Sweatt v. Painter Trial Documents, pt 2.

 
Miss Helen Hargrave, a witness produced by the Respondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn as a witness, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. You are Miss Helen Hargrave?
A. Yes.
Q. You are the Librarian at the Law School of the University of Texas?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been connected with the library at the Law School?
A. Since 1929.
Q. Do you have any other library connections other than[fol. 215] that at the University proper? [130] A. I am a member of the Association, American Association of Law Schools—of Law Librarians, and as a member of that association I am a member of the joint committee on cooperation between the Association of American Law Schools and the American Association of Law Librarians.
Q. The—what is the function of that committee?
A. That committee has as part of its duties the obligation to make out the requirements for law school libraries and then to recommend those requirements to the executive board of the Association of American Law Schools.
Q. What degrees, what college degrees do you have?
A. I have an L. L. B. degree, and I have had a course in Law Library Administration at the University of Columbia.
Q. I will ask you if you have had any duties assigned, or any connection with the Negro Law School?
A. Dean McCormick asked me to make out a list of 10,000 volumes that would make an adequate library for that law school.
Q. And you—did you prepare that list?
A. Yes, I prepared the list.
Q. Was your list prepared upon the basis of the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Do you have a copy of that list with you?
A. Yes, I do.
[fol. 216] Mr. Littleton: We would like to introduce this.
Mr. Durham: We object to the introduction of it as self serving. It serves no purpose. Your Honor, we go right back to our exception. We haven't been apprised of it.
Mr. Littleton: She has been qualified as an expert, Your Honor, has prepared the list on the basis of the requirements, and is a member of the committee that sets those requirements.
The Court: I believe I will give you your bill. Mr. Durham: Note our exception.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit No. 8.)
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Have you ever had any other duties assigned to you in connection with this school, or any other instructions?
A. Yes, I made out the list from the original list that was[131]set, containing the books to be ordered, and that list was sent to Mr. Simmons, the Comptroller of the University.
Q. You prepared another list in addition to this one?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the difference between the two lists?
A. We eliminated all gifts and any duplicates that had gotten into the first list.
Q. And you say that list was sent to Mr. Simmons, the Comptroller of the University? [fol. 217]
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of that list with you?
A. Yes.
Mr. Littleton: I would like to introduce that as the list that she prepared.
The Court: What is the difference between them?
Mr. Durham: We want to make this additional objection.  We object to this as a copy. It isn't the original. Second, it is self-serving.
Mr. Littleton: She has testified, Your Honor, that this is the list prepared for the purpose of requisitioning the books.
The Court: Of course, the very requisition itself, or the one attached to it would be the best evidence.
Mr. Littleton: The requisition will be introduced later.
The Court: I believe we had better wait until that is done.
Mr. Durham: We object to the duplication.
Mr. Littleton: We can introduce it later. That will be all right.
Q. Miss Hargrave, have you had any other duties in connection with the Negro Law School assigned to you?
A. I selected some books that are customarily used by the first—the students in the first year class, and some other [fol. 218] books that I thought might be of some use, and sent them to the Negro Law School.
Q. Have you made any comparison, or have you investigated the make-up of the State, or Supreme Court Library?
A. Yes, I have. The Supreme Court Library has, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Association of American Law Schools, with few exceptions, all books that meet those requirements.
Q. What exceptions did you find? What difference did you find in comparison of the two libraries?
A. The State Library is not as—doesn't have as many law text books as the law library at the University. It does[132]not have as many legal periodicals, and the English Law Reports go only to 1932. In those respects it is not as strong —it does not—of course, you can't say it doesn't comply but in text it is not as strong, and in the latter two it does not entirely comply with the requirements.
Q. Is that the only phase in which the Supreme Court Library of the State Library fails to meet the standards of the Association of American Law Schools?
A. As for as I know, those are the only things that—
Q. You have said that it was short on periodicals. Did you find periodicals in the Supreme Court Library or in the State Library?
A. Yes, there are legal periodicals in that library, but the [fol. 219] requirements of the Association of American Law Schools is for ten sets of legal periodicals with current numbers. I found only half of that many that were kept with current numbers.
Q. You found five sets?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall what periodicals those were?
A. Yes, the American Bar Association Journal, the Harvard Law Review, Columbia Law Review, the Texas Law Review, and a long run from Volume 21 on of Yale Law Review, and in the—that is accepted by the Association as a long run in current numbers, and the early numbers are impossible to secure. That is considered a complete law review.
Q. Did you find anything in the Supreme Court or the State Library which you do not have in the Texas University Law Library?
A. Yes, sir; there are some things in that library that we do not have. That is, things in which they are very much stronger than the Law School library.
Q. Can you give us some example of what you found there that they have?
A. Well, the State Law Library is a depository, Government Depository, and, therefore, they automatically receive the reports of all of the administrative bodies of the United States Government, and also, all—and also receive the other [fol. 220] publications that are sent to the superintendents of documents, to the depository library. It is the strongest library in the south on State Session Laws. It has a great many books in other fields that we have very, very few of, and that is the reports of administrative bodies of the State[133]of Texas. As, for instance, the Attorney General's opinions and Tax Board opinions of other states, and some of the states have Workmen's Compensation Boards, or their equivalent, and they have those reports, and others of that type.
Q. Now, in the list that you made up pursuant to Dean McCormick's instructions as to the requirements for a requisition of the books needed for the new Negro Law School, did you include the text books and periodicals that are needed to meet the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools?
Mr. Durham: We object to that, Your Honor. The report itself would be the best evidence of what is included.
The Court: I think that would be true.
Mr. Littleton: All right. We will fix it later then.
Q. How many— I will put it this way, Miss Hargrave. Excluding the duplicate sets of books in the Library of the Law School of the University of Texas, how many volumes, approximately, do you have in that library?
A. Approximately between thirty and thirty-five thousand volumes.
Q. All told, you have 65,000? [fol. 221]
A. Approximately 65,000.
Q. How many volumes did you find in the State and Supreme Court Library?
A. With my inspection and the information that I received, there was approximately 42,000.
Q. In making your comparison of the Library of the Law School of the University of Texas, and the State Library down at the Supreme Court, did you make any observations as to the space, between the two libraries, the floor space?
A. The library at the Law School at the University of Texas has a larger floor space, I believe. Yes, a larger floor space than the one at the capitol.
Q. Are the facilities at the State Library equal to the facilities offered at the Library at the University of Texas, that is, from the standpoint of desks and room to study?
A. We have more tables and chairs at the Law Library at the University. We have a great many more people using them.
Q. You have a great many more people using them at the University then from the standpoint— [134] A. From what I have observed at the State Library, the times I have been there.
Q. Now, as a member of the Library Committee of the American Association of Law Schools, that makes up the requirements, in your opinion, would you say that the library, the State and Supreme Court Library is substan-[fol. 222]tially equivalent to the Law Library at the University of Texas?
A. Speaking of the two in just that way, they are substantially equivalent. Now, if it is spoken of the two as meeting the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools for the students, the State Law Library is, as I pointed out earlier, it does not have as many texts and it does not have as many legal periodicals, and the English Reports end in 1932.
Q. You have pointed out certain things that the State and Supreme Court Library did have that the Law Library at the University did not have; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And on a substantial basis, with these differences that we have mentioned, the library as a whole is substantially equal to that at the University of Texas?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as leading and suggestive.
The Court: It is quite leading.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. In your opinion, Miss Hargrave, for law school purposes, leaving out—having in mind the differences that we have mentioned, are the two libraries substantially equal?
A. In my opinion, they are substantially equal, with the differences that I have twice pointed out.
Q. Miss Hargrave, in ordering the books for the perma-[fol. 223]nent library for the Negro Law School, did you order enough of the periodicals, legal periodicals, to meet the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools?
Mr. Durham: We object to that, first, as an opinion and conclusion of the witness as to whether or not it was enough. We submit the further objection that there was a list filed in writing with the Comptroller.
The Court: The list would be the best evidence.[135]
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I will ask you to refer to the list you made up of the books—
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, I want to ask one question for the purpose of an objection.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Durham: Miss Hargrave, is that the original you filed with the Comptroller, the one that Mr. Littleton has?
A. The reports that were filed with the Comptroller were all mimeographed.
Mr. Durham: Thank you. We object to it.
The Court: That would, of course, be the list that we should have.
A. The mimeographed list?
The Court: Yes.
A. That is the one that was—
Mr. Littleton: Your Honor, we were putting in the two lists. You ruled out the list that she filed with the Comp-[fol.224]troller.
The Court: I simply said the one you actually filed was the one that was admissible. We ruled on a copy of something.
Mr. Littleton: This list that she has prepared showing the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools is the one that she showed the overall picture of the library, and we have accounted for the difference in the two lists by the fact that she has some gifts available.
The Court: The only objection is that you are not offering the one she submitted. I think that is correct, the one that the Comptroller has.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Is this list that you handed me here, Miss Hargrave, the list that you presented to the Comptroller of the University of Texas for the purchase of the books being ordered for the Negro Law School?
A. This list was sent to the Comptroller, and a list without the price was sent to the Comptroller—a duplicate list run off on the same stencils, but with the price off, was also sent to the Comptroller. [136]Q. But this list was the one that you prepared for the purpose of making the order?
A. That was originally sent to Mr. Simmons to make the order.
Q. And the difference between the third list you mentioned is the fact that it doesn't have the price or the estimated [fol. 225] price as listed there?
A. The estimated price.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we are entitled to our objection. They say they bought ten thousand dollars worth. Now they say they have got three different, lists.
The Court: I think the list actually submitted to the Comptroller is the one we should go on.
Mr. Durham: That is our contention.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Did you say that list was actually submitted to the Comptroller?
A. Yes.
Mr. Littleton: I might state, Your Honor, that later on it will be shown that this is the list that went with the requisition all the way through.
The Court: I think we had better wait and get that. We had better offer the one that is admissible.
Mr. Littleton: She testified this is the one that was prepared for the purpose of the requisition.
The Court: With certain changes.
By Mr. Littleton :
Q. Miss Hargrave, why was the third list prepared that you mentioned?
A. The third list was prepared to send to dealers, without the price being put on, the estimated prices.
Q. Is the only difference—what is the difference between this list and the third list you mentioned?
[fol. 226] Mr. Durham: We object to that. It is immaterial what the difference was.
The Court : I think that the list that was actually ordered was the one we should inquire about.
Mr. Littleton: I am afraid I don't—
The Court: A list was sent to the Comptroller.
Mr. Littleton: This is it. [137]
The Court: Apparently it is[sic] isn't, because you have it. That, at best, is a copy of it, is it not? Mr. Littleton: No, sir; this is not a copy.
The Court: That is the one?
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, did you testify a while ago that all of the lists that you made up for the purpose of making a requisition were mimeographed lists?
A. They were.
Q. And you sent a mimeographed copy to the Comptroller?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is a mimeographed copy?
The Court: Is that the one you sent to the Comptroller?
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Is this the list that you sent to the Comptroller ?
A. Yes, I sent about 30 of them, and that is one of the ones that I sent.
Q. Miss Hargrave, this morning when you were in the court room, where did you get this list?
[fol. 227] A. I had it.
Q. You had this list—
A. No, you gave it to me. After you gave it to me, I had it.
Mr. Littleton: Later on, Your Honor, I will bring out the fact that I secured this from the Comptroller, and we will qualify it right on from there. It is a minor difference? Do you still object? Mr. Durham: We still object.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. One more question, Miss Hargrave. On the two lists that—on the second list that you prepared for the purpose of making the requisition, how many books—
Mr. Durham: Just a minute, Mr. Littleton, please. Your Honor, we object. The Court has sustained that.
The Court: Yes. I think we should offer the list.
Mr. Durham: The list itself is the best evidence of what it contains.[138]
The Court: I think that is right.
Mr. Littleton: All right. Pass the witness.
Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Miss Hargrave, will you give to the Court the essential difference between a teaching law school library and the type of library that we usually find in State Capitols and court buildings?
A. In a teaching law school library, I think the principal [fol. 228] difference, and I think, probably in addition to what is found in the court library is a larger selection of text books and more legal periodicals.
Q. Is it not also true that in a teaching law school library emphasis is made on the exclusive use of that library by students and faculty as contrasted to a public library?
A. Well, we do not.
Q. Is your—are the majority of the users of your library law school students and faculty, or other people?
A. The majority are law school students.
Q. And faculty?
A. Yes.
Q. And people from other—doing graduate work in the University, do they use it at times?
A. Yes.
Q. Aren't the other people that use it the exception rather than the rule?
A. We have lawyers, as what I might term, fairly frequent visitors. I don't think that we would have more than one or two a day, sometimes not that.
Q. They are usually graduates, aren't they, of the law school?
A. Not always.
Q. Not always?
A. No, sir.
Q. They are people who come to you from Austin? The [fol. 229] University Law School is in Austin?
A. Yes.
Q. It is the same city where the Capitol Library is, is it not?
A. Yes. [139]
Q. Now and then you have visitors who come in for the purpose of looking up law books?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have sight-seers walking around?
A. Occasionally people come in to look at the class pictures.
Q. Occasionally?
A. Yes, but it isn't a regular thing.
Q. And you do insist that order is kept in that library; it is your duty, is it not?
A. Yes, we have order in the library.
Q. And that it is quiet, is that not correct?
A. Well, as far as we can.
Q. I am trying to get at what you try to do. You try to make it as conducive to study and concentration as possible, do you not ?
A. As far as possible, considering the great number of students that we have.
Q. But you do try to do that?
A. Yes.
Q. The American Association of Law Librarians is restricted, is it not, to law librarians in accredited law schools; is that —[fol. 230]
A. Oh, no.
Q. Do you have any law librarians who are not in accredited schools?
A. Well, I take that back. I am not sure about that. I know we have librarians other than in law schools who are members, and there are non-librarians who are members.
Q. And it is the job of your Association to raise the standard of law librarians, or the law libraries?
A. The Association has done some work in both lines.
Q. And Miss Hargrave, you have assistants at the University of Texas?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Are they qualified law librarians?
A. One of them is, and the other one, yes, I think would meet the standards.
Q. You have two, and what are the duties of your two assistants ? What are the duties of yourself and your assistants in connection with the Law Library at the University of Texas? What duties do you perform? Specifically, I will ask it this way; is a part of your duty the duty of helping the students while they are in the library? [140]
A. Yes, part of the duty is to help the students. We order the books. We see that the work is done to get the books on the shelves, and we see that, as far as possible, the students get the material that they need. [fol. 231]
Q. And when students are in difficulty as to where to find a particular point they need for their class room work, is it not true that either you or your assistants will give them aid in that task?
A. Yes, we try to locate what they need.
Q. And the three of you are trained in just that job, are you not?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. One of the assistants is a graduate of the law school, and so she knows the work. The other assistant is not a law—did not graduate from law school, but she has been working in the library for a few years, and can do that work to some extent.
Q. I guess you know more about yourself. As a matter of fact, you teach Legal Bibliography, don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. So you are in a perfect position to assist any student in how to find the law in books?
A. I can help them to find the law.
Q. And you do that, do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as a librarian of the school over here on 13th Street, you made provision to be there to help the students to find cases when they wanted to find them?
A. My instructions about that school were to gather together and send out the materials.[fol. 232]
Q. Were you instructed to do anything else concerning that school?
A. No.
Q. As to this State Library here in the State Capitol, is it not true that that library is available to the students at the University of Texas Law School?
A. I believe it is.
Q. For example, have you had any occasion to send them there to find these administrative reports of the U. S. Government that you do not have? Have you ever had occasion to do that, if you remember?
A. I can not recall at this time.[141]
Q. Is it not true that many of the books necessary to comply with the standards of the Association of American Law Schools are now out of print?
A. Oh, I wouldn't say many, no.
Q. Aren't there—aren't most of the top-flight—the law review early numbers now out of print?
A. The early number of the- Yale are out of print.
Q. Aren't the early numbers of Harvard also out of print?
A. No, because complete sets of Harvard can be bought from the very beginning.
Q. From the plates. They have the plates still?
A. You can buy them from Harvard University Law Library Association, I believe it is called.
[fol. 233] Q. And aren't some of the English Reports unavailable?
A. I don't know about unavailable. Some of them are out of print, as you call it, but I don't think they are unavailable.
Q. As a matter of fact, Miss Hargrave, —
A. Let me explain that.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Merely to say that a book is out of print in no wise means it is unavailable.
Q. I was ready to get to that. Is it not true that within your Association of Law Librarians that you are—even the finest library in the country—they are constantly writing to each other trying to get books that they don't have, and they are unavailable any place else; isn't that a constant procedure?
A. If the libraries can locate duplicate volumes in some other library for which they can make an adequate exchange, that is sometimes done.
Q. Sometimes done. Now, taking the Law Library at the University of Texas as it now exists, with all of its books, can it be duplicated today?
A. As far as I can recall now, we have nothing in that library that can't be duplicated today.
Q. Nothing at all?
A.. So far as I can recall now.[fol.234]
Q. For example, bearing in mind the recent difficulties we have had with the war and so forth, about how[142]long would it take you to get your English Reports, as of today?
A. I don't know. It would take a little while until a set came on the market.
Q. Quite a while, could be quite a while ?
A. It is unlikely that it would be quite a while, I think, because there are a good many sets in this country, I am sure. So,—even a large set of books like that comes on the market with more or less reasonable frequency.
Q. Well, about how long would it take you to set up a library to equal the one you have at the University of Texas?
A. You mean, if I had enough money?
Q. If you had enough money?
A. Uh—
Q. Just a minute. That is all we are asking.
A. I think I could do it in less than a year.
Q. Less than a year. Now, we get to the other point which you anticipated, approximately how much?
A. How much—
Q. Approximately how much money?
A. Oh, I don't know.
Q. Could you do it for a hundred thousand dollars?
A. It would take me a little while to figure on that. I wouldn't like to give an estimate.[fol. 235]
Q. With 65,000 law books of any description, it would cost more than a hundred thousand dollars, wouldn't it?
A. If you didn't—many of those books in that library we have had as gifts.
Q. We are assuming that we are going to get no gifts, without the gifts, to purchase the library that you have at the University of Texas, of 65,000 volumes of law books, I will ask you this; offhand, there are a few law books that arc two and a half, but most of them are around five and six, just in range?
A. That is right.
Q. So that 65,000 books would cost more than—
A. I was mistaken about that. They don't average five dollars.
Q. About what do they average?
A. They average, I would say, about four dollars.
Q. About four. So that if we use that round figure, [143] 65,000 at four, we would go way over a hundred thousand, wouldn't we? Isn't that true, isn't that true, Miss Hargrave?
A. If all of those books were acquired brand new, which would make the newly acquired library—we don't have all of those books new. We never did have all of them new.
Q. I understand that. Where else in this section of the country do we find microfilm reports of the records and briefs in the United States Supreme Court other than at the University of Texas Law School? [fol. 236]
A. I don't know what other law libraries in this section of the country have those.
Q. There are none in the State Capitol Library, are there?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Now, as to these administrative reports of the United States Government and other publications of the United States Government and the State of Texas, the Session Laws of the several states, is it not true that all State Capitol Libraries usually have those ?
A. I would think so. I don't know. That is only an opinion.
Q. Do you need those to teach law?
A. We have a good many of them that make up our library.
Q. You have some, too?
A. Yes.
Q. Those that you don't have, do you need?
A. If we can buy them, we will add them to our present number.
Q. And in the meantime, if you need them, they are available in the State Capitol Library, is that correct?
A. Yes, they are down here in this library.
Q. And are they not just as available to the students at the University of Texas Law School as they would be to the students at the proposed Negro Law School on 13th Street.
A.. So far as I know, but I am not—
Q. That is all you can testify. So, that in comparing the law, as a matter of fact, isn't it true that: it isn't fair to use [fol.237] those books that are available to both groups. Isn’t that true?[144]
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, that calls for a conclusion of the witness on what is fair.
The Court: I think so.
Mr. Marshall: I withdraw it, sir.
Q. In your estimate of 42,000 volumes at the State Library, it is based on the estimate of the librarian there; you said you obtained it on information?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether or not that 42,000 volumes included these Government reports and administrative board reports and session laws?
A. No, those were not included, I believe. I think they are addition.
Q. But you are not sure, are you?
A. No, but that is my belief, that they are in addition.
Q. Now, with your testimony that in your library you have between thirty and thirty-five thousand volumes, without duplicates, is it not true that in order to have a library to equal that, you would have to have at least 30,000 volumes of the same caliber?
A. It seems to me that in judging the substantial equality of any library, that you can have a considerable difference—1 know you can have a considerable difference in the [fol. 238] various types of books, so long as they comply with the standards of the Association of American Law Schools.
Q. Well, Miss Hargrave, first; may I ask you—those standards are minimum standards, are they not?
A. That is true.
Q. If we forget the standards, then what is used as the basis of comparing equality of law libraries, if we remove the standards of the Association of American Law Schools?
A. I think that it is having available the books that are generally used by anyone connected with the law.
Q. And do you mean by that both faculty and students?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the poundage, weight, that is required for the floor of a law school library?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Have you seen this building over here on 13th Street where the law school is to be?
A. I have not been in it, but I have seen the building.[145]
Q. Would you venture to say that second floor could hold 10,000 volumes of law books?
A. I don't know anything about that.
Q. The last two questions, if I understand you—understood your direct examination, there is no question that as to legal periodicals and English Law Reports—
A. From 1932 on—[fol. 239]
Q. I was getting your conclusion. Did you not say as to those two items the State Library did not meet the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools? No question about those two?
A. That is true.
Q. And as to textbooks, to your mind, they needed a few, but you wouldn't pass on that, as such?
A. No, I would have to compare—
Q. So, now, I ask you as of March 10th of this year, and as of the present time, with all of the law books available for the 13th Street school for Negroes in that building, and in the State Capitol Building, all of those books, is it not true that with all of that we do not comply with the minimum standards of the Association of American Law Schools; is that correct?
A. If you assume that that is all the books that there are available,—
Q. I am not—I am merely assuming everything,—
A. —for that school.
Q. Miss Hargrave, I am only assuming what is in the question. I will get to the next one. My question is, limiting your testimony, and limiting your answer to this question as of March 10th and as of today, is it not true that if you use all of the books in the 13th Street school for Negroes, plus all of the books in the State Library in the [fol. 240] State Capitol, that those two groups of books, taken all together, do not meet the standards of the Association of American Law Schools, is that correct?
A. That is true.
Q. Now, I understand that under the resolution books in your library are to be made available to these students' use, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q. Now, what I want to know is this. Have you done any accrediting for your Association of Law Librarians?[146]
A. No, I have not.
Q. Do you know of any accrediting agency, recognized in the legal field, that uses as the basis for accrediting one school, the law library of another school? Have you ever beard of that?
A. As far as I can remember, that has never come to my attention.
Q. Well, isn't it true that in evaluating law libraries and law schools you evaluate the law library that is in that school; isn't that correct?
A. Some law school libraries - I would think in general that that is the method that is used.
Q. That is all. Thank you, Miss Hargrave.
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, the books that you sent to the Negro [fol. 241] Law School, what kind of books were they?
A. They were, in the main, books that customarily are used by students in the taking of the first year courses in law.
Q. Did they include the textbooks?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they supply the deficiency in textbooks that you have stated existed in the State or Supreme Court Library?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Do the practicing lawyers of Austin frequently use the library of the University of Texas?
A. Yes, quite a number.
Q. On your trips, on your visits to the State or Supreme Court Library, what conditions have you observed there as to there being a suitable condition for study, the quiet in the place, and the order of its operation?
A. The times that I have been down there, it has seemed to me that there was no more confusion and, in most instances, less confusion, than in the Law Library at the University of Texas, because of the large number of persons using it.
Q. Do you understand that a librarian for a law library is required by the standards of the Association of American Law Schools to have a law degree?
A. That is not necessary.[147]
Q. In your helping the students at the library, does that help and assistance include help and assistance in briefing [fol. 242] the law, or just finding the books?
A. We just find the books and get them for them. If a student has difficulty in determining what book it might be well to use, we occasionally lend a helping hand.
Q. Are you, yourself, constantly present in the library, and available to the students?
A. Not all of the time. I have my teaching duties, and so there are times when I am not available.
Q. Do you have administrative duties?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you understand that the books included in the list which you prepared, those books included on that list which are out of print—I will withdraw it. Do you understand that the books required to meet the standards of the Association of American Law Schools which are out of print are available from dealers and publishers?
A. That is right, yes, they are.
Q. We have mentioned that the Supreme Court Library did not include the English Reports since 1932. Do the law students or do first year law students make any use of those reports?
A. No, they do not, as far as I know.
Q. Have you had any instructions as to supplying any other books for the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, I have. The Law Library at the University of Texas has more than 500, between 500 and 600 surplus [fol. 243] books in good condition that meet the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools that are available for transfer to the new law library, and there have been offered to this school through me, three gifts of between 900 and 950 books.
Q. Are the English Reports since 1932 available to the Negro Law School from the University Law School Library?
A. At any time.
Q. In your library approximately how many students does your library of 65,000 books accommodate?
A. At the present about 850 students.
Q. How many books would you estimate would be required to accommodate 15 students, excluding the duplications?
A. I don't see why, excluding duplications, if the books are well selected for the purpose, that it should take many [148] more than the minimum requirements set down by the Association of American Law Schools.
Q. You have testified that of this 65,000 law books that approximately 30,000 of them are duplications?
A. Yes.
Q. In regard to the microfilm reports you say you have in. your library, do you have a "reader" or projector for the use of those reports there?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know whether the State Library has a microfilm projector? [fol. 244]
A. I have been told that it has.
Mr. Durham: We object to that, Your Honor, and ask that it be excluded.
The Court: Only what she knows of her own knowledge. Mr. Littleton. I think that is all.
Recross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. But is it not true, in the bulletin put out by the Law School you mention the fact that the microfilms are available?
A. Yes, they are available to anyone, but we do not have a reader.
Q. Now, Miss Hargrave, you testified that you—first of all, let me ask you this. Why do you have duplicate volumes ? Is it not because of the large number of students; isn't that the reason?
A. Yes, we use duplicates to take care of the students.
Q. Now, you testified that with the exception of duplicates, you would need only approximately 10,000 books to teach 15 students; is that correct?
A. I said well selected books for the purpose.
Q. Then may I ask, you as Librarian of the University of Texas, why is it, with your duty to economize under Texas laws, that with the exception of and excluding the duplicates you have between thirty and thirty-five thousand volumes at the University of Texas Law School ? [fol. 245]
A. We have 850 students.
Q. As I understood you to say that the duplicates were for the purpose of taking care of additional students; isn't that correct?[149]
A. We have some duplicates, many duplicates to take care of our additional students.
Q. As a matter of fact, Miss Hargrave, isn't it true that— excuse me, did you want to say something else?
A. No.
Q. Isn't it true that excluding the question of duplicates that it would take as many law books in a law library to service one student as it would to service one hundred; isn't that true, excluding duplicates?
A. I do not think so. That is my opinion. Your range of interest might—
Q. For example, you testified that you do not use the English Reports in the first year?
A. No.
Q. Didn't you testify—
A. That wasn't the answer.
Q. What was it, Miss Hargrave?
A. I said that it was very infrequent that first year law students had any use of the English Law Reports from 1932 to date.
Q. Oh, from 1932 to date? [fol. 246]
A. Yes.
Q. Aren't they included in the Legal Bibliography course, for example?
A. As I remember the questions, on that Legal Bibliography course, I don't think that any books in the English Law Reports from 1932 to date were necessary to answer those questions. That is a little time back that I am thinking over, but as I remember—
Q. I will ask you this question. In the course on Contracts, and the course on Torts, aren't there frequent references in footnotes to British Reports and Canadian Reports, frequent?
A. As I remember, those footnotes,—there are references to English Reports.
Q. Isn't it true that they also have references to legal periodicals?
A. Yes, they have references to legal periodicals.
Q. So that in the first year you need both English Reports and Legal periodicals, don't you?
A. I think it might be well to explain—
Q. Go ahead.
A. that at our law school it is a very rare case when a first year student is ever—is allowed to read an assigned [150]article in a bound volume of the legal periodicals. We don't have a sufficient number of those legal periodicals [fol. 247] and if an article is assigned the professor notifies me, permission is gotten from the publisher of the law review, and the article is mimeographed in anywhere from 25 to 50 copies in order to make them readily available to the students.
The same process is followed in almost every course in the second year. We don't have quite as many students in that year, and at times we buy the unbound issues of the periodical containing the article so that we will have copies, but we don't think that 350 or 400 students could use one bound periodical.
Q. One more question, Miss Hargrave. In your association with other law school librarians and experience in your organization, the American Association of Law Librarians, do you ever in comparing law libraries of one school with another, as to its worth as a law library, take into consideration the number of students the school has?
A. Have I ever done so.
Q. Have you ever heard that discussed, the number, in comparing it?
A. I have been at a good many, and done work in a good many of these law libraries around the country, and I think that libraries of recognized law schools, that there are certain groups that have—there are a good many who have books that will well take care of the student bodies [fol. 248] that they have in those schools.
Q. I mean, isn't it a fact that in considering the value of a law school library as such in comparison, isn't it true that you consider the books that are in the library as to caliber, time, and being up to date, rather than that we have forty thousand volumes for four people? What I mean is this; isn't it true that the number of students is no measuring rod as to the efficiency of a law school library, isn't that true?
A. Well, I think that that is in connection with my earlier statement, that a well selected library is the best criterion,
Q. In other words, the type of books that you have in it; isn't that correct, and not the number of students?
A. I don't see—
Q. Can I get specific? For example, in comparing Harvard's library with the library at the Library of Congress, or Association of the Bar of the City of New York, which [151] are constantly compared as to which one is the best, isn't the discussion as to what is in those libraries, and not the number of people that use them? Isn't that the criterion that is used?
A. Yes, as far as I know.
Q. So, that on that basis, if we were to compare the library at the University of Texas Law School with the [fol. 249] library to be established, including 10,000 volumes, and forget about the students, isn't it true that the library at the University of Texas is a better library than the one to be established in this law school, isn't that true?
A. At the present time, considering only the books and not considering the use to be made of the books in the two libraries, yes, I think that is true.
Q. Thank you, Miss Hargrave.
Redirect examination. Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I want to read to you a paragraph from the resolution of the Board of Regents. (Reading)

"Be it further resolved: That pending receipt and installation of such library, the Dean of the Law School of the University of Texas be, and he is hereby, authorized to supply on a loan basis books from the Law Library of the University of Texas which may be needed in the efficient conduct of the School of Law of the Texas State University for Negroes."

Do you understand that to include the loan of the microfilm reports to the Negro school?
A. Yes, sir, certainly.
Q. Do you understand it to include all other books that may be necessary?
A. I understand it to include all books that may be neces-[fol. 250]sary, or are in any way needed at that school.
Q. You mentioned a moment ago that articles of legal periodicals which were assigned to the first and second year students were mimeographed. Have you sent any of those mimeographed copies to the Negro Law School?
A. Copies of those articles were included in the group of books that were sent to the Negro Law School.
Q. Now, you have said that the Library of Texas includes 65,000 volumes overall, but that excluding duplicates, it [152] is comprised of approximately thirty to thirty-five thousand. What is the reason for the additional 30,000 of the duplicates? Will you explain that fully, and how it operates?
A. We have two reasons for duplicates. In the textbook field we have to have duplicates so that we figure if 20—from 15 to 25 students will have the use of one copy. In. the reports we have duplicate copies so that the reports will be more available for the large number of persons using them. We have acquired a considerable number of duplicates by gift.
Q. Thank you.
The Court: All right. We will recess for a few minutes, please. (Witness excused.)
(Court was recessed at 10:45 a.m. May 14, 1947, until 11 :05 a.m. May 14, 1947, at which time proceedings were resumed as follows:)
[fol. 251] Hall Logan, a witness produced by the Respondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn as a witness, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. You are Mr. Hall Logan?
A. That is correct.
Q. You are Chairman of the Board of Control of the State of Texas?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been with the Board of Control?
A. Since the first of January, 1946.
Q. Have you received any request to purchase any law books, request from the University of Texas to purchase any law books for the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, we have. The request No. U N I, dated March 3, 1947.
Q. Do you have a copy of that requisition with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there a list of law books attached? Does it describe the law books that are to be purchased? [153]A. Yes, sir.
Q. Itemize them?
A. Yes, sir, there is a 54—1 believe it is 54—page description, yes.
Q. Mr. Logan, is that the list that you loaned to me—did [fol. 252] you loan that list to me this morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the list that was attached to the requisition when you received it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you refer to the list and state whether it includes a requisition to purchase legal periodicals?
A. Yes, there are periodicals here on page 11.
Q. Will you read from the list the names of the periodicals?
A. American Bar Association Journal. California Law Review. Columbia Law Review. Cornell Law Review. Harvard Law Review. Illinois Law Review. Iowa Law Review. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University. Law and Contemporary Problems, Duke University. Law Library Journal. Law Library, Indiana University. Law Quarterly Review, The Carswell Company. Michigan Law Review. Minnesota Law Review. National Bar Journal. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [fol. 253] Texas Bar Journal. Texas Law Review. Virginia Law Review. Yale Law Journal. Index to Legal Periodicals. Jones and Chipman, Index to Legal Periodicals. Digest of Legal Periodicals. Commerce Clearing House. I believe that covers the periodicals, at least the way they were headed here.[154]
Q. Now, for the purpose of help to the Reporter, will you state what pages of that list those periodicals are on?
A. They are covered on pages 11, 12,13, inclusive, of the requisition.
Q. Will you refer again to the list and state whether it includes requisition to purchase English Reports?
A. Yes, it does. Probably I can find the actual purchase order quicker.
Q. Let's stay with the list right now, Mr. Logan.
A. All right, sir. Yes, on page 15, English Legal Material, from the Carswell Company.
Q. How many total volumes of English material are requisitioned?
A. 854.
Q. Now, will you refer again to the list and state whether it shows a total for the number of—a summary and a total [fol. 254] for the number of the books on the list?
A. Yes, the total volumes, 8,727, and the price on that—
Q. No, will you refer to the requisition and state what date you received that at the Board of Control?
A. The requisition was received on March 3, 1947.
Q. Will you state who signed the requisition?
A. It is signed by D. K. Woodward, Jr„ Chairman, Board of Regents, the University of Texas.
Q. I believe—will you identify the requisition as to the number?
A. It is UN-1. That is the coding of the Negro University.
Q. Give me the requisition and the list that was attached to it.
A. All right, sir.
Q. I would like to introduce this.
(Said instruments were admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10, respectively.)
Q. Mr. Logan, have you done anything to comply with the requisition made? What have you done to comply with the requisition, or to purchase the law books requested?
A. Well, upon receiving the requisition, we interviewed a number of representatives of the law book publishers and dealers, clarifying the specifications, and talking to them about the availability of them, and with the University of Texas. A good many of these are out of print, and after going through those discussions, on April 7th we issued the[155][fol. 255] bid forms, as we call them, and asked for bids on April 7th, 1947, including the specifications essentially as set out in the duplicate of that.
Q. Do you have a copy of the request for bids and the specifications that you mentioned?
A. Yes, I have. Here is the specifications in detail, comprising the 54 pages, and here is the three page rider of explanation of instructions on the bid, as we issued them to some 35 prospective bidders.
Q. Will you refer to that request for bids and state what date it bears?
A. It bears the date of April 7th, for opening, two weeks, the customary opening period.
Q. What number does it bear?
A. It bears requisition UN-1.
Q. Will you refer to the list which you attached to that request for bids, and state how it compares to the list that you received with the requisition?
A. It is an exact duplicate of the other. The only exception is that when the University gave them to them for the purpose of their encumbering of funds, they put estimated prices on there. When we send it to the bidders, we leave the price off. We don't want to tell them what to charge.
Q. Will you refer to the list and state how many books are included on the list which you attached to your request [fol. 256] forbids?
A. I don't believe it is totaled, but we could examine it and compare it to those for items.
Q. It is your understanding that it includes the same number of books as the list attached to the requisition ?
A. That is right.
Q. Will you give me a copy of the request for bids, the specifications, and the list attached to it?
A. Yes.
Mr. Littleton: I would like to introduce this.
(Said instruments were admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibits Nos. 11 and 12, respectively.)
Mr. Daniel: To save the record, may I ask counsel if they will agree that it is the same, except for the prices, and not put it in the record. [156]
Mr. Marshall: I think, if Your Honor please, they are identical, and at some future time we can withdraw one of them.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Logan, to whom did you send your request for bids on these law books?
A. There is a list of 35 bidders.
Q. I don't think it is necessary to—
A. All of our recognized list that we carry who pay their fee as standard bidders on all types of books, legal books, plus some others that we felt could bid, everybody we could [fol. 257] think of.
Q. Have you received bids on these law books pursuant to the requests made?
A. Yes, we have received 23 bids from 22 separate bidders, one making two bids.
Q. Have you made any awards or placed any purchase orders on the basis of the bids received?
A. Yes, we have placed the purchase orders on all of the new books, plus the English volumes. We have not placed any on second hand to date.
Q. How many volumes, all told, have you placed orders on?
A. 5,702 volumes have been placed to date.
Q. Will you describe the English volumes that you mentioned that you have ordered?
A. These were purchased from the Carswell Company, English Reports, reprint, volumes 1 to 176, good, second hand, 176 volumes.
English Table of Cases, 2 volumes, new cloth—wait, that second item isn't  a part of it. The other part of it is English and Empire Digests, subject to prior sale, isn't second hand; 49 volumes. The two total $1,085.00.
Q. On the books that you have ordered, what dates of delivery were generally specified?
A. Shall I just run through them?
Q. I think—do you have some standard date? You can [fol. 258] give it to me approximately.
A. 30 to 60 days, another 30 to 60; 30 to 60; 60; 10 days after receipt of order; 60; 30 to 60; 30 to 60, 30 to 60, 15 days; 30 to 60; 30 to 60; 10 days; 30 to 60; immediate delivery; immediate delivery. [157]
Q. What are the—do your orders show delivery instructions ?
A. The delivery instructions, books to be shipped to the University of Texas Library, Room II, Main Building, Austin 12, Texas. They all read the same way.
Q. Mr. Logan, you have stated that you have placed that order—orders for 5,700 of the books requisitioned. You have also stated that there were 8,700 books requisitioned. Can you state why the orders on the remainder of the books of which you—the remainder of the books on which you have received bids have not been purchased?
A. The balance of the books, we understand, will all be second hand, not available as new, because we specified wherever possible to buy new books, and these other three thousand, whatever they are, are going to require a considerable amount of study in order to determine which is the best buy from the State's standpoint. They are—we anticipate, without any question, they will be released within two weeks. We cleared these new ones first. The second hand books are classified as to excellent, whether they are shelf worn, or whether they are good, with further bindings, [fol. 259] and we have to analyze each of those conditions with the price to determine which is the best buy.
Q. You have received bids, however, on all of the books requisitioned?
A. We have.
Q. Pass the witness.
Mr. Marshall: No questions.
You will be excused.
The Court: All right, Mr. Logan.
(Witness excused.)
Miss Helen Hargrave, having been recalled as a witness, testified further as follows:
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I show you this purchase requisition, UN-I, dated March 3, 1947, and I show you the list of books attached to that requisition and ask you to look over that list and state whether or not you prepared it?
[158]
A. This is the list that I prepared.
Q. Will you refer to the list, Miss Hargrave, and state the total number of volumes included on the list?
A. 8,227.
Q. Miss Hargrave, I show you again the list which you prepared, which meets the requirements of the Association [fol. 260] of American Law Schools, and ask you to refer to the list and state how many volumes are included on that list?
A. There are 10,008 volumes on that list.
Q. So that between the list that you prepared to meet the standards of the Association of American Law Schools and the list that you prepared for the requisition there is a difference of 1,281 books is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Will you state why you did not include the 1,281 books on the list which you prepared for requisition?
A. The reason that I did not include them was because that number of books had been offered as gifts to the new law library, or are available for transfer to it, as I qualified them in earlier testimony, to the new library.
Q. Pass the witness.
Mr. Marshall: No questions.
(Witness excused.)
E. J. Mathews, a witness called by the Respondents, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. You are Mr. E. J. Matthews?
A. Yes, sir. [fol. 261]
Q. You are the Registrar at the University of Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been Registrar?
A. 35 years.
Q. Were you appointed the Registrar of the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, sir. [159]
Q. State the dates that you assigned for registration in that law school?
A. March 10, 1947. That was the first day, but registration was not to be restricted to that one day.
Q. How long did you keep the law school open for registration, Mr. Mathews?
A. Well, we announced a week, but in correspondence we didn't fix any final day.
Q. Did you in your capacity as Registrar notify the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt, of the opening of that law school and the dates of registration?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you notify him?
A. By letter, registered mail.
Q. Do you know the date of that letter?
A. I think it was March 2 or 3; it was a week before.
Mr. Littleton: If Your Honor please, we have served the formal notice for them to produce the original of the letter in Court.
[fol. 262] The Court: All right. Mr. Durham: That is it.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Mathews, I show you this letter and ask you whether it is the letter that you sent) that you wrote to Heman Marion Sweatt?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature ?
A. It is.
Mr. Littleton: I want to introduce the letter.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit No. 13.)
(Mr. Littleton read to the Court Respondents' Exhibit No. 13.)
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Mathews have you received any reply from the relator to that letter?
A. No, sir, none at all.
Q. Has the relator presented himself for registration since the mailing of that letter?
A. No, sir.[160]
Q. How many inquiries—have you received any inquiries regarding this school since its establishment?
A. Yes; all told, fourteen. Two of the—twelve of the fourteen came during the first half of March. Two of them came during April, and so I take it they applied more particularly to start next fall, some future time, but there were twelve, rather, eleven letters, and one inquiry in per-[fol. 263] son that were made during the first half of March.
Q. Did all of these inquiries come from prospective students for the school?
A. Well, I assume they were.
Q. In other words, did the nature of their inquiry indicate to you that they were prospective students?
A. The reading of the letters indicated—
Mr. Durham: Wait, Your Honor.
The Court: Of course, the letters—
Mr. Durham: The letters would be the best evidence.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Do you know whether Henry Doyle inquired concerning the opening of the law school, and registration?
A. He presented himself on March 10th at the Negro Law School. He, with a friend, asked some questions, but he wasn't ready to enroll.
Q. Had he talked with you before that time about his registration?
A. I suppose that would be hearsay testimony. He didn't talk to me, but he talked to—
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to it.
The Court: That is right.
A. — the Assistant Registrar.
Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Durham:
Q. Mr. Mathews, I believe you have stated that the re-[fol. 264] quirements for admission to the University of Texas are identical with the requirements for the admission of a student to the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your letter you referred to the relator's application. When did you first see and examine the relator's [161] application for admission to the University of Texas School of Law?
A. It was during a period of a conference between some half dozen negro leaders in Texas, held in the President's Office. I believe that was last summer.
Q. The application of the relator was presented to you at that time as Registrar of the University of Texas for admission to the first year law class of the University of Texas School of Law. I believe you examined the application and determined his qualifications for admission?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the same application that you referred to in paragraph 2 of the letter addressed to the relator on March 3,1947?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the only application that you had had from the relator, and he possessed the qualifications necessary for admission to the law class, first year law class, in the University of Texas School of Law?
A. The academic qualifications. [fol. 265]
Q. The academic qualifications. Now, I believe the application on the part of the relator for admission to the University of Texas School of Law, first year class was refused?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why was it refused, Mr. Mathews?
A. Because the Constitution of the State of Texas forbids us to accept as students members of the Negro race.
Q. He possessed all other qualifications, except he wasn't a white student?
A. So far as I know, yes; academic qualifications.
Q. And you refused his application for admission to the first year law class of the University of Texas Law School solely on account of race and color?
A. The Constitution of Texas.
Q. I observe, Dr. Mathews, from the letter there that you have got mimeographed,—typewritten form of letterhead. Did you have any printed form of letterhead for the Negro University?
A. Mimeographed.
Q. That is all you had; likewise, for your envelope?
A. Yes, sir.
II—725[162]
Mr. Durham: We want to offer the envelope.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator's Exhibit No. 5.)
Mr. Durham: That is all, Your Honor. [fol. 266]
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Mr. Mathews, you stated you received some 14 inquiries during the first half of March, and April. Did any of those persons making an inquiry, of those 14 persons, register in the school?
A. No, sir.
(Witness excused.)
(The Court: I suppose, then, we will recess until two o'clock.)
(Court was recessed at 12 o'clock noon, May 14, 1947, until 2 o'clock p. m., May 14, 1947.)
Afternoon Session May 14, 1947, 2 P. M.
Miss Helen Hargrave, having been recalled as a witness, testified further as follows:
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. Miss Hargrave, I want to add one question to the testimony that you gave before lunch. You testified that you had 1,281 books available by gift, and from the Texas University Library. You also testified that the list which you [fol. 267] had made up for requisition from the Board of Control showed 8,727 books. I ask you whether or not the 8,727 books, plus the 1,281 books, as has been shown by you, and listed, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools?
A. Yes.[163]
Q. During the lunch recess have you made—did you make a inspection of the building at the law school, the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make that inspection—what was the object of that inspection ?
A. I wanted to look over the arrangements of the rooms, and to find out about the space so that I could figure how many books could be accommodated there, law books could an accommodated there.
Q. From your inspection, will you state whether you found that there was—the building was ample to house a library of more than 10,000 books?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Pass the witness.
Recross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Miss Hargrave, it is true, is it not, that you couldn't put them in that basement part that is now open for the law school, could you ? [fol. 268]
A. No.
Q. Did you see the ground floor that you go down five steps to get to there, that floor?
A. Yes.
Q. You couldn't put that on that floor, could you?
A. With the other things moved out, there could be put, as I figure, in those rooms, approximately 7,000 books. That leaves the stacks with adequate aisle space between.
Q. Would there be any other space left down there after that?
A. No, that would take the space on the ground floor for the books.
Q. Is it possible on the ground floor to have a library and law school at the same time?
A. Not of the size library that has been ordered and acquired for the law school.
Q. What I should have included, Miss Hargrave; is it possible to have a library sufficient in size to meet the standards of the Association of American Law Schools and class rooms and library space and office space; is it possible to have all of that on that first floor?[164]
A. No, it is not.
Q. No way it could be done?
A. No, it would not be possible on the first floor.
Q. That is all.
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Littleton:
Q. When you made your inspection at lunch, Miss Har-[fol. 269]grave, you inspected the whole building?
Mr. Durham: We object to that. The evidence shows the State didn't have the whole building at that time, and doesn't have it now, and that certainly is going outside of the pleadings, and outside of this case on a speculative proposition.
Mr. Littleton: The evidence shows that arrangements have been made for the acquisition of the entire building.
The Court: But as I understand, you allege that you have sufficient space to—
Mr. Littleton: Your Honor, I am showing bow much housing facilities it would take to house the library.
Mr. Durham: We don't object to him showing how much it would take to accommodate this school.
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. When you made your inspection at noon, Miss Hargrave, did you compute—did you examine the entire three floors of the building?
A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to it. It is immaterial. It isn't in issue in this case.
The Court: I am going to hear it, but I am bearing in mind it is just what it might take to put that many books in.
Mr. Durham: If that is the purpose, it is different, Your [fol. 270] Honor.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Did you find the three floors of this building substantially of the same area ?
A. Yes, I did.[165]
Q. Would you say that a library of 10,000 volumes sufficient to meet the requirements of the Association of American Law Schools could be housed in an area of that size?
A. Yes, it could be.
Q. Would that leave an area of that size, and housing a library of that size, would that leave sufficient space for class rooms?
A. Yes, it would.
The Court: I am considering it for the purpose stated only.
By Mr. Littleton:
Q. Did you make any observations as to the structure of that building?
A. I noticed that it was a brick building.
Q. That is all.
Recross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Did you make any test as to whether or not the second and third floors would hold stacks of law books?
A. I made no tests.
Q. So, you are not in a position to testify, as to whether or not you could put a library on the second and third [fol. 271] floors, are you?
A. I presume in a brick building the walls, solid brick, that the balance of the books could be so arranged around the walls that with the knowledge that I have about that, it would take care of those books.
Q. Do I understand your testimony to be that you would put the books around the walls, and you wouldn't have stacks in the middle of the floor?
A. On the ground floor, no. On the ground floor, it would take the space of the ground floor for stacks, as we usually find them in libraries, in order to handle the approximately 7,000 books that I figured on.
Q. And where would the reading room be—downstairs?
A. No, you couldn't have the reading room downstairs. It would have to be on another floor because the ground floor would be filled with stacks of books.
Q. Miss Hargrave, as a matter of fact, are you familiar with the amount of space in a law school that is needed for [166] class room instruction, Dean's office, faculty offices? Are you familiar with that, or just in a general way?
A. Just in a general way. I don't know much about that.
Q. So that when you testify that that building is adequate to house all of this, you are testifying just in a general way, are you not?
A. I don't see how it could be much otherwise. [fol.272]
Q. That is all.
Mr. Littleton: That is all. The Court: All right. (Witness Excused.)
Charles T. McCormick, having been recalled as a witness, testified further as follows:
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dean McCormick, during the noon hour, did you inspect the three floors of the building in which the Negro Law School is now housed?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I will ask you to state whether or not in your opinion the entire building furnishes sufficient space within which to house the number of class rooms, reading room that you now have, and a law library of 10,000 volumes ?
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we make the same objection. The Court: It will be given the same consideration as J stated before.
A. Assuming a small student body for which those facilities were furnished—
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we ask that that answer be stricken as not responsive. The Court: Yes, it really isn't.
[fol..273] By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Limit it strictly to the question of whether or not it would furnish sufficient room for the same number of class rooms and reading room you now have, plus space for 10,000 volumes of books; I will ask you whether or not[167]in your opinion that building would furnish such suitable space?
A. By class rooms we now have, you mean on the first floor?
Q. Yes, the same size class rooms?
A. Yes, it would contain all of those facilities.
Q. I will ask you to look at this picture, please. Will you state to the Court what building that pictures?
A. That appears to be a representation of the building at 104 East 13th Street.
Q. Is that a picture of the building which we have referred to as the building which now houses the Negro Law School?
A. Yes, it is.
Mr. Daniel: We would like to offer that.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit No. 14.)
Q. Dean McCormick, I will ask you to look at the picture again, and state, if you know, from what place the picture was taken, looking at the foreground between the place where the camera was and the building?
A. Evidently taken from the Capitol grounds.
Q. From within the Capitol grounds?
A. Yes. [fol. 274]
Q. That is all.
Recross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, when you were inspecting the law school at noon hour, did you go through this entrance as indicated by the picture?
A.. I don't believe I did. I entered on the second floor and came down through the stairs.
Q. Do you recognize that as the entrance to the law school?
A. Well, there seems to be a corner near by. I assume it is correct. I don't know that I would recognize it if you didn't tell me it was, however.
Q. Can you recognize your sign on the door telling the prospective students to come to your office? [168]
A. The sign is there. I certainly can't recognize it in this picture.
Q. But this appears to you to be a part of the law school
A. Yes, sir, I judge so.
Mr. Nabrit: We would like to offer this in evidence. Mr. Daniel: You had better identify what is upside down and otherwise in that picture. Mr. Nabrit: That is a problem.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator's Exhibit No. 6.)[fol. 275]
Q. Dean McCormick, did I understand you to state in reply to the question of the Attorney General that in your opinion, from your inspection of the building, and using all three floors, it would adequately house a law school with the same number of class rooms which you now indicate you have on the first floor, and with library facilities adequate to contain a library with a minimum number of 10,000 volumes?
A. That is right.
Q. Are you an expert on library arrangement?
A. No, I am not.
Q. How did you compute the number of feet of floor space necessary to house the stacks, and on what basis of computation did you determine the number of stacks necessary to house 10,000 volumes, in making your estimation?
A. I really didn't carry it out that far. I just was making a general inspection, and it seemed to me that the building was large enough for that purpose. Miss Hargrave, however, did make the detailed estimates of the number of stacks, and of the space needed, and there the space could be found to put them.
Q. Are you testifying on the basis of Miss Hargrave's estimates, or on the basis of your estimation?
A. Well, I suppose it is really partially both.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I should like to make a motion to strike out all of the testimony which Dean McCormick has made with reference to the adequacy of this building [fol. 276] to house the law library, in that he says it is not based on his information, and evidently upon that of Miss Hargrave. The Court: I believe he said partly, didn't he?[169]
Mr. Nabrit: What part is that? The Court: I wouldn't know.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean McCormick, what part of your estimation is yours ?
A. Well, I have had some contacts with law school buildings, so that I have a general notion of the size of building appropriate for the small law school, and from that background, and from my inspection, and in the course of that inspection Miss Hargrave and I discussed the particular parts of the building where books could be so stored, and she pointed out to me features, and the availability of space for the books, so that those things are always somewhat of a composite of fact and background and experience and inspection, and what people point out to you and tell you.
Q. Suppose we ask you this, Dean McCormick; taking an average size library stack such as Miss Hargrave indicated to you would be used there, how many volumes of law books would it hold, the average size law library stack?
A. Well, if there is any uniform size for them, I am not aware of it.
Q. Let's take any size that you know of, the size that you [fol. 277] discussed.
A. We didn't discuss any particular size.
Q. From your background and experience with law schools, what size, how many volumes do you know will get on any one stack? Take any stack that you know about from your experience. How many volumes would get on it?
A. I think of a stack as a tier of say, from two to perhaps eight or nine shelves, and I don't know how many books would go in a stack. I don't know of any uniformity as to number.
Q. Take a stack that extends across the width of that room, 8 tiers, steel stacks, purchased by the Dean and the Board of Regents for this Negro Law School, to house these books. How many volumes would one of those stacks hold?
A. You say, a steel stack?
Q. I assume you are going to use steel. I will just say stacks. Maybe you are going to use some other kind.
A. Are you assuming a certain length of it? I don't know the uniform practice as to length of the shelves.
Q. At the space on the ground floor, you estimate that it, together with the other space, would hold 10,000 vol-[170]umes. I am asking you these questions to find out if you had any part in this estimation, or if it is based on your experience, or of, so far as you- statement is made, it is based simply upon Miss Hargrave's testimony, or her experience, or her information, or is there any knowledge which you [fol. 278] possess, for example, as to the number of feet of space required for a student in a library reading room, or if you know how much floor space is required for an average table in a law school, how much aisle space is required by a standard law school librarian, or is your statement, as a matter of fact, merely a guess?
A. No, I would say it was a general fact from my experience and observation of law schools in general, and my inspection of this one. Now, Miss Hargrave makes that report, and it seems to me that by going over there and looking at the building and seeing whether that report accords in a general way with my knowledge and experience, that I would be able to state that I believe the building would furnish those facilities.
Q. What type of building is that, Dean McCormick, construction ?
A. Well, it is a three story building, with brick construction on the outside.
Q. Is it solid brick, semi-brick, brick facing?
A. I could not tell you as to that.
Q. Does it have steel beams and girders?
A. I don't know. I haven't made that close an examination of it, and I don't know very much about construction, any bow.
Q. So that you don't know whether it will house the library or not, because you don't know whether the walls and framework will sustain the weight of it? Do you know of [fol. 279] your own knowledge that it will?
A. No, I don't.
Q. That is all.
Redirect examination. Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Have you, as Dean of the school, discussed with Miss Hargrave if you had the whole building where the majority of the books should be located in the building?
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we object to their going into anything Miss Hargrave told him, as hearsay.[171]
The Court: Of course, he shouldn't testify from what she told him. I think he might, with consultation relate what conclusion he arrived at.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I didn't mean to ask you what she told you. Did you have a consultation with her as to where in that building would be the proper place to put the bulk of the library books ?
A. Yes.
Q. And from that consultation, what conclusion did you arrive at as to the floor on which the majority of the books should be placed?
A. Well, I thought probably the ground floor would be the most appropriate place.
Q. There isn't any question about the supports to the ground floor, is there, Dean McCormick? [fol. 280]
A. Well, I would suppose not.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Nabrit: No questions. The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Daniel: We would like to call the relator, Heman Marion Sweatt.
Heman Marion Sweatt, Relator, having been called as a witness, and having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Will you state your name, please ?
A. Heman Marion Sweatt.
Q. Are you the relator in this case?
A. I am.
Q. Where do you reside?
A. Houston, Texas.
Q. What business are you in?
A. United States mail service, mail carrier.
Q. How long have you been a mail carrier?[172]
A. Eight years.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, would you ask the witness to [fol. 281] speak out just a little louder?
The Court: Speak out louder.
A. Eight years.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You applied for entrance into the University of Texas on February 26, 1946, is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. I will ask you if it isn't true that on or about March 20, 1946, you were furnished a copy of an opinion by the Attorney General of Texas stating that if yon desired and made demand on Prairie View University, that that school was under mandatory duty to furnish you an equal law training with the University of Texas Law School?
A. Yes.
Q. You read that opinion, did you?
A. I did.
Q. Did you make demand or give any notice to Prairie View University, or any of its officers, that you wanted to attend a law course there?
A. I did not
Q. Did you ever apply to Prairie View University or to any official of that school, or of. A & M. College for a law course?
A. No.
Q. You didn't, then, follow the Attorney General's opinion as to what was the legal procedure by which you were [fol. 282] entitled to an equal law course?
A. No.
Q. You were in this court room on December 17, 1946, at the last hearing of this case, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear the resolution read at that time whereby the Board of Directors of   A. & M. College authorized the officials of Prairie View to set up a separate law school in Houston for Negroes?
A. I did.
Q. Then, at that time you knew that such separate law school was proposed for establishment in Houston, Texas, didn't you?[173]
A. I did.
Q. Did you read in the newspapers anything about that law school being set up in Houston?
A. I did.
Q. You did.
A. I did.
Q. You knew, then, that that law school was set up by 'Prairie View University in Houston, Texas on February 10,1946, didn't you?
A. I knew some rooms were there.
Q. You knew they were where?
A. In Houston.
Q. In Houston? [fol. 283]
A. That is right.
Q. You knew that they called that the Law School of Prairie View University, didn't you?
A. I knew that they called it that, yes, sir.
Q. Did you go up there for the purpose of registering?
A. I went up there to see it. I didn't go to register.
Q. But you knew where the location was, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Before the date of registration, February 10th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew the date of registration was February 10,1946, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk with any of the men who were employed to operate the law school?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you check into the qualifications of the lawyer who had been employed to teach law in that school?
A. Yes.
Q. You checked into his qualifications?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you doing that for the purpose of determining whether or not you would attend the school?
A. No.
Q. When did you make up your mind that you wouldn't [fol. 284] go to that school?
A. After talking with my attorney.
Q. Which of your attorneys?
A. Mr. W.J.Durham.
Q. Did you talk with any other of your attorneys?
A. No, I did not. [174]
Q. Did you have Mr. Marshall, attorney for the National Association for Advancement of Colored People, as one of your attorneys at that time?
A. December 17th?
Q. Right.
A. I didn't have—I never have had Mr. Marshall as my attorney. I have not.
Q. You have not?
A. That is right.
Q. You know Mr. Marshall, sitting right here, do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You know, of course, having sat through the case, he is participating here in the case and cross examining witnesses?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is signing the papers as one of your attorneys of record?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't you authorize him to do it?
A. I authorized Mr. w. J. Durham to represent me, and in a conference with him, I left it with him to secure what [fol. 285] aid he found it necessary to.
Q. You found it agreeable for him to accept the aid of the attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
A. It is agreeable for him to employ Mr. Marshall.
Q. After talking with your attorney, and before making an inspection of the facilities, you decided you wouldn't go to the school?
A. I decided before talking to them.
Q. After inspecting the school?
A. No, before that.
Q. Did you do that before finding out what kind of facilities there were, and faculty was going to teach in that school?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you check into the courses that were going to be offered in that school?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you register in that Prairie View Law School at Houston?
A. No, I did not.
Q. About how far is the school from your home in Houston? [175]
A. I would estimate it as being two and a half or three miles.
Q. Now, in February of 1947, did you know about a new law school about to be established here in Austin for Negroes?
A. Yes.
Q. You read the newspaper accounts of it, didn't you?
A. Yes. [fol. 286]
Q. You knew Senator Lacy Stewart, who is now deceased, did you ?
A. I didn't know him. I knew be was a Senator.
Q. You were acquainted with his Senate Bill 140 pending in the Legislature during the month of February, or read of it in the newspapers?
A. I was familiar with the newspaper reports of it.
Q. You knew the bill proposed to set up a State University for Negroes, and a separate Law School for that University, to be conducted in Austin by the University of Texas Board of Directors, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive this letter from the Registrar of the Negro Law School that was introduced here this morning?
A. The letter that was shown me, yes, sir; I received it.
Q. That is Respondents' Exhibit No. 13?
A. Yes.
Q. What date did you receive the letter? It is dated March 3rd?
A. I think I received it on the 4th or 5th, one.
Q. Upon receipt of that letter did you make any reply to Mr. Mathews, the Registrar?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you go to see Mr. Mathews and talk to him about what he said in the letter about absolutely equal courses being offered here in the law school? [fol. 287]
A. I did not.
Q. Did you go and talk to Dean McCormick to see about what kind of courses would be offered?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you talk to any University of Texas officials to see if you would actually get equivalent instruction in law in this separate law school, the same as if you went to the University of Texas? A.. I did not.[176]
Q. Did you make any investigation of this separate Negro Law School?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make an investigation before you made up your mind you wouldn't attend it?
A. I made an investigation immediately after receiving the letter.
Q. Didn't you send the letter to Mr. Marshall, the letter that you saw him take out of his brief case, before we introduced it? Didn't you send that to Mr. Marshall?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Who did you send it to ?
A. I took it on the train to Mr. W. J. Durham.
Q. When did you make up your mind not to go to the school?
A. When Mr. W. J. Durham told me it wouldn't give me equal law training as the University.
[fol. 288] Q. Is that the same day you took him the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. How soon did you get on the train after you received the letter?
A. The next day.
Q. And you went to Dallas to see your attorney, Mr. Durham?
A. That is right.
Q. After how much consideration of the matter was it before your attorney told you, advised you not to attend the school?
A. I stayed in Dallas for a week.
Q. How long bad you been there before your attorney told you that?
A. During the time that I was there, we discussed it at length, while we were there.
Q. The first day you got there you showed him the letter, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. And that was about what date?
A. I don't remember it by dates. I received the letter either the 4th or the 5th, and I got the train on the 6th.
Q. Then, you were there in Dallas by the 6th or 7th?
A. That is right.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.[177]
Q. And you showed him the letter the first thing, didn't you? [fol. 289]
A. That is right.
Q. And there in that conference of yours he made his decision about what you ought to do?
A. It was several days before he made his decision. He told me definitely after the conference that it would not afford me equal education as could be obtained in the University of Texas.
Q. And you made no personal investigation of the matter yourself, did you?
A. I am not qualified to pass upon the quality of a law school, no.
Q. Did you talk to anybody else about the quality of the law school other than Mr. Durham?
A. I did not.
Q. And how long did you remain in Dallas after the 6th or 7th of March?
A. I was there on—I am telling you I went there around the 6th or 7th, and I remained there probably a week before I came back to Houston.
Q. Then you were there on March 8th when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other organization representatives met to decide whether or not to support or not to support this separate Negro Law School, weren't you?
Mr. Durham: We object to it; first, upon the assumption [fol. 290] that the National Association for Advancement of Colored People met. That is the first assumption. The question assumes that he was there at the meeting. Both assumptions are without any evidence on the matter in the record. The Court: I think you had better ask him if he was there.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Were you in Dallas on March 8th, 1947 ?
A. I was there.
Q. Are you acquainted with a meeting—do you know anything about a meeting held in Dallas on that date at which this lawsuit was discussed?
A. I know nothing of the meeting.[176]
Q. Did you make any investigation of this separate Negro Law School?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make an investigation before you made up your mind you wouldn't attend it ?
A. I made an investigation immediately after receiving the letter.
Q. Didn't you send the letter to Mr. Marshall, the letter that you saw him take out of his brief case, before we introduced it? Didn't you send that to Mr. Marshall?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Who did you send it to?
A. I took it on the train to Mr. W. J. Durham.
Q. When did you make up your mind not to go to the school?
A. When Mr. W. J. Durham told me it wouldn't give me equal law training as the University.
[fol. 288]Q. Is that the same day you took him the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. How soon did you get on the train after you received the letter ?
A. The next day.
Q. And you went to Dallas to see your attorney, Mr. Durham ?
A. That is right.
Q. After how much consideration of the matter was it before your attorney told you, advised you not to attend the school?
A. I stayed in Dallas for a week.
Q. How long had you been there before your attorney told you that?
A. During the time that I was there, we discussed it at length, while we were there.
Q. The first day you got there you showed him the letter, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. And that was about what date?
A. I don't remember it by dates. I received the letter either the 4th or the 5th, and I got the train on the 6th.
Q. Then, you were there in Dallas by the 6th or 7th?
A. That is right.
Q. Right?
A. Yes. [177]
Q. And you showed him the letter the first thing, didn't you? [fol. 289]
A. That is right.
Q. And there in that conference of yours he made his decision about what you ought to do?
A. It was several days before he made his decision. He told me definitely after the conference that it would not afford me equal education as could be obtained in the University of Texas.
Q. And you made no personal investigation of the matter yourself, did you?
A. I am not qualified to pass upon the quality of a law school, no.
Q. Did you talk to anybody else about the quality of the law school other than Mr. Durham?
A. I did not.
Q. And how long did you remain in Dallas after the 6th or 7th of March?
A. I was there on—I am telling you I went there around the 6th or 7th, and I remained there probably a week before I came back to Houston.
Q. Then you were there on March 8th when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other organization representatives met to decide whether or not to support or not to support this separate Negro Law School, weren't you?
Mr. Durham: We object to it; first, upon the assumption [fol. 290] that the National Association for Advancement of Colored People met. That is the first assumption. The question assumes that he was there at the meeting. Both assumptions are without any evidence on the matter in the record. The Court: I think you had better ask him if he was there.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Were you in Dallas on March 8th, 1947?
A. I was there.
Q. Are you acquainted with a meeting—do you know Anything about a meeting held in Dallas on that date at which this lawsuit was discussed?
A. I know nothing of the meeting.
12—725[178]
Q. Did you while you were in Dallas read a report in the Dallas News about what took place in that meeting?
A. I did not.
Mr. Durham: We object to it as being hearsay. The Court: He says he didn't.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You did not. Isn't it true that you knew before the date of registration down here, March 10th, at the new Negro Law School, that certain leaders who were helping you in this case opposed you in this separate law school?
Mr. Durham: We object to that about "certain leaders." There is no evidence in the record. It is purely an assumption.
The Court: He can ask him if he did.[fol. 291]
A. I don't know anything about—I don't know what leaders—I don't know anything about the leaders.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Do you know Joseph J. Rhodes, President of the Texas Council of Negro Organizations?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you discuss this law school with him while you were in Dallas?
A. No, I didn't
Q. Did you hear about the action his organization took against the school while you were in Dallas?
A. No.
Mr. Durham: We object to it as hearsay.
The Court: He says he never heard it.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Now, your deposition was taken in this case on June 15,1946, wasn't it?
A. There was a deposition taken in Houston a little before the first hearing.
Q. Did you state in your deposition at that time, and as you have stated here, your attorney was Mr. Durham, is that right?
A. Yes. [179]
Q. At the time you filed this suit Mr. Marshall wasn't in the case at all representing you, was he?
A. No.
Q. At the time' we took your deposition on June 15, 1946, [fol. 292] he was not in the case, was he?
A. No.
Q. You had not known him, and he had not been brought
into the case at the time your deposition was taken, had he?
A. Not from me, no.
Q. From anybody else, your attorney or anybody else?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Isn't it a fact that in your deposition taken on June 15, 1946 that this question was asked to you, and you gave the following answer; this is the question?
Q. Isn't it a fact that you would not attend the Prairie View University if legal training were provided for you there? And didn't you give this answer?
A. That is not true. I will attend Prairie View University or a first class law school equal to the University of Texas."
Q. Isn't that true?
A. I gave that answer.
Q. At that time, on June 15, 1946, you said that you would have attended a law school at Prairie View University if it was equivalent to that at the University of Texas?
A. If it was equivalent.
Q. In other words, you have no objection to a separate law school for Negroes if it is equivalent? [fol. 293]
A. I will have to answer that question in this way. I don't believe in segregation. I don't believe equality can be given on the basis of segregation. I answered that question, in that it stated that it would be—if it would be given at Prairie View, I still do not believe that segregation will give equal training.
Q. That is exactly the point I am getting at. On June 15, 1946 you were willing to accept segregation and a separate law school at Prairie View if it was on an equal basis, weren't you?
A. Assuming that it would be equal.[180]
Q. That is what I say. Is this your signature to the deposition that was taken on June 15th?
A. That is mine.
Q. Now then, after June 15th, 1946, and after you had sworn in your deposition that you would go to a separate law school if it furnished equal facilities; after that time, Mr. Herbert Marshall—1 mean Mr. Thurgood Marshall, Attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, came into this case, and has been helping on it since then?
A. After what date ?
Q. After your deposition, June 15th, 1946?
A. A good time afterwards, yes, sir.
Q. A good while afterwards? [fol. 294]
A. A good while afterwards.
Q. And after June 15th, 1946, after you swore to that in this deposition, is when you made up your mind you were not for segregation at all?
Mr. Durham: We object to it because it does not represent the facts in that question. The question doesn't ask him about a separate school. The question asked about a school at Prairie View
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Are you acquainted with Prairie View University?
Mr. Durham: We renew our objection. Nothing has been done about that question and answer. He asked if he didn't take the position on that date that he was for segregation. That isn't represented in that question. Mr. Daniel: I withdraw the question.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You are acquainted with Prairie View University?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know that is a separate Negro school, don't you?
A. Yes, it is a separate Negro school.
Q. White people do not go to that school?
A. As far as I know.
Q. You knew at the time you swore to this in your deposition that that was a separate school for Negroes, didn't you?
A. I did.[181][fol. 295]
Q. And when you said in that deposition that:
"I will attend Prairie View University or a first class law school equal to the University of Texas,"on June 15th, you knew that was a separate Negro school, didn't you?
A. I did not. A first class law school, in my opinion, a first class law school is where an individual has general contact with people with whom he will work after graduation.
Q. You didn't answer my question. Let's go back to my question. At the time you said you would attend Prairie View University on a first class law school, you knew Prairie View was a separate school for Negroes at that time, didn't you?
A. At that time, but I answered the question on the basis of the establishment of the school.
Q. That is right?
A. That is right.
Q. But at Prairie View?
A. In Prairie View.
Q. You didn't think they were going to establish a school for both whites and Negroes at Prairie View?
A. I didn't know what they were going to do.
Q. Let's see if you didn't know one thing. Didn't you know at that time it would be a separate Negro Law School, if it was at Prairie View? [fol. 296]
A. I did not
Q. You did not. Anyway, you were willing to go to a law school at Prairie View, if it was equal to that at the University of Texas, weren't you?
A. If it was equal.
Q. And that was June 15, 1946. Now, since that time, June 15, 1946, I will ask you if you have changed your mind about going to a separate law school at Prairie View University, if it was equal to the University of Texas.
Mr. Durham: We object to the portion of it, if he has changed his mind since June 15th, for the reason that the deposition, they haven't offered it, and it isn't the proper as.
The Court: He can ask him if he is willing to go now.[182]
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Will you answer that?
A. Am I willing to go to a separate school at Prairie View?
Q. If it is equal to the University of Texas'?
Mr. Marshall: The record shows there is no law school at Prairie View. The evidence shows it.
The Court: It would be hypothetical. Let's see what the last question was.
(The Reporter read to the Court the last question set out above.)
The Court: I sustain the objection to the last one. You can reframe your question. [fol. 297]
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Since June 15, 1946 you have changed your mind about being willing to go to a law school at Prairie View University, even if it was equal to that at the University of Texas, haven't you?
Mr. Marshall: We renew our same objection. The Court: Ask him if he has changed his mind, first.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Have you changed your mind?
A. Yes.
Q. And you changed it after June 15, 1946?
A. No, I changed it after studying the situation after
filing the suit, after learning more facts about education.
Q. After you swore that you would attend one on June
15, 1946; isn't that right?
A. That is the date of the deposition?
Q. That is the date of the deposition.
A. After that.
Q. After that date?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was after that date that Mr. Thurgood Marshall of the N.A.A.C.P. came into this case?
Mr. Marshall: I didn't object in the beginning, but I object at this stage to cluttering up the record, and I wish, [183] if the Court would permit me to take up a case, that [fol. 298] on all-fours. It is State, ex rel. Bluford vs. Canada, 153 S. W. (2d), page 12. That is in regard to the Journalism School at the University of Missouri, and that case ruled against the same things we are urging in this case; however, in that case the Attorney General of Missouri put up the same type of smoke screen to the effect that the case wasn't, the plaintiff's case, but belonged to a public organization, and to put the case further on all-fours, the organization is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Supreme Court, although ruling against us, had this to say.
"In our view, if appellant has the legal right and actually expects to attend the University, her motives for doing so are immaterial."
On that basis, we object to the continuation of this line of testimony.
The Court: I think he has answered it, as far as we need on it.
Mr. Daniel: If the Court please, I would like to say to the Court that our purpose here is not to show his motive for wanting to attend a law school. Our purpose is to lead up to a connected chain of events motivating him not to attend the separate school that has been offered to him, and, therefore, showing bad faith on the part of the relator.
Mr. Durham: He bad a right to change it one minute before ten o 'clock on the 10th. That is an individual right, [fol. 299] and the fact that he did change can't be questioned.
The Court: I think he had a right to change his mind.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any other Negro boys who want to attend the law school?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as being immaterial, irrelevant, and of no probative force.
The Court: I believe I will let him pursue it.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Do you know of anyone else of the Negro race want- to go to a law school?[184]
A. I know some who say they want to go to a law school.
Q. Would you give me the names of those whom you know personally who wanted to attend law school?
A. I read in the paper where there was a Mr. Doyle said he wanted to attend a law school.
Q. Who else do you know, of your own knowledge?
A. That is all.
Q. You know of only yourself and Doyle?
A. That is right.
Q. Has the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People contributed to you, toward the expenses of this lawsuit?
A. Contributed to me? [fol.300]]
A. No.
Q. Have they contributed toward the attorneys here, or any other expenses of this lawsuit?
A. I don't know that they have. They offered, after I had filed the suit, to assist me in it.
Q. Were you in Austin on March 26, 1947, about the time of the last hearing in the Court of Civil Appeals in this case?
A. I was here at the last hearing in the Court of Civil Appeals.
Q. Isn't ' it true that you attended a meeting here in Austin the night of March 25th, at which Thurgood Marshall, the attorney here, spoke to a group of Negro citizens.
Mr. Durham: We object to that as completely immaterial and not germane to any issue.
The Court: I don't see how it could assist us, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Daniel: I want to prove as to what was said and done about that matter about finances for this case, for the purpose of showing that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had as much control and management of this case, and what happened in this situation about this law school as he does himself, and that they have the further purpose of following that up with a concerted program to boycott this law school and keep other students out.
Your Honor, we were careful not to bring up the point about no students over there. Only Marion Sweatt, did we, [fol. 301] on direct examination show, as not in that school. The relator on every possible occasion has pointed to the fact that there were no students there, and we feel like we[185]can show that chain of events, and it is his fault and the people supporting the lawsuit that they don't have students, and that is a material issue in this case.
The Court: Anything he would testify to would be hearsay, wouldn't it? It would be what somebody said, wouldn't it?
Mr. Daniel: No, sir; I believe, Your Honor, that through that I can refresh his memory as to knowledge of money which has been spent in this case by N.A.A.C.P.  I am trying to refresh his memory. I am also trying to—I will also try to impeach him in the fact that he said he doesn't know anything about the expenses paid by N.A.A.C.P., and show that be does know about it, and knew about it at this meeting where $20,000.00 was asked for.
Mr. Durham: We don't think he can show it through the newspapers.
Mr. Daniel: I am not asking that.
The Court: He can testify to anything he knows of his own knowledge about this.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Isn't it true that at that meeting you attended, isn't it true that at that meeting you attended, you heard Mr. Marshall say that this case had already cost $6,000.00, and [fol. 302] that the N.A.A.C.P. was helping finance it.
A. I don't remember.
Mr. Durham: That is immaterial. The Court: He said he didn't hear it.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Did you hear Mr. Marshall tell the crowd you needed to raise $20,000.00 for this lawsuit.
Mr. Durham: That would be hearsay, what the attorney said.
Mr. Durham: It is purely hearsay.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Are you paying Mr. Marshall a salary or fee for assisting you in this case ? A.. I am not.
Q. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is furnishing his services? [186]A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know how he came into the case?
A. He came into the case—in a conference with Mr. Durham, he said he would get assistance in the case, and bow he got it and who is paying him, I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether or not the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have encouraged this lawsuit, and encouraged people to support it?
Mr. Durham: We object to it. Mr. Daniel: I asked if he knew.
[fol.303] Mr. Durham: We object to that as irrelevant and immaterial.
The Court: If it was communicated directly to him, I expect it would be helpful.
A. I don't know.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Now, you took a year's study at the University of Michigan, didn't you?
A. That is right.
Q. What year was that?
A. That was the school year of 1937-38.
Q. Did the State of Texas pay anything on that at all?
A. No, they did not
Q. That was at the University of Michigan?
A. That was at the University of Michigan.
Q. Now, did you on March 10th, 1947, present yourself over here for registration in the new Negro Law School?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you at any time from your trip to—the receipt of your original notice and your trip to Dallas to talk it over with your lawyer, did you personally make any—come to Austin and look over this school?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you talk with any of the law professors who were going to teach in the school before making up your mind not to go to it?
A. I did not. [fol. 304]
Q. You actually didn't make up your own mind about whether to go to it or not?
A. Sure, I made up my mind. I made up my mind after talking with somebody who could judge a law school. I couldn't do that.[187]
Q. And that was only Mr. Durham?
A. That was only Mr. Durham.
Q. And you took his word that you shouldn't came because it was not equal?
A. I took his word it wouldn't give me the type of law education that I could obtain in the University of Texas.
Q. You want to go to law school at the University of Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. You know for several years there have been appropriations made by the Texas Legislature to send Negro students outside the State of Texas to schools when they wanted to take certain training that is not provided inside Texas?
A. I know that is possible.
Q. You didn't apply for that money?
A. I did not.
Q. You want to go to school in Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. You are not interested in transferring from some law school you are admitted to, to some law
A. I want to complete my course in Texas. [fol. 305]
Q. Not interested in transferring outside the State later on, are you?
A. No.
Q. You have finished your A.B. Degree?
A. Yes.
Q. What other degrees ?
A. That is the only degree I have finished.
Q. You don't care to take any other courses than law courses?
A. I don't know. I might, after I get in.
Q. At the time you filed the suit, all you wanted was law courses?
A. I don't know what it will take for me to take law. When I went to the University of Michigan, taking Bacteriology, I had to go back and get other courses. I don't, know what I will take when I get in the University of Texas.
Q. That is all you have applied for up to this good day, is law, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is all you want at this time?[188]
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. If this Court should hold that this New Negro Law School gives you substantially equal opportunity to obtain a- education in law, you wouldn't attend it, would you?
Mr. Durham: We object to that.
The Court: It doesn't make any difference to me if he [fol. 306] attends it or not. This Court is concerned only with the facilities. We don't care whether he goes or not.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. If it is thought that the separate Negro Law School in Austin offers you absolutely equal facilities, you wouldn't attend it, would you?
Mr. Durham: We object. It is a supposition. The Court: I believe in that case he would have a right to answer if, in his opinion, this school was absolutely equal.
A. It depends upon an assumption that I can not agree with.
Q. If you could agree with it; let's say that, let's say we leave it to other judges, and some judges, somebody who knows about it, found it to be so, and we assume it is so, that the new Negro Law School is absolutely equivalent to the University of Texas Law School, but it is a separate school for Negroes, you wouldn't attend it, would you?
A. I would not.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Durham: We reserve the right to examine him later, Your Honor. No questions.
The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, I believe that—1 was just thinking, they have some witnesses they are in a hurry to [fol. 307] put on, so I suppose it would be all right for us to stop our testimony, and come back to it later. We won't close.
The Court: That will be all right. We will take a few minutes while you are getting your witnesses lined up.
(Court was recessed at 3:05 p.m., until 3:15 p.m., at which time proceedings were resumed as follows: [189]
Dr. Robert Redfield, a witness produced by the relator, having been by the Court first duly sworn, as a witness, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give the Court your full name, sir.
A. Robert Redfield.
Q. And your present occupation?
A. I am now Professor of Anthropology and Chairman of the Department of that name at the University of Chicago.
Q. Will you review briefly your past qualifications, and your training, and the positions you have held, and the general work you have been doing?
A. After taking a Bachelor's Degree, I went to the University of Chicago Law School and took a degree of J. D. I was admitted to the Bar of the State of Illinois, and two years thereafter returned to academic life, where I re-[fol. 308] ceived training in Anthropology and Sociology, and special work in the problems between the racial and color groups. I received a Doctor's Degree in 1928. Except for periods when I have been giving instruction at other universities in the United States, I have been employed at the University of Chicago as a teacher, and doing research work, and as an educational administrator.
I have also been in charge of the research program for Carnegie Institute at Washington, and at the present I am in that capacity. Last October I gave up the position of Dean of Social Sciences at Chicago University, a position I held for 12 years.
Q. How long have you been studying in the field of racial differences?
A. About 20 years.
Q. And in that period of time have you considered the question of alleged racial differences in school students ?
A. I have considered many aspects of the problem of differences between national groups, including school students.
Q. And have those studies included the comparison of students of both races, studying under the same circumstances ?
A. I have followed the literature in that field, as well as,[190]of course, making: my common-sense observations as a teacher and administrator.
Q. Well, Dr. Redfield, as a result of your studies, are you [fol. 308 1/2] still in a position to give your opinion? on the general subject? I will give you more specific ones later, but I wish on the general subject of, one; the inappropriateness of segregation to the purposes of education, the inappropriate-ness of segregation in education to the interests of public security end of it, and to the general welfare of the community.
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object because this lawsuit involves only education in law and procedure. We object to any questions or opinion evidence that may be offered as to general surveys, not limited to law schools, which are composed of those who have completed certain preliminary work in other fields, and we object to the testimony that has been called for by this question, to the question, and to any other questions along that line.
Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, this case has narrowed down to one issue. I think the pleadings did considerable toward the end of narrowing it down. In the first place, in our original petition we claimed that the refusal to admit the relator was in violation of the 14th Amendment, and in all of the pleadings filed by the State of Texas, no question has ever been raised as to the qualifications of relator other than his race or color, so that is out of consideration.
The defense of respondents is summed up in their first supplemental answer, large paragraph 2, small (1) in parenthesis, in this statement. [fol. 309] I am quoting.
"The Constitution and laws of the State of Texas require equal protection of law and equal educational opportunities for all qualified persons, but provide for separate educational institutions for white and negro students."
And then follows the allegation that the refusal to admit the relator in this case was not arbitrary at all, and was not in violation of the 14th Amendment, but was in keeping with the segregation statutes of the State of Texas, and in that [191]way joined issue; and in the second supplemental petition we alleged: "In so far as respondents claim to be acting under authority of the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas their continued refusal to admit the relator to the Law School of the University of Texas is nonetheless in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
If there can be any doubt as to our position in the case, in the fourth paragraph in the same pleading in the supplemental petition, we state:
"In so far as the Constitution and laws of Texas relied on by respondents prohibit relator from attending Law School of University of Texas because of his [fol. 310] race and color such constitutional and statutory provisions of the State of Texas as apply to relator are in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
So, I think that the lines are drawn in this case, and the direct attack has been made that the statutes requiring segregation, the general statutes which prohibit this relator from attending the University of Texas, we claim are unconstitutional, and we have the right to show their unconstitutionality.
How do we propose to do so? Several ways. Before that, I would like to bring this out. As to whether there is any question as to the validity of segregation in this case, the Attorney General brought it out with the last witness. He deliberately brought it out, according to which, as I understand from his cross examination, the Attorney General believes the relator has changed his position from conforming to the statute to now insisting that segregation was invalid, and it was the Attorney General who asked the last question which puts the validity of the segregation statutes flat in issue in this case.
There are several ways of going about proving the un-constitutionality of statutes. They haven't shown any line of reasoning for the statutes. I imagine they are relying [fol. 311] on the presumption that the statutes are constitutional. If they are relying on that we have a right to put in evidence to show that segregation statutes in the State of[192]Texas and in any other state, actually when examined, and they have never been examined in any lawsuit that I know of yet, have no line of reasonableness. There is no understandable factual basis for classification by race, and under a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court, not on the question of Negroes, but on the 14th Amendment, all courts agree that if there is no rational basis for the classification, it is flat in the teeth of the 14th Amendment.
The Court: I will let you offer your testimony. I will give you your bill, and I will allow it, at any rate
Mr. Daniel: Do I understand they will be limited to surveys on law students, or education in general?
The Court: Of course, it is like throwing a rose into a group of flowers. The odor is there. We are presumed to act only upon what is admissible testimony, in the last analysis, anyhow, so I am going to hear it, and if in my opinion it is material and admissible testimony, I will consider it. If it isn't, I will not. Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir. The Court: It will be in the record.
Mr. Daniel: We may have our full bill on it, without re-[fol. 312] peating our objection?
The Court: That is right, it will follow right through. Mr. Daniel: Unless there is something else. The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Redfield, as to the question of the relationship of segregation to the purposes of education, will you first give us what are the overall acceptable purposes of education as construed by educators in the field? What is the main purpose of public education?
A. No two men, of course, will state this the same way, but I should say that the main purposes of education are to develop in every citizen in accordance with the natural capacities of those citizens, the fullest intellectual and moral qualities, and his most effective participation in the duties of the citizens.
Q. Dr. Redfield, are there any recognizable differences as between Negro and white students on the question of their intellectual capacity?
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object to that. That would be a conclusion on the part of the witness. It covers all[193]negro students and all white students. It isn't limited to any particular study or subject or even show what it is based on.
The Court: I suppose his qualifications he has testified to [fol. 313] would qualify him to draw his conclusion. Mr. Marshall: We will follow with what he bases it on.
A. If Your Honor will allow me I will present the answer in that form.
The Court: Yes.
A. We got something of a lesson there. We who have been working in the field in. which we began with a rather general presumption among our common educators that inherent differences in intellectual ability of capacity to learn existed between negroes and whites, and have slowly, but I think very convincingly, been compelled to come to the opposite conclusion, in the course of long history, special research in the field.
The general sort of situation, Your Honor, which brings about this opposite conclusion, the conclusion that I may state now, significant differences as to intellectual ability, or as to ability to learn, if any, are probably not present between, the two groups. We have been. brought to that conclusion, Your Honor, by a series of studies which have this general character.
Samples from the two groups, negroes and whites, are placed in as nearly identical situations as possible, and given the limited tasks to perform, tasks which are understood to he relevant to the intellectual faculties, or the capacity to learn. Then these samples are measured against each other as to the degree and kind of success in performing [fol. 314] these limited tasks. That is a general description of the material which leads to the conclusion I have stated. Perhaps at this point it is sufficient to say that the general conclusion to which I come, and which I think is shared by a very large majority of specialists— Mr. Daniel: We object to that as hearsay, Your Honor. The Court: I think so.
A. The conclusion, then, to which I come, is differences in intellectual capacity or inability to learn have not been shown to exist as between negroes and whites, and further, that the results make it very probable that if such differ-[194]ences are later shown to exist, they will not prove to be significant for any educational policy or practice.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. As a result of your studies that you have made, the training that you have had in your specialized field over some 20 years, given a similar learning situation, what, if any differences, is there between the accomplishment of a white and a negro student, given a similar learning situation?
A. I understand, if I may say so, a similar learning situation to include a similar degree of preparation?
Q. Yes.
A. Then, I would say that my conclusion is that the one does as well as the other on the average.
Q. Well, in your experience, your studies in this particu-. 315] lar field, what is your opinion as to the effect of segregated education; one, on the student—1 will give them all to you, and then you can take them separately—two, on the school, and three, on the community in general. Will you give your opinion?
A. My opinion is that segregation has effects on the student which are unfavorable to the full realization of the objectives of education. First,—for a number of reasons, perhaps. I will try to distinguish.
Speaking first with regard to the student I would say that in the first place it prevents the student from the full, effective and economical coming to understand the nature and capacity of the group from which he is segregated. My comment, therefore, applies to both writes and negroes, and as one of the objectives of education is the full and sympathetic understanding of the principal groups in the system in which the individual is to function as a citizen, this result which I have just stated is unfortunate.
In the second place, I would say that the segregation has an unfortunate effect on the student, which I might now anticipate, since, to my opinion, has an unfortunate effect on the general community, in that it intensifies suspicion and distrust between negroes and the whites, and suspicion and distrust are not favorable conditions either for the acquisition and conduct of an education, or for the discharge of [fol. 316] the duties of a citizen. You asked me, did you not as to the class, and the community?[195]
Q. The school was the second, and the community was the third.
A. I think I have perhaps indicated the difficulties with reference to the school. The school room situation is, provides less than the complete and natural representation of the full community. That is the general view of educators, or it is my view, I should say. It is my view that education goes forward more favorably if the community of student, scholar and teacher is fairly representative of the total community. Rather) the highly specialized and the development of the suspicion and distrust which the segregated situation brings about is correspondingly unfavorable in the school.
With respect to the general community, I suppose there isn't a great deal to add, but if I am still answering your question, I might say this. In my opinion, segregation acts generally on the total community in an unfavorable way for the general welfare, in that it accentuates imagined differences between negroes and whites. These false assumptions with respect to the existence of those differences are given an appearance of reality by the formal act of physical separation. Furthermore, as the segregation, in my experience, is against the will of the segregated, it produces a very favorable situation for the increase of bad feeling, and even conflict, rather than the reverse. [fol. 317]
Q. Dr. Redfield, what has been your personal experience concerning the admission of minority groups to educational facilities to which they had previously been denied admission?
A. Well, as I have indicated, my principal experience has been in connection, in the University of Chicago, and in its related educational institutions. The situation there generally is that no segregation is practiced in any of the educational facilities of the University, neither in the class room nor in the dormitory, or in eating facilities or anywhere else in the educational facilities. While the same city or community in which the University lies is one in which segregation or exclusion is practiced as a matter of custom, but not as a matter of law, in a very wide variety of situations, and facilities open to the general public.
In giving that background, I come to the question of what my experience has been with negroes theretofore denied some educational facilities, and I have had experience with[196]one or two such situations in the University of Chicago and its affiliated institutions, and that in each of the cases that I can recall the result has been, in my opinion, highly beneficial to education and to the University community.
Q. Were there any ill effects at all?
A. I don't know of any.
Q. Do you know of any good effects?
A. Yes. Perhaps I should mention a case. The students [fol. 318] were denied admission, negro students were discouraged from admittance is perhaps a more accurate statement, to the laboratory school of the University.
They were discouraged admission for a great many years. Then it was made apparent that they would be welcome, and they began to come, and there was an opposition from a minority of the academic community to the step. Many evil consequences were told. None of those consequences took place, but, on the other hand, there was an improvement in the community in that there was a representation of the national community which is favorable to education, and the relations between the white and the negro groups were improved in parent-teacher and endeavor.
Q. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Daniel: I want to be sure that my exceptions and objections have gone to the entire testimony. The Court: Oh, yes.
Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Redfield, how many of those surveys of the reaction of students have been limited to law school students?
A. Are you speaking of surveys which I made personally, or of which I have known?
Q. Which you made personally?
A. I have never made a survey of law school students. [fol. 319]
Q. Is this testimony you have been giving based on surveys you have made, or you have read about?
A. In larger measure, the latter. I have participated.
Q. You have participated in some ?
A. Yes.
Q. But the majority of the studies you have been testifying about and upon which your testimony is based, are studies made by other people, and which you have read ?[197]
A. That is the nature of science, sir.
Q. Yes. I just want to be sure that is in the record. Somebody may not know that is the nature of the science. Have you yourself made any study of the effect of separate education in law schools?
A. No, sir.
Q. As I understand it, it is your opinion that it is discrimination against the white students to require them to go to a white University here in Texas; is that right?
A. If I understand the meaning of what I said, that isn't what I was attempting to say. I was attempting to describe the consensus in regard to educational objectives in the policy of segregation.
Q. And you applied that to separate white schools, with only white students. You said several times, I believe, in your testimony, I believe you said several times that the same applied to segregation of white students, making them [fol. 320] go to the separate school.
A. I think it is to the advantage of any student to be in a community that is largely representative of the national community.
Q. To that extent, you believe that any state that requires the white students to go into a separate school from the negro students is to that extent a discrimination against the white students ?
A. I am not sure the other description was used, but I think it worked both ways.
Q. It worked both ways. You have talked about a gradual change that you have observed. All of your testimony, I believe, indicated a gradual change in the situation you have talked about, and in the conclusion you have reached.
A. With reference to admission of negroes to facilities that had theretofore been denied them?
Q. Yes.
A. The case I had in mind was where there was a period when they were not admitted, and then a period when they were admitted. I don't know how you use the word "gradual."
Q. As I understood, you thought there was some difference between ability to learn—
A. I beg your pardon. You are now asking me with respect to to the quality of students, as to this matter of racial difference?[198][fol. 321]
Q. Yes.
A. I said opinion on the subject has gradually changed.
Q. Isn't that generally due to the fact that the subject matter has gradually handed over a period of years?
A. We are wiser then yes, sir.
Q. Don't you believe, that in a community where segregation has been enforced as long as it has in some of our southern localities, that the only way that the ultimate goal that you think is the best can be properly obtained is by a gradual change, instead of forcing it upon the community?
A. If I can answer the question at all, Your Honor, I would like—
The Court: You can explain.
A. I think that all change should not come on any more rapidly than it is consistent with the general welfare.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Yes, sir. In other words, you will agree with the other eminent educators in your field, the fields in which you are acquainted, that it is impossible to force the abolition of segregation upon a community that has had it for a long number of years, in successfully obtaining the results that are best?
A. No, I don't agree to that.
Q. Do you think the laws should be changed tomorrow?
A. I think that segregation is a matter of legal regulation. Such a law can be changed quickly.
[fol. 322]  Q. Do you think it has anything to do with the social standing in the community?
A. Segregation in itself is a matter of law, and that law can be changed at once, but if you mean the attitude of the people with respect to keeping away from people of another race, then perhaps I have another answer.
Q. I am speaking about desired results for the individual and the community, and for the state.
A. Will you ask your question over again?
Q. With respect to the individual, the state, the community and the schools, do you, in your opinion, believe that an immediate change in segregation will accomplish the results that you have testified as being best in a community where segregation has been enforced and recognized for many years? [199]
A. I think in every community there is some segregation that can be changed at once, and of higher education is the most favorable for the. area change.
Q. You admit there are areas in. which the change can not be made at once?
A. You mean in 24 hours, with more -. harm than good resulting?
Q. Yes.
A. Certainly.
Q. Or within a year?
A. May I state my opinion again?
Q. Instead of 24 hours, we will say within a year or two. [fol. 323]
A. I will put it this way. I think this will satisfy
I think the steps by you on that as covering my opinion, which, and the rapidity with which segregation in education can be removed with the benefits to the public welfare will vary with the circumstances.
Q. In other words, the circumstances of the community and how long there has been segregation will have a bearing on it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, do you recognize or agree with the school of thought that, regardless of the ultimate objective concerning segregation, that if it is to be changed in southern communities where it has been in effect for many years, if it is to be changed successfully, it must be done over a long period of time, as the people in that community change their ideas on the matter ?
A. That contention, I do not think, will be nay opinion on the matter scientifically.
Q. Does that represent, scientifically, a school of thought on that, in your science, in the matter?
A. There are some that feel that way.
Q. Yes, sir. You are acquainted with the history of the carpet bagger days in the Civil War ?
A. I feel better acquainted with it today, sir, than anybody.
Q. Dr. Redfield, let me get you clearly on that. You are not talking about your own trip down here, are you, to [fol. 324] Texas? You say you are acquainted with it today?
A. It just drifted into my mind.
Q. You recall the carpet baggers, where they packed up and came down here from out of the state. You didn't mean to be talking about your trip down here, did you? You are[200]the only witness from out of the state that we have had on, so far. You didn't  mean to be talking about the trip down here?
A. I am afraid the idea has come into my mind now.
Q. That wasn't what you referred to?
A. It is in my mind now.
Q. Are you acquainted with the history of the carpet bagger days in the south?
A. In a very general way.
Q. You know, do you know, from that history, that the attempt to force the abolition of segregation in the south just didn't work?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Do you feel like the social attitudes and beliefs of the people in that day had some bearing on whether or not it would work?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Of both races?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Are you acquainted with Howard University Law School in Washington? [fol. 325]
A. No, sir, only by reputation.
Q. You know it is a negro law school?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you made any check on the separate Negro Law School as to the kind of educational facilities and equality of opportunities that are offered the students of that school?
A. No.
Q. Would you undertake to testify here, Dr. Redfield, that students attending that separate Law School for Negroes at Howard University do not receive equal educational opportunities in law with those attending a similar white school?
A. In my opinion, deprivation of opportunity to exchange professional and intellectual matters with members of the other major groups in their nation is one of the short-comings of the school.
Q. You have never made any check, though, as to students who have come out of that school, and where that has been a handicap on them, have you?
A. No, I never have.
Q. It is just your idea it is a handicap, without having checked to see whether or not it is?
A. That is right.[201]
Q. Are you acquainted with Lincoln University by reputation, a separate law school for Negroes in Missouri?
A. I have heard of it.[fol. 326]
Q. Have you made any survey of the students educated in that school?
A. I think I have indicated I made no survey of legal education.
Q. You are not prepared to say whether or not those students who received their legal education in that separate law school come out of there handicapped in any respect, as far as their knowledge of the law is concerned, are you?
A. I have the opportunity of transforming a conclusion, and as far as there is validity in that, I can draw a conclusion as far as segregated education is concerned.
Q. I am talking about the individuals who have come out of the separate Negro Law School. Have you made any check to see whether they have received equal educational opportunities with white students of Missouri in the white law school?
A. I have had no occasion to.
Q. Then, you don't know whether there are any disadvantages or not, actually, to those individuals, do you?
A. In the particular case of those individuals?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. By virtue of knowledge I might have of them in par-[fol. 327]ticular, no.
Q. Do you recognize, Dr. Redfield, that there should be some limit to your theory of abolition of segregation?
A. I think I have indicated a limit.
Q. A limit?
A. Yes, a limit.
Q. What limit do you say there should be, and will still give what you think is necessary from the standpoint of public education?
A. The general welfare would be served by extending non-segregation, at the expense of segregation, and that general limit will be defined in my particular conclusion, as the particular circumstances.
Q. Is it necessary that there be social commingling?
A. I understand that by social commingling is meant communication of students and professor, and intellectual endeavor,—yes.[202]
Q. Is that as far as you think it is necessary to have such commingling to obtain the objectives you think are so necessary?
A. I think that whatever commingling is a natural and proper accessory to the educational endeavor will in the [fol. 328] long run develop to the general welfare.
Q. Do you think it is necessary to have social commingling of the races in order to obtain the things you think are necessary to give, to attain the objective that you say is set for public education?
A. The question is repetitious. I have answered it.
Mr. Durham: If Your Honor please— The Court: I really believe he has answered it. If you are not quite satisfied, General, you may ask another question.
Mr. Daniel: I am not quite satisfied. I don't want to ask an embarrassing question, but yet,—you have testified—1 really want to know—you have testified that you believe certain segregation must be done away with in order to accomplish the best for the school and the community?
A. If you are thinking about intermarriage,—if that is in your mind, I would be delighted to answer.
Q. My mind hadn't gotten quite that far on the subject. [fol. 329]
A. I am sorry.
Q. I am simply trying to ask you, since you have testified that a certain amount of doing away with segregation is necessary, I want to know your explanation, or expert opinion, on how far it must be done away with in order to accomplish the best for the individual, the school and the community.
Mr. Marshall: This case is at least limited, and the direct examination is most certainly limited, to education.
The Court: I understood that is what he answered, that only in so far as it was necessary for students to have a mutual exchange of ideas along professional and educational lines.
Mr. Marshall: But this question isn't limited to that. The Court: I understood he answered as I stated, a good while ago, General.
Mr. Daniel: I have asked how far he thinks that is [fol. 330] necessary.[203]
A. In order to accomplish the educational objective?
Q. Yes.
A. Roughly speaking, in the class rooms and in the natural discussion of educational objectives we have common rooms in our University where the students meet to discuss common educational problems.
Q. What about fraternities? Is it necessary that there be commingling there?
A. In any particular situation, I should think probably not.
Q. You think it is not necessary that they belong to the same social groups?
A. This might not be your case, but I should say probably not.
Q. You feel like a Negro student at a separate school that doesn't have the same fraternities or scholarships as the other school—
A. I was thinking of social fraternities.
Q. Let's limit it to that.
A. That seems relatively unimportant. I could answer it either one way or the other, and I would like to see the particular case to see how I would answer it.
The Court: Are there other questions? [fol. 331]
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir; just a second, Your Honor.
Q. Doctor, are you acquainted with the Encyclopedia Britannica, the publication by that name?
A. I have a set. I don't look at it very often.
Q. You are from the University of Chicago ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that publication now published under the auspices of that University?
A. Yes, sir; and it badly need rewriting.
Q. It is published under the auspices of your University?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read the article therein on education, and segregation of the races in American Schools?
A. If I have, I don't remember it.
Q. You don't remember it. Have you written any articles for the Encyclopedia Britannica?
A. No, we are just beginning a revision of anthropological articles, and it seems there has to be a very drastic change.[204]
Q. Do you know who wrote the articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject of higher education for Negroes, and segregation?
A. I don't remember such articles.
Q. Do you recognize the Encyclopedia Britannica and the articles on such subjects as an authority in the field?
A. No, I do not. [fol. 332]
Q. You do not?
A. No, sir.
Q. Maybe I am speaking about the gradual change.
A. I don't know who I could cite for that.
Q. That is all.
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Redfield, you testified on cross examination that your opinions were based on your own studies, hut mostly on other studies that have been made. I want to ask you as to whether or not the studies you are speaking of made by other people were scientific studies or not?
Q. Do you know of some scientists in your field who do recognize those articles?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as being irrelevant and immaterial, what somebody else recognizes.
The Court: That would be his—perhaps not what they recognize, but what they have said about it.
A. I think I could answer that question, and do more justice to the meaning than just with a yes or no answer.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Go right ahead.
A. All of the articles you have mentioned in that publication are of extremely uneven merit, so that the men with whom I have talked who have studied it—I haven't studied it—tell me that certain articles are extremely good and other articles are extremely bad. That is about the best I can answer.
Q. I understand you are going to leave, and we may want to know something about that, as an authority. Is that Encyclopedia Britannica, could we here in the Court— could the Court, in your opinion, consider that as one of the recognized authorities in the field, if they have an authority on the subject?
A. I don't think you could, for the reason that you might hit on one of the articles that was particularly out of date. [fol. 333]
Q. You haven't read the articles on the subjects we are talking about?
A. If I have, I have forgotten it,—1 probably have.
Q. But it is your opinion the Court couldn't accept that as an authority?
A. You might get a bad one. I couldn't say.
Q. Could you give us some of the authorities that you think we would be justified in taking as authorities on the [205] subject you have testified to us about ? Have you written any books on the subject?
A. Not with respect to the American Negro. I have written on the general subject with respect to other racial groups. Franz Boes, Ruth Benedict, Ashely Montague, Otto Kleinberg. Is that enough.
Q. Give us one more.
A. One more. I will make it a good one. Then, Dr. Leslie White.
Q. Do all of these scientists have the same, share your ideas as to segregation?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know any scientists who have written books or articles on the American Negro, on segregation, who do not share your ideas?
A. Many of the scientists that study this problem have not written or expressed themselves on the education results of segregation. They are agreed, all that I have men-[fol. 334]tioned, and a great many more on the conclusions which I gave in direct testimony in the first of my remarks with regard to the probability, or the existence of inherent differences in educational capacity, but the application of the conclusion, to the school situation concerns a very much smaller group of people, because the group of people concerned with that are educational administrators and the like and many of those people whose names I have given you are not educational administrators.
Q. But on your conclusion as to education, you told me there were authorities in the field who disagreed with [206]
A. They were.
Q. And I want to ask you as to whether or not they were mostly published scientific studies?
[fol. 335] A. They were.
Q. Generally recognized in your field as authorities?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Do you know of any recognized scientific study that recognizes any inherent racial difference among the races, as to capacity to learn?
A. A man named Portees in Australia published some papers which I have read, on the Australian aborigines, which reach the conclusion that there are inherent differences between the races. I am sure there are other papers that reach a similar conclusion. They are all specific studies, and the conclusions are drawn on differences in achievement in the races, and the case of Portees is one. John Ferguson is publishing one, but there are very, very few that would draw the opposite conclusion to the one that I have stated concerning the inherent difference.
Q. Isn't it true the Australian aborigine is on the bottom of the heap?
A. The important thing is there are different studies, and it has taken them a long period of time to reach the conclusion I have offered.
Q. Isn't it true the majority of scientists in your field are in agreement there is no inherent racial difference?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it true that such studies as the Kleinberg study in 1935, and others, are specific factual studies which show that a given fact situation, there is no difference? [fol. 336] Mr. Daniel:. We object to that because it is leading.
The Court: Of course, it is leading. Mr. Marshall: Your witness.
Recross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Redfield, in determining the question of changing the laws and regulations in a community concerning segregation, how far, in your opinion, should the community, should the State consider the community attitudes of both of the races concerning the matter? [207]
A. It would depend upon the circumstances. I can make in observation, which I think is a partial answer. I think he effect of having a regulation—I guess I will have to make a speech to answer that.
Q. I don't believe—
A. I have got quite a long—
Q. I don't believe it calls for that. I will ask you this. Do you think the community attitude of both of the races should be considered when you go to see what is best in the way of the field of education for .that community?
A. I think so. You understand that the attitudes of the community are complex. Attitudes in the State of Illinois and the State of Texas, I take it, are, one; some white people don't want to be near negroes under certain conditions, and those same white people want equality of education [fol. 337] and other opportunities in America, and there are both kinds of attitude in making the change.
Q. Would you consider the attitude of some Negroes that would rather have segregation themselves, in determining the educational situation?
A. Yes, and you have to consider that Texas, with other Americans, share the view that equality of opportunity is due every man in this country, and they are struggling, as are all of us, to reconcile those attitudes.
Q. You would take those two into consideration before you would arrive at what is best to be done for the individual and the community?
A. Always understanding both kinds of attitudes.
Q. I will ask you, Dr. Redfield, if you have made any check on the relative number, of where the Negroes of this country who hold college degrees, have obtained those degrees? Have you made any study as to the opportunities offered for the Negroes of this country to obtain college degrees?
A. I have read reports on it.
Q. Isn't it true that the figures of 85% of the Negroes of this country who have college degrees received them from southern, separate colleges?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Does that sound about right?
A. When you say it, sir, it does. [fol. 338]
Q. Thank you. Are you a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? [208]
A. No.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Durham: That is the only one that we have to put on out of order.
next section of transcript