance, length of run, competitive areas, rea-
sonable return and the like. The system would be apt
to require as close a supervision as a continuous re-
ceivership, unless the defendants were to be entrusted
with vast discretion. The judiciary is unsuited to af-
fairs of business management; and control through the
power of contempt is crude and clumsy and lacking in
the flexibility necessary to make continuous and de-
tailed supervision effective."

The implications of Mr. Justice Douglas's opposition to
judicial administration of intricate and detailed rules in the
economic field could readily apply to the social relationship
and problems created by the recent holding in the Brown
case.

II. Further evidence of the broad discretion that was
permitted by the Supreme Court in administrative agencies
is evidenced in the case of Alabama Public Service Commis-
sion v. Southern Railway Company, 341 U. S. 341, 95 L. Ed.
1002, 71 S. Ct. 762, (1951). A railroad, prohibited by state
law from discontinuing trains without permission of the
state public service commission was denied such permission
on the ground that though the trains were being operated
at a loss there was a public need for the service. Alleging
that irreparable loss would result either from continued
operation of the trains or from incurring the penalty im-
posed by state law for discontinuance without the commis-
sion's permission, the railroad sought and obtained an in-
junction in a federal district court against the enforcement
of the statute.

The U. S. Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Vinson,






reversed the district court, and held that the federal court's
exercise of such jurisdiction should, on considerations of
comity, be withheld on the ground that the state law pro-
vided for review of the commission's order in the state
courts and for its stay pending such review.
Some persuasive language in support of state administra-
tive discretion appears at pages 347-348:
"The Alabama Commission, after a hearing held in the
area served, found a public need for the service. The
court below, hearing evidence de novo, found that no
public necessity exists in view of the increased use and
availability of motor transportation. We do not at-
tempt to resolve these inconsistent findings of fact.
We take note, however, of the fact that a federal court
has been asked to intervene in resolving the essentially
local problem of balancing the loss to the railroad from
continued operation of trains ... with public need for
that service... directly affected...." (Italics sup-
plied).

More support to the finality of the discretion of the com-
mission is found on page 348:
... and whatever the scope of review of commission
findings when an alleged denial of constitutional rights
is in issue, it is now settled that a utility has no right
to relitigate factual questions on the ground that con-
stitutional rights are involved. New York v. United
States, 331 U.S. 284, 334-336 (1947)...." (Italics sup-
plied)
More directly in point, at pages 349-350 is found the
following:
... as adequate state court review of an administra-
tive order based upon predominantly local factors is
available to appellee intervention of a federal court is
not necessary for the protection of federal rights. Equi-
table relief may be granted, only when the District
Court, in its sound discretion exercised with the 'scru-
pulous regard for the rightful independence of state






governments which should at all times actuate the fed-
eral courts,' is convinced that the asserted federal right
cannot be preserved except by granting the 'extraordi-
nary relief of an injunction in the federal courts.' Con-
sidering that 'few public interests have a higher claim
upon the discretion of a federal chancellor than the
avoidance of needless friction with state policies,' the
usual rule of comity must govern the exercise of equi-
table jurisdiction by the District Court in this case...."
(Italics supplied)
And again at page 351, "It is in the public interest
that federal courts of equity should exercise their
discretionary power to grant or withhold relief so as to
avoid needless obstruction of the domestic policy of
the states...."

III. Further evidence of the broad discretion permitted
by the Supreme Court to state administrative agencies is
found in the case of Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315,
87 L. Ed. 1424, 63 S. Ct. 1098 (1943). In this case the Sun Oil
Co. attacked the validity of an order of the Texas Railroad
Commission granting the petitioner Burford a permit to
drill oil wells on a small plot of land in the East Texas oil
fields. The U. S. District Court for the western district of
Texas dismissed the suit by the Company; the Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court. The Supreme Court
through Mr. Justice Black reversed the Circuit Court of
Appeals, and affirmed the District Court.

The Supreme Court held that a federal equity court may
properly decline to exercise its jurisdiction invoked because
of diversity of citizenship of the parties and alleged in-
fringement of constitutional rights; to determine the valid-
ity of a state commission order, made under the authority
of a conservation statute, granting a permit to drill oil wells
on certain property, adjacent to lands owned by the com-
plainant, where the state has provided a uniform method
for the formation of policy and determination of cases by






the commission and the state courts; and where the judicial
review of the commission's decisions in the state courts is
expeditious and adequate; and where intervention by the
lower federal courts is likely to cause delay and conflicting
interpretation of the state law, dangerous to the success of
state domestic policies.
The Court, at page 320, explicitly states:
"The primary task of attempting adjustment of these
diverse interests is delegated to the Railroad Commis-
sion, which Texas has vested with 'broad discretion'
in administering the law."
The Court points out that the Texas courts have the
power of thorough judicial review of the decisions of the
Railroad Commisson; and that the Texas courts are work-
ing partners with the Commission in the business of creating
a regulatory system for the oil industry. The Commission
is charged with principal responsibility for fact finding and
for policy making and the courts expressly disclaim the
administrative responsibility. On the other hand, orders
of the Commission are tested for "reasonableness" by trial
de novo before the state court, and the Court may on oc-
casion make a careful analysis of all the facts of the case
in reversing a Commission order. The state court may even
formulate new standards for the Commission's adminis-
trative practice, and suggest that the Commission adopt
them.
The Supreme Court recognized that the existence of prob-
lems throughout the oil regulatory field creates a possibility
of serious delay which can injure the conservation program;
and that it may be necessary to stay federal action pending
authoritative determination of difficult state questions.
It recognized that questions of state regulation of the oil
industry so clearly involve basic problems of Texas policy
that equitable discretion should be' exercised to give the
Texas courts the first opportunity to consider them.






IV Concrete evidence of the Supreme Court's adher-
ence to complete administrative discretion is found in the
case of Far Eastern Conference, United States Lines Co.,
States Marine Corporation, et al. v. United States and Fed-
eral Maritime Board, 342, U. S. 570, 96 L. Ed. 576, 72 S. Ct.
492 (1952). The suit was brought by the government to en-
join the dual rate system established by an association of
steamship companies known as the Far East Conference.
The companies never submitted the rates to the Federal
Maritime Board for approval, as provided for in 15 of the
Shipping Act (46 USC 814). The defense, that the issues
involved were of such a technical nature calling for the
application of administrative exercise as to make it im-
proper to bypass the Board, was upheld by the Court
through Justice Frankfurter.
It was held that the administrative agencies should not
be bypassed by the Courts in cases raising issues of fact
not within the conventional experiences of judges or in
cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion,
even though the facts, after they have been appraised by
specialized competence, serve as a premise for legal conse-
quences to be judicially defined.


V. "But the courtroom is not the arena for debating
issues of educational policy. It is not our province to choose
among competing considerations in the subtle process of
securing effective loyalty to the traditional ideals of de-
mocracy, while respecting at the same time individual
idiosyncrasies among a people so diversified in social
origins and religious alliances. So to hold would in effect
make us the school board for the country." Minersvile
School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84
L. Ed. 1375 (1940), at 310 U. S. 598 (Italics supplied).






Parenthetically, the Court, in this case recognizes its
limitations in the abstract sciences, with this language at
page 597:

"The precise issue, then, for us to decide is whether
the legislatures of the various states and the authori-
ties in a thousand counties and school districts of this
country are barred from determining the appropriate-
ness of various means to evoke that unifying sentiment
without which there can ultimately be no liberties, civil
or religious. To stigmatize legislative judgment in pro-
viding for this universal gesture of respect for the sym-
bol of our national life in the setting of the common
school as a lawless inroad on that freedom of conscience
which the Constitution protects, would amount to no
less than the pronouncement of pedagogical and psy-
chological dogma in a field where courts possess no
marked and certainly no controlling competence."

Constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are not
always absolutes. Government has the right to maintain
public safety and good order.
Keeping the control of public education close to the local
people is perhaps the strongest tradition in American edu-
cation. One of the predominant characteristics of American
education is the variation in local policies and procedures
in terms of unique local conditions. This is in sharp con-
trast to the highly centralized national system of education
of other countries.


VI. "Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution,
imply the existence of an organized society maintaining
public order without which liberty itself would be lost in
the excesses of unrestrained abuses." Cox v. New Hamp-
shire, 312 U. S. 569, 61 S. Ct. 762, 85 L. Ed. 1049
(1941) at 312 U. S. 574.






VII. Speaking of the 14th Amendment, the U. S. Su-
preme Court in Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 S. Ct.
357, 28 L. Ed. 923 (1885), said at page 31:
"But neither the amendment-broad and compre-
hensive as it is-nor any other amendment, was de-
signed to interfere with the power of the State, some-
times termed its police power, to prescribe regulations
to promote the health, peace, morals, education and
good order of the people..." (Italics supplied)

VIII. In Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 47 S.
Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303 (1926), it said at page 387:
"Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity of
which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent
that they are now uniformly sustained, a century ago,
or even a half century ago, probably would have been
rejected as arbitrary or oppressive ... while the mean-
ing of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope
of their application must expand or contract to meet
new and different conditions which are constantly
coming within the field of their operation ... Laws and
regulations must find their justification in some aspect
of the police power, asserted for the public welfare."











C. Remarks


The aforesaid summary shows the wise recognition by the
Supreme Court in the past of the need for time in effecting
certain economic changes in our society in order to allow a
period of healthy adjustment in sensitive areas. The cases
also show a recognition of the need for adequate local dis-
cretion in the same areas. This line of reasoning should be
applied to the even more sensitive area of desegregation
which presents a vast problem of human engineering to re-
solve the social changes sought.
Samuel Gompers, one of America's greatest labor leaders
recognized this fact some years ago when he stated:
"One fact stands out in bold relief in history of
men's attempts for betterment. That is that when com-
pulsion is used, only resentment is aroused, and in the
end nothing is gained. Only through moral suasion and
appeal to men's reason can a movement succeed."



















Part Four


Considerations Involved

in Formulating Plans

For Desegregation




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs