Sweatt v. Painter Trial Documents, pt 3.

Mr. Daniel: I want to call Mr. Durham.
W. J. Durham, having been called as a witness by the Respondents, and having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. State your name, please.
A. W. J. Durham.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Durham?
A. Dallas, Texas.
Q. What business are you in?
A. Engaged in the practice of law.
Q. Are you attorney for Heman Marion Sweatt in this case?
A. I am.
Q. You heard him testify concerning the fact that you were his attorney when the suit was filed?
A. I did.[fol. 339]
Q. Was Thurgood Marshall here in the case at that time?
A. No, I wasn't here when he talked to me about it.
Q. You were not in it either?
A. You said was he here. I was in Dallas when he talked to me about it.
Q. You misunderstood my question. Was the attorney here, Thurgood Marshall, the attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people, helping you in the case at the time you filed it ?
A. No, he wasn't.
Q. Was he in the case at the time the deposition of the relator was taken in Houston, Texas, June 15, 1946?
A. I had possibly had communication with him.
Q. You had?[209]
A. Yes.
Q. Had the relator had any communication with him at that time ?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. I would like for you to state to the Court what, in the way of finances or legal services, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is furnishing in this case?
A. They have furnished the money to pay for the record on appeal.
Q. How much money has the National Association furnished?
A. $100.00 to me, I think it was. No, whatever the record in this case costs. I don't remember just what it was. [fol. 340]
Q. Are they also furnishing the attorney for the Association, Mr. Marshall?
A. That is right.
Q. Were you here at the meeting held here in Austin the night before the case came up in the Court of Civil Appeals?
A. I was not.
Q. What other finances had the N.A.A.C.P. furnished in this case?
A. None, to me.
Q. Do you know of any to anyone else?
A. I don't know, not of my own knowledge.
Q. Did you attend a meeting on March 8, 1947 in Dallas and address that meeting which was considering the question of this lawsuit and higher education for Negroes?
A. I have attended several meetings in. Dallas where they discussed higher education for Negroes. As to what date, I don't know, I don't remember at this time.
Q. Were you in Dallas when the relator came up there and showed you the relator from the registrar saying that he would be admitted to the new Negro Law School?
A. I was there. He stayed at my home.
Q. You have heard him testify here as to the discussion and conclusion that was reached there, to the effect that he should not enroll, have you not?
A. I did.
Q. Prior to advising him whether or not he should enroll in the new Negro Law School, I will ask you if you came to [fol.341] Austin and made any check on the school?[210]
A. I did not.
Q. Did you send anyone down here to make an inspection of the school?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you talk with Dean McCormick or any of the other faculty members assigned to the new Negro Law School to determine whether or not, in your opinion, this new Negro Law School had the equal facilities to those at the University of Texas?
A. Did I talk to any of them?
Q. Any of the officials of the University?
A. I did.
Q. Did you make any investigation whatever of the courses that were to be offered, and the instruction to be offered in this new school, before advising, before you and the relator came to the conclusion that he should not attend?
A. I only read the courses set, out in the catalogue.
Q. And those are the same courses offered at the University of Texas?
A. Those are the courses offered at the University of Texas.
Q. That is all of the knowledge of the matter that you had before you and he reached the conclusion he should not enroll in the separate law school?
A. No.[fol. 342]
Q. You say that isn't all of the information you received concerning the courses?
A. The courses, yes. That is the only information I had concerning the courses.
Q. Did you have any other information concerning the professors?
A. I never knew who the professors were.
Q. I see. And that is all of the investigation that you made at that time concerning the facilities of the school, the courses and the professors, before the decision was reached as to what he should do ?
A. Well, no.
Q. What other investigation did you make of the facilities, the courses and the professors?
A. I asked a Mr. Maceo Smith to furnish me a report.
Q. You asked Mr. Maceo Smith to furnish you a report on the new Negro Law School?
A. That is right.[211]
Q. Did he give you that report?
A. Yes.
Q. Is be connected with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
A. Yes.
Q. What is his official position with that organization?
A. Secretary of the State Conference of Branches, N.A.A.C.P.
Q. State that again.[fol. 343]
A. Secretary of the Texas Conference of Branch N. A. A. C. P.
Q. Is he here in the court room today?
A. I haven't seen him.
Q. Where does he live?
A. Dallas.
Q. Did you make any investigation other than the one you asked Maceo Smith to make?
A. No.
Q. Did he give you a written report?
A. He gave me a report by telephone.
Q. How long after you asked him for it?
A. Oh, perhaps four or five days.
Q. Perhaps four or five days—did you make—then, was it strictly on the investigation made by Maceo Smith that you arrived at the conclusion that you and the relator agreed upon him—
Mr. Nabrit: We object to that. The basis upon which the attorney advises his client is—
The Court: It is confidential.
A. And I desire to claim it at this time.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. All right. I will ask no further questions,—before you go, I will ask you one question. Did you make any other investigation yourself of the matter, regardless of what you advised your client? You, yourself, did you [fol. 344] make any other investigation of the matter other than what Maceo Smith—
The Court: You can ask him whether he did or didn't but not what he did.
A. I made no other investigation.[212]
Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. When you say the money that was contributed to the record in this case by the N.A.A.C.P., did you mean the National office of the N.A.A.C.P. or the State Conference of Branches?
A. The State Conference of Branches of the N.A.A.C.P., and not the National.
Q. And that conference is composed solely of people in Texas?
A. Around 40,000 negroes and whites.
Q. Both whites and negroes?
A. I want to make this statement. When I said "for the record" in this case, Mr. Sweatt gave me the first $100 to pay the Court costs when I filed this lawsuit. That came directly from Mr. Sweatt.
Q. That is all.
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. To refresh your memory on this matter of the meeting of March 8, 1947, I would like for you to look over this [fol. 345] article and see if you can refresh your memory as to that particular meeting I am asking about.
A. This says March 13th.
Q. If you will read on down it says the meeting was on the 8th.
A. I attended a number of meetings. Whether this meeting or not, I don't know.
Q. Look that over and see if that doesn't refresh your memory about attending that particular meeting?
A. Now, I attended two or three meetings where similar actions were taken as the action taken here. Whether it was at this meeting or not, because they hold many meetings that I don't attend.
Q. This meeting reported here was held just before the Negro Law School was to be opened, the week-end before, wasn't it?
A. I don't know.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor—
Mr. Daniel: I will withdraw the question.[213]
Q. Did you attend one of those meetings several days before March 10, 1947, at which you made a report to the meeting yourself about the separate Negro Law School that was set up here, and which Mr. Henry Doyle, of Austin, was present, and Joseph Rhodes was present and presided at the meeting?
A. I have never made a report to any meeting at any time anywhere with reference to the Negro Law School, because I knew nothing aobut it.[fol. 346]
Q. You knew nothing about it. Did you ever attend any meeting at which any report was made concerning the N.A.A.C.P. intending to picket the Negro Law School on March 10, 1947, the date it was to open, in which that was reported?
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, that question is entirely irrelevant and it is immaterial.
The Court: I believe it is. I will let counsel answer it, if it—if he wants to.
A. I have never been in a meeting that I can remember where the N.A.A.C.P. took action with reference to picketing the law school.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. I didn't ask you if they took any action. I said, was any report there made or anything mentioned concerning the proposed picketing of this school?
A. Not while I was in the meeting.
Q. Not while you were in the meeting. How long did you stay?
A. I came into the meeting—the Bar Association meets from ten until eleven, as well as I remember, the last meeting I attended on Saturday morning, and I attended the Dallas County Bar meeting from ten until eleven. I don't know how long the meeting had been in session. I went back to my office, and the office girl told me they called me to come to the auditorium at the Roseland Hall. They wanted me to make a statement for the benefit of those as[fol. 347]sembled with reference to the Sweatt case, and I think I got to the meeting around twelve o 'clock. The only statement I made in that meeting was with reference to the status of the Sweatt case, and as to other—what other business they transacted before or after I left, shortly [214]after I made my statement with reference to the Sweatt case—
Q. Picketing wasn't mentioned while you were at the meeting?
A. No, because when I came in I told the girl in the office that I would have only a few minutes, and when I came in, they said, "Come to the front, and we will let you make your statement and go." I made my statement, and I guess I had been in there not more than four or five minutes. As soon as I made my statement I attempted to leave the building, and some two or three fellows I knew stopped me, and I sat and talked to them for maybe five or ten minutes, and I left the meeting, and it occurs to me that the meeting adjourned while I was still there talking to them, but I don't know what discussion took place before I went there.
Q. What was the name of the meeting—the organization?
A. I believe that was the—I am mistaken about the N.A.A.C.P.  It was a State Council of Negro Organizations.
Q. Was N.A.A.C.P. a member of that council?
A. As I understand, every organization in Texas, religious, fraternal, social and all other characters, organizations of that nature, are members of that organization. That is my—[fol. 348]
Q. Do you know Henry Doyle, of Austin?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see him there at the meeting that day?
A. I am not sure whether I knew Henry Doyle on that day. I probably did. My impression is there were some people from Austin.
Q. That was Saturday before May 10, 1947?
A. I can't be exact about the date.
Q. It was before the opening date of the new law school in Austin?
A. My best recollection is that it was, but I wouldn't be positive about it.
Q. I see. Is Maceo Smith a lawyer?
A. No.
Q. He is the man that made you the only report that you received on the law school, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. He is not a lawyer?[215]
A. That is right.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.) The Court: We will recess until nine o'clock in the morning
(Court was recessed at 4:30 p.m., May 14, 1947, until 9:00 a.m. May 15, 1947.)
[fol. 349] Morning Session, May 15, 1947. 9:00 a.m. Earl G. Harrison, a witness produced by the Relator, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. State your name, please.
A. Earl G. Harrison.
Q. And where do you live, Mr. Harrison?
A. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2028 Spruce Street.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Professor of Law, and Dean at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in Philadelphia.
Q. Dean Harrison, would you please state your educational qualifications?
A. I received my Bachelor of Arts Degree at the University of Pennsylvania in 1920; my Bachelor of Law Degree at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1923.
Q. Would you state briefly your professional experience?
A. From 1923 until July 1, 1945, I practiced law in Philadelphia.
A. During a portion of that time I conducted courses at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, principally between 1932 and 1938. I became Dean, full-time Dean, and [fol. 350] Professor of Law on July 1, 1945.
Q. Are you a member of the American Bar Association?
A. Yes, sir, I am; and I am Vice Chairman of the American Bar Association's Committee on Continuing Education of the Bar, a committee which is considering ways and means of post admission education. I might say also that since '39 I have been a Trustee of the University of Penn[216]sylvania, and as such, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Q. Have you ever done any work for the Department of Justice?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What was the nature of that?
A. Well, in 1940 I directed the first National registration of aliens in the United States; immediately after the outbreak of war I supervised the registration of aliens of enemy nationality. From 1942 to 1944, I served as United States Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.
Q. Now, Dean Harrison, I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Based upon the evidence which has been, which has already been offered in this case, and to be offered in this case, and upon the proposition that these facts will be proved that are used in this hypothetical question. Assuming that the proposed Negro Law School in Texas is equal in all other respects to the Law School of the University of Texas, except in respect to the size of the student body, and further [fol. 351] assuming that the proposed Negro Law School has a student body which consists of one student, in your opinion would the Negro Law School offer to that Negro student a legal education equal to that offered to any student at the University of Texas, which has a student body of approximately 800 students, and further in connection with that, would it offer a legal education substantially equivalent to that?
A. In my opinion, it would not. I have taken into consideration in that answer the facts as have been testified to by Dean McCormick—
Mr. Daniel: Excuse me, sir. We object to anything taken into consideration outside of the hypothetical question.
The Court: Yes, that is right. The answer should be to the question of counsel.
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, he assumed in that question the testimony that had already been introduced.
The Court: I know, but then counsel asked him to assume certain things, and he then in his answer said he was assuming something else. It may have been in the testimony, but it wasn't within the confines of his question.
Mr. Nabrit: All right.
A. I would like to make this additional comment upon the question. In my opinion, it is mistaken, even absurd, to[217][fol. 352] speak of any institution that has one student as a law school.
Q. Why?
A. Because the system, the modern system of instruction used in a law school is what is known as the case system, he case method. That is to be contrasted with the former method of the lecture system, in which the professor of law merely sat and lectured to the class, in which case it didn't make much difference how many or how few students there were in the class.
Q. Before you go any further in that, Dean Harrison, I would like for you to include in a discussion of this hypothetical question, in dealing with two propositions, whether this student could get equal education or whether be could get be substantial equivalent to that received by a student of the University of Texas; also, ten students. That is, we want the hypothetical question with one student in the Negro Law School, and we want you to deal with and take ten students at the Negro Law School, both in contrast to the students of the University of Texas, where they have approximately 800 students. Will you tell us something about the case system of study and the reason for your opinion?
A. Before I do that, I want to answer specifically the question supposing a student body of ten students.
Q. Yes.
A. In my opinion, such students still would not get an equal [fol. 353] education, or even one that is substantially equal to that which is received by the students in such an outstanding law school as the University of Texas Law School.
Now, I say that largely for the reason that the system of instruction used today is the case method. I was about to elaborate on that. It is to be contrasted with the lecture system. Also, it is to be contrasted with the so-called test-book system, in which the professors and class would use a textbook, which means the result of study by some other professor or lawyer or judge of the pertinent court decisions in the field. The class would take, therefore, rather predigested material by someone else, and undertake to become familiar with the rules of law that can be taken from court decisions, but a good many years ago a change was effected in the method of legal education, and gave rise to the so-called case system.[218]
That system merely means that the students go to the original sources for their materials, namely, the decisions of the courts, and under that system the professor does very much less talking than he did under the lecture system.
He calls on some member of the class to make a report on a given case which has appeared in the case book, and right at that point, the professor usually calls for comment from the other members of the class, and from there on it is largely a matter of discussion in which the members of the [fol. 354] class participate to a large extent, one commenting on the recital made by the previous; another criticizing his statement, either the facts of the case or the decision arrived at by the Court, and it is first and foremost a class discussion.
Now, I find it very difficult even to contemplate the possibility of legal education under such a system of that being received even slightly adequate, if you have a single student in the class, and more than that, I say the same thing is true where there is a limited group of ten. The so-called smaller law schools usually average between 50 and 100.
Mr. Daniel: We object to that. He is testifying about something not within his own knowledge, hearsay.
The Court: Yes. I think that isn't within the question. He might, know of it, but he was not questioned about it. I will sustain the objection.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. So that, Dean Harrison, in your opinion, under the case system of study, it is practically impossible for a single law student to get the best possible training out of a class?
A. That is true. In my opinion, a very important facility of a modern law school consists of one's classmates. In other words, it isn't enough to have a good professor. It is equally essential that there be a well-rounded, a represen[fol. 355]tative group of students in the class room to participate in the class room discussion which centers around previous decisions of the courts.
Q. Now, Dean Harrison, does the presence of—I will restate that. Is the study of law affected by the presence or absence of upper classmen. By that, I mean this; if a single[219]law student, studying in a freshman class in a school where there are no other students, in the second and third year classes, is the possibility of that student receiving a sound legal education affected by the absence of these upper classmen?
Mr. Daniel: We object, that calls for a conclusion of the witness, Your Honor. It doesn't even call for opinion testimony. The Court: I believe he could answer that, Mr. Attorney
General. Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
A. In my opinion, it would have a very material bearing upon the legal training the student would receive. In other words, work in a law school outside of regular class room hours is exceedingly important, rubbing elbows with the other students in the law school, taking part in small discussion groups, discussion with advanced students, all are very important considerations, equally so, in my opinion, with the actual class room work itself.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean Harrison, have you made any studies; are you [fol. 356] acquainted with the results of any scientific studies with respect to the size of law schools?
A. I am.
Q. Would you state your knowledge of these scientific studies or your conclusion which you have reached from your own investigations?
Mr. Daniel: We object to the question, and we would like to know what the studies are.
The Court: He can perhaps relate what the studies are.
A. I am familiar with the studies that have been made by the section on Legal Education of the American Bar Association, with the surveys that have been conducted periodically by the Carnegie Corporation, and by the Russell Sage Foundation.
Q. What has been the result of your studies with respect to the sizes of law classes and their bearing on legal education?
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor
Mr. Nabrit: If you know? [220]
Mr. Daniel: We object to the testimony concerning these studies. We believe they would be the best evidence here.  He is testifying about something he didn't have anything to do with, according to what has been shown so far.
The Court: I think he would have a right to testify, being familiar with the scientific studies.
[fols. 357-367] Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
A. All of the studies that I have mentioned have considered at one point or another the relative merits of a large, as contrasted with a small student body. Most of these studies have divided the law schools of the country into three groups; the so-called large law schools that have a student body in excess of 1,000. Most of the law schools in the country, it was found in the course of these studies, have a student body ranging from 100 to 500.
There is another substantial body of law schools having a student body less than 100. The studies that have been made have put into the category of so-called smaller law schools those students having a student body of between 50 and 150. Those studies also have indicated that the opportunities for legal education, a thoroughly rounded legal education, are much more limited in the so-called smaller law schools than they are in the larger law school.
The studies that I have reference to have pointed out in general there are four objectives of law school education. One is, of course, to prepare the practitioner. Second, is to prepare and train law teachers. Third, is to train and prepare men for legal research, and the fourth objective is to train and prepare men and women for public service.
The studies to which I have referred have reached the conclusion that the so-called small law schools are not in a [fol. 368] position to achieve or even to strive for all of those four objectives. They have concluded that the small law schools are not in position really to train men for law teaching or for legal research, and those studies have reached the conclusion that the so-called smaller law schools should, therefore, confine themselves primarily to preparing practitioners, and for preparing men and women for public service.
Q. Dean Harrison, do these studies show the,[sic] show whether the smaller law schools have in most cases such things as law reviews, moot court? [221]
A. The studies show that many of the smaller law schools do not have those additional facilities, which, in my opinion, are extremely important. The existence of a law review is not only a great incentive to all students, but if a student is fortunate enough to qualify for a position as editor, it is a tremendous advantage to him, not only then in the course of his legal training, but throughout the rest of his professional life. It is a qualification to which he can always point with pride, and which will be very helpful to him in connection with his professional standing, and with his professional advancement.
The same is true with respect to the system of moot court arguments. That, again, is something that is outside the class room, but all of the leading law schools of the country, certainly including the University of Texas Law School [fol. 369] have a system of moot court arguments. It doesn't make much difference, in my opinion, whether those arguments are participated in by first year men or not. It is something to which they have access, but in the second and third years they are permitted to take part in it.
They learn something which isn't taught in a good many law schools in any other way, brief writing, ability to stand upand present an argument before a court, training in that, legal research, all of those are covered by the so-called moot court argument system which prevails generally in the leading law schools of the country.
Q. Dean Harrison, would you say that scholarships, honors, societies like the Order of the Coif, and law reviews, arc extraneous and unimportant factors in a law school?
A. They are by no means extraneous. They are an important part of law school life of law schools. To have such an organization as the Order of the Coif is, again, an incentive to the student body, not only looking forward to practicing, one looking forward to a career of public service, but certainly to one who might look forward to law teaching, work on legal research. The fact that he has had an opportunity to be elected to an organization such as the Order of the Coif is an extremely important one to him. All of the matters to which you refer are, in my opinion, an integral and most important part of the legal training, and [fol. 370] are by no means to the slightest degree extraneous.
Q. Dean Harrison, is it true that with one student there is no necessity for a full-time teacher because one student [222] with the same capacity as other students could get a better grasp of the principles of law than if he were one of 800 students with many teachers ?
A. I thoroughly disagree with that point of view, and in my opinion, it is not true, that merely because there should be a small number of students there would be any the less need or desirability for full time professors. Now, the reason, as clearly shown in all of the studies that have been made, the reason for insisting—
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, that isn't responsive to the question. I would like for him to ask him the questions.
The Court: Yes.
A. I am about to discuss the full-time professors.
Mr. Daniel: I know, but let him ask you for it, please, Dean Harrison, from now on.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Dean Harrison, it has been stated that the reason for full-time teachers is that the teachers will have some chance to individually and personally know the students. Is that the reason for full-time teachers in law schools'?
A. That is one of the reasons.
Q. Do you know the other reasons? If so, state those.
A. Of course, I know them; and other reasons equally [fol. 371] important are that the teacher should be available to the students during the usual business hours. The great objection to the part-time lecturer, the lawyer or the judge downtown who comes out and gives an occasional class room hour, the greatest objection to having the whole faculty consisting of that kind of professors is that he will not be available to the student during the ordinary hours when the student is going over the class room notes, his class room discussion, and endeavoring to make up what he calls a digest, or his own review.
Frequently he gets stuck. Something then becomes unclear to him which he thought previously be understood, and so, it has been thought to be a great advantage that the law professor ought to be in the building', accessible to the law students. That doesn't mean that he is accessible every minute of the time. A professor has other duties. He is often, engaged in his own research, which is a fundamental reason for requiring a reasonable number of full-time professors, have them there in the law school so that they should be available to the student outside of regular class room hours, to help him over troublesome spots.
Q. Dean Harrison, are you familiar with the standards of the Association of American Law Schools?
A. I am.
Q. Under the standards of the American Association of— [fol. 372] Association of American Law Schools, would a student who was enrolled and engaged in the study of law at an unapproved law school during its first year of operation, who wished to transfer from that school to one of the law schools in the Association of American Law Schools, would that student's credits be accepted by the school which was a member of the Association?
A. They certainly would not. If a student attended a first year—
Mr. Daniel: Just a minute.
Mr. Nabrit: Just a minute, Dean Harrison. I think he has answered it, too.
The Court: Yes, he has answered it.
By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Would the fact that students' credits would not be accepted from this school be of any importance in evaluating the legal education of that student and the opportunity for that student at this unapproved school, in comparison with the legal education of a student at another school which 'was approved, and whose credits would be accepted?
A. Of course, it would.
Q. What is the reason for that?
A. A great many law students, after they have taken part of their education, desire to launch upon a specific kind of career. Many of them are totally unable to judge at the outset of their legal education what they want to do, [fol. 373] and so, not an inconsiderable number of them do think in terms of transferring from one institution to another, after they get a clearer idea of what it is they want to do, particularly if they want to specialize.
A student who is in an unapproved school can not transfer to an approved institution. Let's say at the end of the first year, for example, if the school which he has been attending up to that point has not been approved by the Association of American Law Schools, therefore, there is a distinct advantage to the student who is attending an [224] approved institution to have that greater flexibility which• arises out of the fact that he may, for one reason or another wish to transfer to another institution, even though he may not have that intention at all when he enters the law
Q. That is all
Cross-examination
Questions by Mr. Daniel :
Q. Dean Harrison, one of the main advantages of the case system of study is in order that the students may go to the original sources, prepare for recitations on them, and make those recitations in the class room, isn't that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. That is one of the advantages ?
A. That is right.[fol. 374]
Q. Now, let's take a hypothetical case of a hundred and seventy five students in the class room as compared with ten students in the class room, with the same professors, a one hour class period. I will ask you, in your opinion, whether or not a larger percentage of the students in the class room of ten could recite on the cases assigned for the day than in the class room of 175?
A. Unquestionably, a higher percentage of the smaller class would be called on to recite on the cases, but it is necessary for me to qualify that to this extent.
Q. I will let you qualify it in a minute.
A. I must explain my answer now.
Q. I think you have answered my question.
The Court: I think he can explain his answer.
Mr. Daniel: All right.
A. I do want to say that an equally important part of class room discussion—
Q. I am coming to that next.
A. All right, if you ask me a question.
Q. I am not going to leave anything out in the value of the system.
A. Thank you.
Q. The next important—
Mr. Durham: We object to it. The witness is entitled to answer the question, to qualify his answer. Now he goes [fol. 375] to the next question.[225]
Mr. Daniel: That is going to be just what he is talking about.
Mr. Durham: All right
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Now, the next important feature of the case system, as I understood your testimony on direct examination, was the class room discussion, where, after this one student has recited, or as many, as large a percent as possible has recited on the case during the class period, then other students may be given an opportunity to arise and criticize the discussion and make comments; correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, I will ask you if it isn't correct that in a class room of ten during an hour's period, with the same professor, if a larger percentage of the students within the classroom would not be able to comment and discuss the case than in a class room of 125 during the same period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. That is correct?
A. Yes, but it is here that I want to say that it is equally important what the student hears, as well as the opportunity, he has to make his own comment. It isn't alone important that the student have an opportunity to make comments or suggestions or arguments, but it is equally important, in my opinion, that he should hear the comments and criti [fol. 376]cisms of other members of the class.
Q. Now, Dean Harrison, you have been teaching that system for several years, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it an unusual thing for more than nine fellow students to comment on recitations? Isn't that the unusual, rather than the usual thing?
A. No, not in my classes.
Q. I see.
A. There is more likely to be 25 or 30 students in any one hour who will make a comment, not a recitation on a case, but will make a comment or criticism of what has been said by some fellow student or what has been reported upon on the case under discussion.
Q. But in an hour's class where you allow 25 to comment on the recitation given by a fellow student, certainly [226] you do not get to cover as many cases during that hour as if fewer commented?
A. That is right. You don't cover as many cases.
Q. But in a smaller class of ten where less would be able to comment, not more than nine, ten counting the professor you would, of course, be able to cover more cases during the hour, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now then, Dean Harrison, I would like to ask you on [fol. 377] the full-time professor proposition if the law school has three or four full-time professors for ten students, assigned full time,' if they would not be in a position to meets the requirements there of giving as much time as possible to the students, much better than in a school where seventeen professors have 850 students to give time to?
A. Let me be sure that I understand your question.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Am I to assume that the three or four so-called full-time men spend their time outside of the class in the same building with me, the student?
Q. All right, sir, exactly as—you were here when Chairman Woodward and Dean McCormick testified?
A. Yes.
Q. About the proposed plan for the future of this Negro Law School under discussion?
A. Yes.
Q. If that is adopted, whereby three or four full-time professors are there all of the time, would not they be able to give more of that required time than seventeen would to 850 students at the larger law school ?
A. Of course they would, if they are full-time in the so-called new institution, and if they do not go back to the University of Texas after they complete their class room work.
Q. I would like to ask you a hypothetical question. If [fol. 378] you have a separate Negro Law School, let's say in one part of the city with absolutely every facility, physical and otherwise, including societies, fraternities, law reviews, and everything that you have in a white law school in another part of the city, in exactly—with the same number of students, the same faculty and everything else equal except that they are separate schools, one for the whites and one for the colored, I will ask you if, in your opinion, [226] you do not get to cover as many cases during that hour as if fewer commented?
A. That is right. You don't cover as many cases.
Q. But in a smaller class of ten where less would be able to comment, not more than nine, ten counting the professor, you would, of course, be able to cover more cases during the hour, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now then. Dean Harrison, I would like to ask you on [fol. 377] the full-time professor proposition if the—a law school has three or four full-time professors for ten students, assigned full time; if they would not be in a position to meets the requirements there of giving as much time as possible to the students, much better than in a school where seventeen professors have 850 students to give time to?
A. Let me be sure that I understand your question.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Am I to assume that the three or four so-called full. time men spend their time outside of the class in the same building with me, the student?
Q. All right, sir, exactly as—you were here when Chairman Woodward and Dean McCormick testified?
A. Yes.
Q. About the proposed plan for the future of this Negro Law School under discussion?
A. Yes.
Q. If that is adopted, whereby three or four full-time professors are there all of the time, would not they be able to give more of that required time than seventeen would to 850 students at the larger law school ?
A. Of course they would, if they are full-time in the so-called new institution, and if they do not go back to the University of Texas after they complete their class room work.
Q. I would like to ask you a hypothetical question. If  [fol. 378] you have a separate Negro Law School, let's say in one part of the city with absolutely every facility, physical and otherwise, including societies, fraternities, law reviews, and everything that you have in a white law school in another part of the city, in exactly—with the same number of students, the same faculty and everything else equal except that they are separate schools, one for the whites and one for the colored, I will ask you if, in your opinion, [227] there would be any chance that a student attending one of those separate schools would not receive substantially equal legal training and procedure from those two schools?
A. In my opinion there is a considerable chance that just that would be the case.
Q. They would receive substantially equal legal education?
A. That they would not, and I say that because whenever yon have a student body that is limited to one group, you do not get the kind of representation, cross-section of the community that is so highly desirable in particularly the first year classes of law school.
Q. If I understand your answer to that question, you believe that a law school in one part of the city with 850 white students, the same faculty, everything exactly the same as one in another part of the city with 850 Negro students, everything is exactly the same except they are separate schools, you believe that the student in the white school [fol.379] would not receive equal or substantially equal legal training with the student over in the Negro School, is that correct?
A. I say that the student in the white school would recieve a better legal education, better legal training, because in my opinion, you can not get, under present conditions, a class made up entirely of Negro students that would be as representative of the entire community as would be the case in a class, a school made up entirely of white students.
Q. You don't think there would be any chance of substantially equal educational opportunities then in separate schools?
A. No, the white student would have a decided advantage in my opinion.
Q. That is all.
Mr. Nabrit: That is all. Thank you. (Witness excused.)
Mr. Marshall: That is the only one we have.
 
May 15,1947 recessed at 9:45 a.m., until 10:05 a.m., following which proceedings were resumed as witness: May it please the Court, we have one whose testimony will be based on some records, [228] that we will have on the way here, and I think it would be all right, if, with the permission of the Court and the other side, for him to testify to those.
[fol. 380] The Court: Subject to the production of the instruments, I think it would be all right.
Mr. Marshall: They will be here in a few minutes.
Dr. Charles H. Thompson, a witness produced by the Relator, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Will you give your full name?
A. Charles H. Thompson.
Q. And your address ?
A. 1230 Fairmont Street Northwest, Washington, D. C.
Q. Your present position?
A. I am Dean of the Graduate School of Howard University.
Q. That is in Washington, D. C.?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all, where were you born?
A. I was born in Jackson, Mississippi.
Q. Will you trace your educational qualifications?
A. Yes. I attended an elementary school, private Baptist school in Kosciusko, Mississippi, and graduated from what I thought was a high school; and I attended Wayland Academy, of Virginia Union University, in Richmond, Vir[fol. 381]ginia, starting in 1911, and finishing the academy there in 1914, and subsequently attended college until 1917, and went to Chicago, and spent a year there and got the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy in June, 1918, and then I went overseas in World War I and spent eleven months in France, returned and went back to the University of Chicago, where I took my Master's Degree in 1920.
In 1920-21 I taught at the Virginia Union University in Richmond, Virginia.  At the end of that year I went back to the University of Chicago to work toward a doctorate in psychology. In 1922 I went to the State Normal School in [229] Montgomery, Alabama, and spent two years as instructor in teacher training in that institution.
In 1924 I went hack to the University of Chicago and completed the training for the doctorate, and received my Doctor's Degree in 1925. On completion of my doctorate at the University of Chicago I went to the Sumner High School in Kansas City, Kansas, and taught psychology and economics in the Junior College for one year.
Q. Dr. Thompson, on your master's, what was your particular study in your thesis?
A. I made a study of comparative learning abilities of Negro children in the City of Chicago.
Q. Getting hack to the positions you have held since you obtained your doctorate, after leaving Sumner High School [fol. 382] in Kansas City, where did you go?
A. To Howard University, as Associate Professor in Education, in 1926. In 1929-1930, I was made Professor of Education. In 1931 and 1932 I was Acting Dean of Education at Howard University.
In 1932 I was made Director of the Bureau of Educational Research and editor of the Journal on Negro Education, and in 1938 I was made Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, which position I held until 1943. Beginning January 1, 1944, I have since been Dean of the Graduate School of Howard University.
Q. Up to the present time?
A. Yes.
Q. Explain to the Court what is the Journal on Negro Education.
A. The Journal on Negro Education is a scholarly rnagazine in the field of education, which deals primarily with the education of minority groups, and particularly, the Negro group.
Q. And how wide is the circulation of that?
A. It has average circulation of a scholarly journal.
Q. Is it a magazine of general circulation, or a magazine usually circulated among people in the educational field?
A. Primarily the latter.
Q. What then is the Bureau of Educational Research that you are Director of?
A.  The Bureau of Educational Research is an organiza[fol.383]tion which was set up to make investigations of various types of educational problems, primarily problems [230 ]dealing with minority groups, particularly Negroes in America.
Q. Have you published any scientific articles'?
A. Yes.
Q. In what publications, as far as you can remember?
A. A number of publications. The Annals of the American Academy on Political and Social Science, Educational Administration and Supervision and several others that I do not recall at the present time, School and Society.
Q. Dr. Thompson, have you done any scientific work, research on the question of the comparative educational facilities for white and Negro students in segregated school systems?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. About how long have you been working on that?
A. Oh, as I indicated a moment ago, I became interested in the problem when I was working for my Master's Degree at the University of Chicago. In 1928, I believe I published the first results of an investigation that I made on the educational achievements of Negro children in separate schools. That was published in the annals to which I referred, in 1928, and since then I have published a lot of things, a list of which I do not have at the present time.
Q. Dr. Thompson, are you familiar with other recognized scientific studies in the field of the comparison of education [fol. 384] of Negro and white students in separate schools?
A. I am.
Q. Have you worked at all with the United States Department of Education in recent years ?
A. On several occasions.
Q. Can you briefly give those occasions, and what type of work it was?
A. The first contact with the Bureau was around 1931 or 1932. That wasn't on one of these comparative studies. It happened to be a study of the products of graduate schools of the country. The second contact was a commission called the Wartime Educational Commission. The most recent contact I have had was as advisory member of the National Survey on Higher Education of Negroes, published in 1942.
Q. Was that published by the United States Government Printing Office?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. As an official document?[231]
A. It was.
Q. By the way, while discussing the Government, do you at the present time hold a position on any official commission of the Federal Government?
A. I don't know whether you would call it United States Educational—United Nations Scientific Educational Organization. I am on the. National Committee for the United [fol. 385] Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization, which is under the sponsorship of the State Department.
Q. That represents the United States Government?
A. Yes.
Q. In the United Nations organization on education?
A. Yes, commonly known as UNESCO.
Q. Are there any people from Texas serving on that Commission with you?
A. I think Professor Dobie, at the University of Texas, and Dr. Evans, of the Library of Congress, is on that Commission,
Q. Do you have any official connection—what is the National Educational Association?
A. That is an association of teachers in the United States, public and private.
Q. And do you hold any official position in that organization?
A. I am the consultant to the Educational Policies Commission of the UEA.
Q. What is the Educational Policies Committee?
A. That is very much as its name suggests, to study and make recommendations concerning educational policies for development of education in the United States.
Q. Do you know of the Association of American Colleges?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. That is an association of some five or six hundred [fol. 386] liberal arts colleges in the United States which have come together in an association for their mutual benefit.
Q. Do you hold any official position in that organization?
A. Yes, I happen to be a member of the Committee on Teacher Education of that organization.
Q. Do you know anything about the Nation's Schools, a Magazine, and if so, what is it?
A. The Nation's Schools is a magazine in the field of [232] education that deals largely with administrative and supervisory problems, broad policy problems.
Q. Do you hold any position in that organization?
A. I happen to be consulting editor of that magazine.
Q. Do you hold any position with The World Book Encyclopedia?
A. Yes. I have forgotten my exact title. I suppose it is consulting editor. What I do is edit all of the material concerning Negroes which goes into that encyclopedia.
Q. What is the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools?
A. The Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools is an organization composed of a number of white secondary schools and colleges in the southern area.   It is an accrediting agency for this region, and I presume there are other things that go on in it that I don't know of.
Q. Does that Association accredit white schools in the Austin area? [fol.387]
A. It does.
Q. Colleges and secondary schools?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it also accredit Negro separate schools in the same area?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you hold any official position in connection with the accreditation of these schools?
A. During the past year and a half I have been an inspector of Negro colleges for the Southern Association Committee which accredits Negro schools.
Q. What were your duties in that position?
A. My duties were to go around with a committee, generally of three, to inspect designated institutions, and to make a report as to whether or not they were living up to standards, in the case of schools already in, and in the case of schools that were trying to get in, to find out whether they met the standards.
Q. How many such schools have you inspected in the last year and a half?
A. Six or seven.
Q. Six or seven?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you requested by the relator in this case to make certain studies concerning higher education for Negroes in Texas? [233][fol. 388]
A. I was.
Q. Approximately what date?
A. Around the first week in April.
Q. As a result of that request what did you do?
A. Well, the first thing, I had to rearrange my calendar at the University. That was the very first thing.
Q. I mean, in connection with the study?
A. The first thing I did on the study was to exhaust all of the sources that were available to me in the Bureau of Educational Research at Howard University. That was number one. Number two, I exhausted all of the resources in the United States Office of Education, particularly the Statistical Division. By exhaust, I got all of the material and made a study of it, as far as possible, up until about May first, when I got on the train to come to Texas. I have been here since, the last 10 or 12 days; in fact, I got in Austin Tuesday a week ago. I have been attempting since being in Austin to exhaust all possible sources of information relative to the education in Texas.
Q. Where did you go for this information? What I am driving at, what type of information did you examine?
A. First, I went to the Department of Education.
Q. Is that the State Department of Education of Texas?
A. That is the State Department of Education of Texas, to the office of the Executive Secretary of Scholarship [fol. 389] Commission. I have forgotten the gentleman's name, but his secretary was there, and she gave me the information which I desired.
Then I went over to the Capitol Building. That was in the education building here on Congress and something. I went over to the Capitol Building to the State Superintendent's Office, with the intention of talking to the State Superintendent but he was busy and I found I could get the information I wanted from the statistical department in the Superintendent's Office, and I talked to a Mrs. Tanner in that department, and I went to the Division of Higher Education to see if I could get catalogues or audit reports of State supported institutions in Texas, and found I couldn't get them from that office, but I was directed to the State Auditor's Office, where I went and got all of the available latest reports for all of the higher institutions, State supported, in the State of Texas.
Then I went out to the University of Texas for two reasons. First, to get some information, and, second, to see [234] it and to look over the general plan. I went to the Registrar's Office to get some catalogues, which I did, on various schools. I didn't get all of them that I need, but sufficient. Then I went over the grounds of the University of Texas. I started on foot, and it was very hot, and I got a taxicab and drove all around the place to get an idea of what it looked like. Then I began work on the material. [fol. 390] While I am talking about where I went—
Q. Didn't you also go some place else in Texas?
A. The next place I went was to Prairie View State College, where I spent five or six hours going through that plant, talking with the principal and teachers, looking at the equipment in the various buildings and that sort of thing. I spent a very profitable five or six hours at Prairie View. I hadn't been to Prairie View before, and I was very anxious to get all I could from that institution.
Q. Dr. Thompson, in these studies that you made of the information that you did not have in your own mind, but that you obtained from other documents and records, will you give the Court as many of those documents and records as you can remember, as to whether or not they were official or private documents?
A. Well, the audit reports were official reports.
Q. We will decide whether they were official. Just name them.
A. The State Auditor's Reports, audit reports of the several State supported higher institutions in Texas. Of course, I had recourse to S. B. 140.
Mr. Daniel: Would you give the dates on those reports, so that we will know how far they go?
A. 1945 and 1946, 1945 for some of them, and 1946. I was told those were the latest available ones. There was one which I did not get which they said was not available, [fol. 391] namely, the report for the Texas Technological College at Lubbock, but I got all of the rest of them.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. What other documents did you use in your study?
A. Well, I will finish with Texas, if I can.
Q. Fine.
A. I had access to practically all of the catalogues of the institutions, of the State supported higher institutions.[235]
Q. When you say "catalogues" do you mean the published catalogues?
A. The published catalogues of the institutions. There are a few exceptions, of course. I have had access to H. B. 246, which is the current appropriation bill, I think, passed by the House. What else in Texas? State Superintendent's Report, the Regulations of the Board of Trustees of the State Board of Education in Texas. Others will come to me.
Q. What, in Washington, did you use?
A. The reports of the United States Office of Education, the biannual surveys for 1937 and 1938, 1938 to 1940— 1940 to 1942; Statistics of Higher Education, Statistics of Higher Education of the United States Bureau of Education for 1943-1944, Statistics on Higher Education for 1945-1946 for some institutions.
Q. As to those Government reports from the Department of Education, what arc they based upon, if you know of your own knowledge?[fol. 392]
A. They are based upon reports sent in by the several institutions of the United States Office of Education for compilation and summarizing.
Q. And is that pursuant to the United States Department of Education?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything else that you can remember now? If not, we will come to it.
A. The list of accredited schools, United States Office of Education. I have a good memory, but I can't remember all of them.
Q. We will find out. Now, Dr. Thompson, as a result of your experience over twenty-some years in the field of comparing the education in segregated school systems, and as a result of the materials that you have gone into and examined, are yon prepared to testify as to the comparative value of the public education in college, graduate and professional levels, in the State of Texas, with statements as the official documents from which you obtained information that you do not have in your own mind?
A. I do—I am.
Q. As a result of your past experience, your research among recognized scientific sources of information, and your personal observation and examination of official [236] documents and records while in Texas, have you made a [fol. 393] comparison of the provisions for and the quality and quantity of education offered at Prairie View for Negroes with that offered at the University of Texas and other schools offering college, graduate and professional training for white students in the State of Texas?
A. I have.
Q. First of all, will you name the State supported institutions of Texas above the high school level to which Negroes are admitted?
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, I would like to interpose our objection to that question. It seems to be the phase where he is about, after having qualified, to testify as to the schools for the purpose of making a comparison in the field of higher education. I would like to make the objection to that question and to the testimony along that line concerning higher education that has been furnished in Texas in the past in other schools other than the two schools that we now have for consideration in this case. The relator's petition asserts an individual right, as held by the Supreme Court in the Gaines case, the right that he has to enter the State supported white school, is an individual right which he has, unless the State furnishes a separate school with substantially equal facilities for the training he desires.
In his petition here, he makes no allegations whatever that would put us on notice that he intends to put into [fol. 394] this case evidence as to all of the other schools, schools he doesn't seek to enter. Whatever the comparative value or the comparative value may have been in the past as to those schools, has no bearing whatever as to his individual right to a legal education, what he is seeking by this suit, and we say that certainly that line of testimony is not admissible. It is irrelevant and immaterial ill this case. We will not object to any part of that testimony bearing on the schools that we have directly involved in this case, but as to the other schools, and what has gone on ill the past, and not concerned with what we have at the present, we feel is irrelevant and immaterial in this case. It is today, and what we have for the relator today that answers what he has alleged that he is entitled to as an individual right in this case.[237]
The Court: Unless it has a final bearing on this case it would not be considered.
Mr. Marshall: But I can proceed, sir?
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Will you name the State supported institutions of Texas above the high school level to which Negroes are admitted?
A. Prairie View University.
Q. Would you say—do you know of any others?
A. I don't know of any other school, no.
Q. Any other public supported school? [fol. 395]
A. No.
Q. Will you name the State supported institutions maintained by the State of Texas above the high school level to which white students are admitted?
A. I take it that you mean the four year institutions, rather than—
Q. I do mean four year institutions.
A. Well, there is the University of Texas, and all of its branches; the Texas A. & M., and its several branches, including the Agricultural School at Tarlton, and Prairie View, by the way, is a branch of A. & M., and Texas State College for Women at Denton; Texas Technological College at Lubbock; the Texas College of Arts and Industries, and then there arc seven teachers colleges.
Q. There are seven teachers colleges?
A. There are seven teachers colleges, North State Teachers College, and East State Teachers College, West, Southwest Teachers College, the Sul Ross State Teachers College, and Sam Houston State Teachers College.
Q. Making a total of how many?
A. That ought to be twelve, the way I named them.
Q. There are twelve are there not? And isn’t there another one?
A. It doesn't come to me.
Q. What are the—and I am speaking now, I am asking you to answer this from your experience in his particular [fol.396] field, and among your associates in that field and the studies that have been made in that field, what are the recognized criteria for comparing education offered in different schools?[238]
A. Well, the adequacy of, at least, the following things which I shall mention: Number one, physical facilities, plant assets, and the general total assets of an institution. The physical facilities, such as buildings, equipment, et cetera.
A. The total assets of the institution would include not only that, but endowments and other items involved. Number two, the amount of current educational funds at the disposal of the institution. Three, the curriculum, courses of study offered, or the course, as the case may be. Four, the faculty. Five, the library. Those are the five generally recognized criteria.
A. I might add, the standing of the educational institution in the educational world and in the community. I don't know whether accreditation would cover it or not, but we will say those five or six.
Q. Now then, in appreciating and comparing one school with another, or one school with a group of schools, do you use any one of these as the most important, or any group of them as the more important, or how are they considered in relative value, the six items you have mentioned?
A. I don't know how you would make any relative value. They are so interdependent it would be difficult to divorce [fol. 397 ] one from the other. You can't have a curriculum without a building and equipment. At one time we had Mark Hopkins on one end of the log and Garfield on the other, but it is different now. You can't have one of these without the other. They are interdependent.
Q. The first of the criteria mentioned was physical plant. Will you compare the physical plant at Prairie View with that of the University of Texas and other colleges and universities, public supported, that you mentioned above; which are offered to white students?
Mr. Daniel: We wish to renew the objection directly to that question. That has no bearing on any issue in this case.
The Court: I am going to hear it. I am unable yet to relate it to this.
Mr. Daniel: Our bill will go to all of it?
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir.
A. I have made a study of the plant assets, and the total institutional assets of the eleven institutions that I have mentioned, with the exception of the Texas Technological [239] College. I have used as sources for my information the audit reports of the State Auditor of these institutions, S. B. 140, and the U. S. education bulletins to which I have just referred. Now, in 1945-46 these institutions, with the ex[fol. 398]ception of Texas Technological College, had plant assets worth approximately $72,000,000.00. Probably before I go into that, Your Honor, I might state the basis upon which I am determining adequacy and the general criteria of measurement, if you please. The Court: All right.
A. Beginning with the second Morrill Act—
Q. What is the second Morrill Act?
A. That is the land grant college act in 1867.
Q. Of the United States Congress?
A. Of the United States Congress. There were four Negro schools under the act of 1862 which received some money, some of the land grant money. Then in 1890, when the second Morrill Act was passed, it made provision for all of the Negro schools to receive—all of the Negro land grant schools—to receive a portion of the money, the act reading something like this; that a just and equitable distribution shall be made. That phrase has been in the subsequent amendments, the Nelson amendment in 1922, and Section 2 of the Bankhead-Jones Amendment of 1925. In Making out the just and equitable distribution, the administrators of that fund have set up a formula as follows, or substantially as follows: That where you have separate schools and there is to be a division of these funds, that the Negro school or the school separated, or the schools separated, because in some states they have separate schools [fol.399] for several races, they would receive an amount at least, or a proportion, at least equal to the proportion which they are of the total population.
Q. Is that formula used by the U. S. Department of Education ?
A. That is in the case of the distribution of those funds.
Q. As to the U. S. Department of Education and other studies that have been made, and all of the comparisons that you have studied during your years of experience, isn't the formula that is generally used by the people in your field?
A. Among the majority, I think. I don't know all of them but I think the majority accept that.[240]
Q. Is that a formula in comparing Negro and white schools where they are separate?
A. Where money is involved.
Q. Where money is involved. Get back to the plants.
A. To explain further the formula; in the State of Texas there are roughly five and a half million white people, and, roughly, one million Negroes. Just for purposes of illustration, suppose that $11,000,000.00 were appropriated to the white schools, that would mean two dollars for each white person in the population. Therefore, I would say it was two dollars per capita total population for the whites. If in the Negro schools one million dollars were appropriated, and there were one million Negroes, that would be one dollar per capita?
A. That is one way I will use the formula [fol.400] in giving the statistics. The other way is this; the Negroes in the State of Texas constitute 14.1% of the population. Let's assume that ten million dollars were appropriated for the higher institutions in the State of Texas, Negro and white.
On the basis of this formula, it would be expected that the Negroes would receive at least $1,440,000.00, being 14% of ten million dollars. I shall use from time to time that formula in those two ways, if I may.
Q. I want to get back to the plant. I think you testified there were some $72,000,000.00 worth of assets?
A. Yes; I had better be exact about that.
Q. First, let's have that, will you? While the Attorney General is looking at them I want to ask you a few questions.
Mr. Daniel: Those are just his notes?
Mr. Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: You are not going to introduce them?
Mr. Marshall: No.
Mr. Daniel: He can read them better than I can.
The Court:
He can use them to refer to.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Using that group of papers you have in your hand to refresh your recollection, and to testify to, to go back to the comparison of the physical plant at Prairie View with these other schools—
A. All right. Now the plant assets of all of the institutions studied, the four year institutions, minus [241] the Texas Technological Institute, the plant assets of all of those institutions in 1945-1946 amounted to a total of $72,790,097.00.
Q. What was it at Prairie View, according to the same report?
A. Prairie View's plant assets were stated as being $2,170,910.00. Now, recently S. B. 140 has appropriated $2,000,000.00 for plant, so adding that to the Prairie View item, you would get a total appropriation for, or total plant assets for Negro education or higher education as being $4,170,910.00.
Q. May I ask one question there, Dr. Thompson? In arriving at any figure on the physical plant and the assets, is it not proper to include money that has been appropriated and available, even though it hasn't been spent yet?
A. Yes, that is the reason I call it plant assets, rather than physical plant. Under that formula, of $72,790,097.00, which represents the plant assets of the total institutions, if the formula had operated, that is to say, if Negro institutions had gotten 14.4% it would have totaled $10,481,773.00. Instead, however, they got a little over four million dollars. In other words, they got six million—or they didn't get six million, three hundred and ten thousand, seven hundred and sixty-three dollars which they would have gotten under the formula. [fol. 402] Now, to put it another way, and probably a little clearer, on a total per capita population basis, there were invested in plant assets of white institutions $12.88 for every white person in the State of Texas. There were invested in the Prairie View,—in the plants of Negro institutions—$4.71 for every negro in the population in Texas.
Q. Now, what about the total institutional assets of the two groups, at Prairie View, as compared to the others?
A. In the total institutional assets, they total $162,039,628.00. That is all of the institutions. Prairie View, $2,568,554.00. S. B. 140 appropriated $3,350,000.00, making a total for the Negro assets of $5,918,554.00.
Q. In order that we might have this clear, what is the difference between total institutional assets and the other material you were just giving?
A. The plant assets have to do with buildings, equipment, et cetera.
A. The total institutional assets include not [242] only that, but also all of the other assets of the institution endowment funds and all other kinds of funds.
Mr. Daniel: Now, I think he is getting into something on which the records would be the best evidence, if they are admissible at all. We would like to be on notice of what he is counting as endowment for these white schools.
Mr. Marshall: These auditor's reports have all been [fol. 403] subpoenaed, and we told the auditor we didn't want to keep him around, and we had him on call, and he is called. Do you have the reports? He is testifying exactly from the reports, and it is commenting on the basis of evidence that will be in.
The Court: Let's proceed, and you will have your evidence, and we will handle it by motion to strike, or anything else that is proper.
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. We still don't have clear what you mean by the total institutional assets. What are you reading from now?
A. The Audit Report of the University of Texas.
Q. For what year?
A. For 1945.
Q. And who is it issued by?
A. C. H. Cavness, C. P. A., State Auditor.
Q. Of the State of Texas?
A. Of the State of Texas.
Q. What page are you reading from?
A. Page 4. It includes as assets general operating funds, pledged revenue property funds, and endowment funds.
Q. Now what page are you reading from ?
A. Plant funds. Page 6. Plant funds; that is what that includes, generally.
Q. That is what it includes. All right. Now, the last [fol. 404] question before that was that the total appr-iations to the—1 mean the total institutional assets for the Negro institution at Prairie View was some five million dollars; is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. And the total—you gave the total figure for the other institutions as $162,000,000.00?
A. No, that is the total assets of all of the institutions studied, were $162,000,000.00.[243]
Q. That is the institutions of higher learning, including prairie View?
A. That is right.
Mr. Daniel: Now, Your Honor, I wish to make a further objection to the testimony in this record concerning endowment funds from private sources. In this case, if he is going to make a comparison as to State funds, and I understand that is what he said his ratio was he is testifying about, that we should distinguish between private endowment funds and gifts to this University and other schools, and limit the comparison to State funds.
Mr. Marshall: I don't think we ever took the position we were limiting this to the State funds. I don't care how the University of Texas gets it.
The Court: I don't think it would be material as to the private gifts. [fol. 405]
Mr. Marshall: But it is available.
The Court: I don't think that would work a mitigation to you as to private gifts.
Mr. Marshall: Say we have a university, that both schools get a hundred thousand dollars from the Legislature, and it happens the University of Texas has oil wells that are available and can be used tomorrow morning to build them more buildings.
The Court: Those are state properties.
Mr. Marshall: The endowment is state property.
The Court: But he is speaking of some private person who gave a thousand dollars.
Mr. Marshall: Let's ask this question.
Q. Dr. Thompson, is the figure of endowment included in the auditor's report of the State of Texas as an asset of the University of Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. It is included as an asset in there?
A. Yes.
Mr. Daniel: May it please the Court, may I ask him one Question for the objection?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Daniel: Do you know whether or not that endowment included as assets comes from State funds or private funds?
A. The one I am going to refer to in a moment comes [fol.406] from state funds. [244]
Mr. Daniel: I am talking about your total you have been testifying about on the University of Texas. Are you in a position to testify whether or not that total endowment and the other assets came from State or private funds?
Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please—
Mr. Daniel: Have you broken that down to see where the funds come from?
A. It is broken down in the report, but it is included in this figure.
Mr. Daniel: What I am asking you about—
A. Whether I have used these funds—
Mr. Daniel: Your total on the endowment funds is what?
A. $61,000,000.00.
Mr. Daniel: $61,000,000.00?
A. From the State.
Mr. Daniel: Well, that is owned by the State now, you mean?
A. Yes, this came from the State.
Mr. Daniel: Do you know whether or not that endowment came from the State? It is listed under State. Do yon know of your own knowledge whether that came from the State or private sources?
A. This report indicates it came from the State. There [fol. 407] are other funds which presumably are the ones which you are referring to, but the $61,000,000.00 came from the State.
Mr. Daniel: I want to preserve my bill on it.
Mr. Marshall: I just remember the testimony that they are relying on, on supposed gifts to our law school to make it equal. They relied on that all day yesterday.
The Court: Yes, I understand.
Mr. Daniel: We testified to it as a gift. Here we want to know what is a gift, and what is State funds, that is all.
Marshall: That is all right.
A. Shall I proceed?
Q. Yes, Doctor.
A. As I was saying, the total institutional assets of white institutions amounts to $28.66 for each white person in the population. In the Negro schools it equals $6.40 for each Negro ill the total Negro population. In other words, the whites have almost four and a half times, to be exact, 4.47 times as much in total assets per capita of the population as the Negroes.[245]
Q. Now, as to the proportion of the population, will you use the figures that are used as to the proportion of the population in the State of Texas?
A. Do I have those figures?[fol. 408]
Q. No, I said, will you give those as to this particular institutional assets, if the formula you mentioned above had been used?
A. If the formula, that is, the 14.4% had been used, Negro higher education would have totaled institutional assets of $23,333,706.00, or $17,445,152.00 more than they actually were. Now, the total assets of the white institutions are proportionately much greater than the plant assets, as you can sec, largely because of the large endowment fund which the University of Texas has by reason of money or lands or other material things given by the State.  In other words, the University of Texas has an endowment from the State listed as $61,277,162.00 in 1945. Now, if the formula were operative as far as Negro higher education is concerned, Negroes would have had an endowment fund from the State which totaled $8,923,911.00 of the above amount. Now, Prairie View, the only endowment fund that I could find for Prairie View is $26,000.00 in U. S. Government securities listed in the A. & M. audit report for 1945.
Q. Well, now getting to the question of one of the criteria of the current educational, that is, as of the last audit report, limiting it strictly to the current educational funds, will you compare Prairie View with the other schools?
A. In 1943-1944, the latest complete statistics available, in the U. S. Office of Education for all of the schools, in[fol. 409]cluding those in Texas, I say, all of the schools because I want to compare those with some of the other schools, there is appropriated—
Mr. Daniel: You say that is 1943—what?
A. 1943-1944.
Mr. Daniel: The fiscal year 1943-44?
A. U. S. Office of Education Bulletin for '43-44, for that Year.
Mr. Daniel: I want to make the further objection, if this testimony is considered by the Court, what has gone [246] heretofore wouldn't have any bearing on the case. Certainly the part back in 1943 wouldn't have any bearing on this case, and the facts as they exist today in this Court. We object to it as wholly irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on what is available today.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. May I ask another question? Are those the latest figures in the U. S. Department of Education?
A. They are.
Q. That is our basis for it, the latest available figures that you can use for the comparison, and the 1943-1944 is the latest thing we can get, and I think it goes to its weight rather than its admissibility.
The Court: I think so.
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
A. In 1943-'44 Texas appropriated $11,071,490.00 in [fol.410] State, County and District funds for higher education in Texas. They appropriated to white institutions $10,858,018.00. In other words, $1.98 for each white person in the white population in Texas. Now, in the case of the Negro institutions, or to the Negro institutions, there were appropriated $213,472.00, or 23 to every Negro in the total population, or for every Negro in the total population. In other words, $1.98 for the white, 23 for the Negro. The whites in this instance, white institutions got eight times, 8.06 times, to be exact, as much as the Negro.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. You mean per capita?
A. Per capita.
Q. Dr. Thompson, did you examine the appropriations of the 49th Legislature?
A. I did.
Q. What figures did that show?
A. That showed total appropriation, excluding such things as appropriation for firemen's training, teaching hospitals for the medical branch at Galveston and cooperative extension and the like; the total amount of money appropriated for purely educational purposes in the State of Texas was $11,476,519.00 for 1946, and $11,469,478.00 for 1947. Now, to the white four year State higher institutions [247] there were appropriated in 1947 $11,066,519.00, and in 1947 $11,059,478.00 to the white schools. Now to the Negro [fol.411] school, Prairie View, there were appropriated $410,000.00, which included $25,000.00 for the scholarship fund, for each of the years 1946 and 1947.
Q. When you say scholarship fund—
A. The out of state scholarship fund for Negro students. On the basis of the formula which I have described, Negro institutions, higher institutions, State supported institutions, should have gotten in 1946 $1,652,618.00. In 1947 they would have gotten $1,651,684.00. May I correct that last figure? $1,651,604.00 is the correct figure. In other words, in 1947 and 1946 the State supported white institutions got $2.01 per capita on the basis of the total population, and the Negro schools for the same years got 44 for each Negro of the total Negro population in Texas.
Q. Now, did that figure include the two appropriations of $500,000.00 in S. B. 140?
A. No, it did not, but assuming that to include it, the two appropriations of $500,000.00, which would make $1,000,000.00, for 1947, for this year, and add it to the $410,000.00 which Prairie View got, which would give you $1,410,000.00 the Negroes got, figured per capita on the basis of the total population, it would be $1.53 as against $2.01 for the whites.
Q. And that assumes that the whole million is spent in one year?
A. That is right. [fol. 412]
Q. Well, now going back to the reports of the United States Office of Education for the years 1945 and 1946, and I ask you if the figures you are about to use are the latest figures available?
A. That is right.
Q. Will you compare them, school by school, as best you can?
A. In 1945-1946, Prairie View had 1,576 students. The State contributed to Prairie View $346,250.00 for current expenses.
Mr. Daniel: Hold it just a minute.
A. I would be glad to make these figures available to the Attorney General.[248]
Mr. Daniel: I am having to get it as you go along.
A. I will make it available to you.
Mr. Daniel: I want to get it right now as we go along.
A. The school year 1945-1946.
The Court: We will take a few minutes' recess.
Court was recessed at 11:05 a.m., until 11:20 a.m, at which time proceedings were resumed as follows:
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. May it please the Court, the documents we are talking about, most of them, have come in, these Federal Reports of the United States Department of Education. They have all been certified by the individual officer in the Department of Education, the Executive Assistant, and the certification is pursuant to Section 1601, Chapter 10, Title 42, [fol. 413] United States Code. The Court will take judicial knowledge of them, but we would like to introduce them, with the right of either side—
Mr. Daniel: Do you mean offer the entire volumes?
Mr. Marshall: Sure, with the right of either side to use any part thereof.
Mr. Daniel: We certainly object.
The Court: It would seem to me that would be too big, to put it all in. Just offer the part which is pertinent to this case.
Mr. Marshall: The idea is that the testimony by Dr. Thompson is being made from these records, and I wanted to leave them in until the close of the hearing so that if there is any question, we can go to the documents.
Mr. Daniel: They will be available here.
The Court: Yes, but not introduced in evidence.
Mr. Marshall: That is perfectly all right, but I wanted you to know that we had them. If Your Honor please, in order to keep the record straight, I think the procedure we should follow is that if Dr. Thompson refers to those documents, that we reserve the right, before the case closes, to put in the particular pages of the documents that he has been referring to, and we will let him pick the pages out.
The Court: I think that is all right. [249]
Mr. Marshall: And that his testimony is on that basis.[fol. 414]
Q. Do you remember where you left off?
A. I was at Prairie View, and East State Teachers College.
Q. That is right.
A. I was saying that Prairie View, with 1,576 students, got from the State in 1945-1946, $346,250.00. East State Teachers College, which is a white institution with 1,205 students, got from the State for current educational expense $448,749.00. In other words, East State Teachers got 30% more money than Prairie View, which had 29.6% more students.
Q. May I ask one question there? Was Prairie View giving, in addition to its regular liberal arts education, did it also purport to be giving graduate training?
A. Prairie View is the teachers college, A. & M. College and University for Negroes in Texas.
Q. And it purports to give Master's training, too, does it not?
A. It does.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. To put it another way, that the student appropriation for East State Teachers College was $372.40; for Prairie View the per student appropriation was $219.70.
Q. You are sure that figure is $219.00?
A. $219.00. East State Teachers had a per student appropriation from the State which was 69.4% larger than the per student appropriation to Prairie View. East State [fol. 415] Teachers College had a per student appropriation from the State which was 45.8% larger than Prairie View's per student appropriation, from both the State and the Federal Government.
The appropriation from the State per student for five teachers colleges for white was $296.10, 34.5% more per student than for Prairie View, and those teachers colleges were East State Teachers, Sul Ross, Southwest, Sam Houston, and North State Teachers.
Now, the proposed appropriation in 11. B. 246 in the 50th Legislature carried for 1948, eliminating the items which I have mentioned previously in my testimony as quasi-
education, a total of $23,125,323.00 for 1948. For 1949, 27,389—[250]
Mr. Daniel: What are you reading from now, for 1948 and 1949?
A. The proposed appropriation for 1948 and 1949, H. B. 246 of the 50th Legislature.
Mr. Daniel: I don't think that has been enacted yet.
Mr. Daniel: That hasn't been enacted.
The Court: I don't think it has been enacted.
Mr. Marshall: I don't think it has been, either, sir; we, therefore, move to strike that portion of it.
A. Now, as a consequence of such differences as I have indicated in financial support, the Negro has been educa[fol. 416]tionally disadvantaged over the years in Texas so far as Texas public higher education is concerned.
Mr. Daniel: We object to that as a conclusion of the witness, Your Honor. He testified to comparative funds. Now he is about to draw a conclusion as to whether or not there has been educational disadvantage on account of that.
Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please, I will be very glad to ask him a question, and then we will get the objection straight.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Thompson, from your experience over a period of years of comparing the educational facilities available to white and Negro students in segregated public school systems, and the recognized treatises you have read on that subject, and I mean scientific treatises, as a result of your work in inspecting colleges and the knowledge you have obtained therefrom, what is your opinion as to the equality of educational facilities offered by the State of Texas to its white and negro students, limiting your opinion to college; graduate and professional training?
Mr. Daniel: We object to that, Your Honor. It has no bearing in this case. His question should be limited to the schools involved in this case, if it is to have any material bearing at all on the case.
The Court: I believe I will hear it. [fol.417]
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
A. The objection has removed the question.[251]
The Court: He will read it back to you.
The reporter read to Dr. Thompson the last question as shown above.
A. The answer is that Negroes are seriously disadvantaged both from the point of opportunities and relative accomplishment. In the first place—
Mr. Daniel: Now—
The Court: That answers it.
Mr. Marshall: That answers it.
Q. Now, is that based—I want to ask whether or not your answer includes the studies you have made in Texas or not, that you have testified about?
A. Yes.
Q. It does include that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you explain to the Court your reasons for your opinion which you have just given?
A. Well, I have three reasons. In the first place, twice as many white students are provided opportunity in the public higher institutions in Texas as Negroes, and I would like to quote, if it is permissible, from a study, "Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas," which was made at the direction of the Biracial Conference on Education for Negroes in Texas, Professor T. S. Montgomery, of the Sam [fol. 418] Houston Teachers College, Chairman of the Committee for Study, Dean B. F. Pittenger of the School of education of the University of Texas, Chairman of the Steering Committee. The study was made and printed about—at least printed, in 1944, presumably made between 1942 and 1944.
Mr. Daniel: Made by whom? You so far leave the impression it is Dean Pittenger.
A. It was made at the direction of the Biracial Conference. Dean Pittenger was the Chairman of the Steering Committee, and Professor Montgomery was the Chairman of the Committee for the study, and wrote up the study, the report.
Mr. Daniel: That clears it up.
A. Now, this report states the following, and I quote:[252]
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. What page?
A. Page 24 and part, of 25.

"Texas provided through State-supported senior institutions of higher education for 66.8% of white students enrolled in senior colleges, but for only 31.8% of her Negro students in senior colleges. The ratio of the percentage that the Negro students in the State college are of all Negro college students to the percentage that the white students in State-supported senior colleges are of all white senior college students, is 1 to 2.1. In other words, the State is bearing twice [fol. 419] the burden of providing opportunity for higher education for whites than she is providing such opportunities for Negroes. A disproportionate burden is placed on private effort in providing opportunity for higher education for Negroes."

On page 25:

"The ratio of the number of white students to Negro students in State-supported colleges per thousand of youth of each race, age 15 to 20 is 5 to 1. On this basis the State is providing five times as much opportunity for higher education in State-supported colleges for white youth as it is for its Negro youth."

Mr. Daniel: Give us the date of that report.
A. It is dated April, 1944. Now, in the second place, I said that the differences in financial support resulted in differences in educational accomplishment. In the last census, which was the sixteenth census, in 1940, for the first time the U. S. Bureau of Census attempted to find out the educational level of the population; so that they obtained from all persons 25 years old and over certain information concerning how much education you have had, how many years, et cetera.  It was found in the State of Texas that 218,225 persons, or 8% of the population 25 [fol. 420] years old and older have from one to three years of college. That is white. In the case of Negroes 11,704, or 2.5%. Over three times, to be exact, 3.2 times as many whites had one to three years of college as Negro.
Those who had had four years or more of college among whites constituted 5%. Among the Negroes, 1.2%, again, about three times as many.[253]
Mr. Daniel: I would like to know where you are getting those figures.
A. The U. S. Census Report for the State of Texas.
Mr. Daniel: Do you have them for the northern states also in that book?
A. That is Texas.
Mr. Daniel: That is all right. I will ask you about it later.
A. I said a moment ago that the Negro was disadvantaged in this respect, particularly from the point of view of college because, as we all know, an individual has to have two or three years of college before he can get in a law school or medical school or dental school, to say nothing about other areas in which college training is necessary. Now, in the third place, a similar situation exists on the professional level.
Take the matter of doctors. In Texas there were 6,076 white doctors, 164 Negro doctors. In other words, there [fol. 421] were of the white doctors I to every 903 of the white population in Texas, and one Negro doctor to every 5,637 of the Negro population.
Thus, on the basis of population, there are more than six times, in fact, 6.24 times as many doctors in proportion to the white population as there are Negro doctors in proportion to the Negro population. For the sake of comparison, in Tennessee, where the Meharry Medical School is located, to which Negroes are admitted, there are almost three times, in fact, to be exact, 2.8 times as many Negro doctors in Tennessee as there are in Texas, where Negroes have no medical school to which they can be admitted. Take the matter of dentists,—
By Mr. Marshall
Q. First, one question there. State whether Meharry Medical College is a fully accredited medical college or not.
A. It is.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Take the matter of dentists. The number of male dentists in the State of Texas, white, are 1,901; Negro 81. The ratio of white dentists to white population is 1 dentist, to every 2,886 of the white population, one Negro dentist to every 11,412 of the Negro population. There are almost. four times, to be exact, 3.9 times as many white dentists in [254] proportion to the white population as there are Negro den[fol.422]tists in proportion to the Negro population. Again, taking Tennessee for comparison, in Tennessee where the Meharry Dental College is located to which Negroes are admitted, there are twice as many Negro dentists as there are Negro dentists in Texas, where Negroes have no dental school to which they can go.
In the District of Columbia, where the Howard University Dental School is, there are almost four times as many Negro dentists in proportion to the Negro population as there are Negro dentists in proportion to the Negro population in Texas.
Q. What about engineers, Dr. Thompson?
A. In the case of engineers in Texas, there are 8,961 white engineers in Texas. In the case of Negroes, there are 6 Negro engineers in Texas. The ratio of white engineers to the white population is one to every 612 of the white population. The ratio of Negro engineers and Negro population is one Negro engineer to every 154,065 Negroes. In other words, there are over 250 times as many white engineers in the State of Texas in proportion to the white population as there are Negro engineers in proportion to the Negro population.
Now, finally, take the matter of lawyers. In Texas, and all of these figures are from the 1940 Census.
Q. That is the latest census?
A. That is right. In Texas there were 7,701 white lawyers. There were 23 Negro lawyers. The ratio of white lawyers [fol. 423] to the white population was one white lawyer to every 712 of the white population, one Negro lawyer to every 40,191 of the Negro population. In other words, there were 56 times as many white lawyers in proportion to the white population as there were Negro lawyers in proportion to the Negro population.
Q. Dr. Thompson, getting to the next point of comparison between Prairie View and the other schools, will you compare the curriculum at Prairie View, first, with the curriculum at other schools?
A. May I make this introductory statement about the curriculum? The curriculum and faculty and library are the very heart of an institution. However, you must have sufficient financial resources in order to have an adequate curriculum or adequate library or adequate faculty.[255]
Q. When you say you have to have sufficient funds to have an adequate faculty, are you or not speaking from your experience in getting a faculty for the graduate school at Howard?
A. I am.
Q. You have been in that field for quite a while, and know quite a bit about that?
A. About 15 or 20 years.
Q. Let's compare the curriculum.
A. First, let's take the under-graduate curriculum. [fol. 424]
Q. What is this testimony based on?
A. This is based on the National Survey of Higher Education for Negroes, which was a U. S. Office publication, and also upon the catalogue study of Texas A. & M., University of Texas, and Prairie View.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. The National Survey of Higher Education for Negroes, to which I have just referred, in the making of this survey, found out in Texas that there were 106 under graduate fields of specialization in the white State supported institutions, and 49 in the Negro institution, Prairie View. In other words, there were about twice as many fields of under graduate specialization in the white institutions as in Prairie View.
Now, I have made an analysis, or used the sources, the Texas A. & M. Catalogue and the University of Texas Catalogue, the Texas A. & M. Catalogue states, and that is for 1946-1947, page 10, general information; there are 45 departments of under graduate specialization.
Prairie View University has 13 departments of specialization. In other words, A. & M. has more than three times as many. In the case of engineers, engineering is offered in four white technical schools with eight different curriculum leading to engineering degrees. No such curricula was offered at Prairie View, except that you might call mechanical arts education, or industrial education, engineering.
[fol.425] There are, however, a number of sub-collegiate, or high school trade courses given at Prairie View, such as broom making and mattress making; auto mechanics, carpentry, laundering and dry cleaning, plumbing;, shoe repairing tailoring and the like.
Q. Dr. Thompson, in your experience in the field of education, do you know of any other university in the country [256] that will give credit toward a degree in liberal arts college for broom making and mattress making? I am talking about universities, not colleges or institutes. Do you know of any recognized, accredited university?
A. No, I don't know of any. I am trying to think. There are several institutions which give similar courses. I don't know of any other institution that gives broom making and mattress making.
Q. Isn't it true that those are the subjects that arc usually taught in the high schools or lower vocational schools?
A. That is correct.
Q. For example, do they teach any of the subjects you have mentioned at Howard?
A. No.
Q. Do they teach—did you find in the catalogue of either A. & M. or the University of Texas, or any other of the schools you have talked about broom making and mattress making? [fol.426]
A. No, I did not.
Q. Auto mechanics or carpentering, or any of those?
A. No.
Q. You can go ahead, if you will, Dr. Thompson, to the graduate level of curricula.
A. Yes. I might mention in connection with the under graduate field, if I may, because it connects up with the graduate field—
Q. Go right ahead.
A. The chemistry department, the chemistry department, which is a very important department in a land grand institution; the chemistry department at Prairie View is not accredited by the American Chemical Society. I did find they wore approved at Texas A. & M. and the University of Texas.
Q. What effect does that have on a student who wants to do graduate work?
A. It means if he wants to do it in chemistry he has to be conditioned a year or a half year; for example, a student coming to us without physical chemistry, which is a thing not given in one of these departments, would have to take year of that before he could begin his graduate school in chemistry.
Q. You are speaking of Howard Graduate School?
A. Yes, sir.[257]
Q. Is that true in all of the other schools that you know of?
A. I should imagine so. I know it is true in some. I don't [fol. 427] know about all of them. The graduate school is of recent origin. It began about the date of the Gaines decision, which was around 1938. In the fall of 1946 nine state Negro colleges in eight southern states gave graduate work in at least one field.
In Texas Prairie View and the Houston College were the Negro institutions giving graduate work. They had a combined enrollment at Prairie View for the regular term and summer of 1946 of 229; Houston College, 308, making a total of 537 students. Graduate work is given in all of the white four year State high institutions in Texas.
The regular term enrollment in white State graduate schools in 1945 was 2,358. Thirteen white State institutions gave 2,846 Master's Degrees and 212 doctorates during the period 1940 to 1945. That is from the Director of Colleges, universities offering graduate work relating to Master and Doctor Degrees, 1940 to 1945, U. S. Office of Education.
Prairie View gave during this same period 103 Master's Degrees and 55 Negro students got Master's Degrees on the out of state scholarship fund, and six doctorates on the out of state scholarship fund between 1939 and 1943, making a total of 159 Negroes who got graduate degrees during approximately a five year period, as contrasted with some 3,000 white students who got graduate degrees in the same period. Now, in general, the range of offerings in white [fol. 428] graduate schools, whether in Texas or in other southern states, is wider than in the Negro graduate school. The National Survey of Higher Education for Negroes, to which I have referred, a U. S. Office publication, indicated in 1942 that the Texas state supported higher institutions for whites offered graduate work in 65 fields, and 5 for Negroes.
At the present time Prairie View offers graduate work in 13 fields, and the Texas A. & M. 45 fields. The University of Texas gives 10 different types of graduate degrees in 40 fields. Prairie View gives a Master's Degree in 13 fields.
The Court: I suppose this would be a good point, then, to resume, then, at two o'clock.
(Court was recessed at 12 noon May 15, 1947 until 2 p. m., May 15,1947.)
17—725[258]
[fol. 429] Afternoon Session, May 15, 1947. 2:00 P. M.
Dr. Charles H. Thompson, having resumed the stand, testified further as follows:
Direct examination. (Continued.)
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Thompson, when we closed I think you were testifying as to the curriculum of the under graduate schools.
A. No, I was on graduate schools.
Q. Continue on the graduate schools.
A. The University of Texas and A & M. College of Texas, between the period of 1940 and 1945 gave 212 doctorates. Now, if a Negro wishes to obtain a Doctor's Degree in the State of Texas, the only recourse he has in so doing is through what is admittedly an inadequate scholarship fund.
Mr. Daniel: I want to—
The Court: Well, I think that part "admittedly"—you can withdraw that.
Mr. Marshall: I withdraw that.
Mr. Daniel: The inadequate part, too, unless followed by some proof.
The Court: That is right.
Mr. Daniel: Admittedly inadequate.
[fol. 430] By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Doctor, we will get to that later.
A. All right. Now, in order for a Negro to be eligible for an out of state scholarship to do graduate or professional work, he must be a resident of Texas; he must have resided in the State of Texas for eight years. In order for a white student to do graduate work, all he has to do is be white, and maybe a resident of Texas, because out of state students are admitted in the graduate school at the University of Texas. The out of state scholarship fund provides $100 a semester in all fields except medicine, where it is $150 a semester.
It provides round-trip to the school of the student's choice at three cents a mile, less the following items: the tuition fee paid to the University of Texas, which is stated as $25 a semester, less the round-trip fare from the students [259] home to Prairie View. The student may also get ten percent of the total award. In other words, a student may get a maximum of $165.00 for tuition for the regular year, that is two semesters, and three cents a mile for transportation, less the round-trip from Prairie View.
Now, I have an illustration that was given on the Scholarship Committee Report of a student who wished to attend Columbia University, taking fifteen percent. The tuition was approximately $407.00, the railroad fare was $96.00. That student received from the scholarship fund $165.00 for tuition and $70.00 for railroad fare, making something [fol. 431] like $235.00 out of a total which he would have to pay, merely for railroad fare and tuition to go to Teachers College, Columbia University, of five hundred and eight dollars and some cents, making the student pay $237.00 himself.
Now, the cost per student at the University of Texas in 1945-1946, at the Main University was $511.00. At the Texas A & M. College, after eliminating the funds for cooperative extension, the cost of instruction per student was $734.00 for the same year. The State spends $200 to $500 more in these institutions to educate a white graduate student than they spend on the Negro student who wishes to do graduate work on a scholarship.
Q. Dr. Thompson, how important is the question of opportunity to do research in a well recognized and well organized university?
A. It is very important indeed.
Q. Have you made any comparison as to the research Opportunities available at Prairie View with the other colleges you have mentioned?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is the result of your study, please? .
A. The results show, taking a sample of five white high institutions of cour[sic] years, shows that they expended in 1945, 1946, $2,753,809.00 for separately organized and [fol.432] budgeted research. Prairie View received for that year, 1945-1946 nothing, as in previous years, for separately budgeted and organized research. 
On the basis of the formula which I described this morning, Prairie View or Negro higher education would have received $396,547.00. In 1946 Prairie View was voted $10,000.00 by the Texas A. & M. Board of Directors of the Experiment Station to set up a sub experiment station at [260] Prairie View to be known as Sub-Experiment Station No. 18. This is all of the money that Prairie View has received, to my knowledge, for research.
The Federal Government in 1945 made an appropriation, or gave Texas A.& M. College $251,288.00 for experiment station research. In taking into account the amount of money that the State puts in, if the formula had operated, Prairie View or Negro higher education would have received $36,185.00.
Q. The question was raised as to how much did they receive, Prairie View?
A. $10,000.00 in 1946 for the special purpose of setting up that Sub-Experiment Station No. 18.
Q. That came from Texas A. & M.?
A. That is right.
Q. Have you compared the professional curriculum of Prairie View with other schools?
A. I have. [fol. 433]
Q. What are the results of your studies on that?
A. Well, in medicine, I might state, as a general background, that there arc three Class A medical schools in the State of Texas; two private, Baylor and Southwestern, and one public, the medical branch of the University of Texas. The University of Texas catalogue, 1945-1946, lists 353 students. They receive from the State for current expense, not counting the amount of money that went to the three hospitals which are used for clinical purposes, $694,165.00 for the year ending 1946. In other words, there was a cost per student of around $1,800.00 or $1,900.00. Now, a Negro student who wants to take medicine in the State of Texas, his only recourse is to the scholarship fund, which I have mentioned previously. Even if the student attended McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and I pick that because it is the farthest away and it would cost more for travel, he would get less than $500.00 for mileage. McGill is 2,100 miles. The State spends more to educate a white medical student in the University of Texas than they spend on a Negro student through the scholarship fund, and there are six times as many white doctors in the State of Texas in proportion to white population as there are Negro doctors in proportion to the Negro population.
Now, taking the matter of dentistry, the State pays around" $1,500.00 per dental student. A Negro who wishes to study [fol. 434] dentistry can not get more than $400.00 from the [261] scholarship. Thus, the State spends a thousand to eleven hundred dollars more for the dental education of a white student than for a Negro student through the scholarship fund, which probably explains why there are almost four times as many white dentists in proportion to the white population than there are Negro dentists in proportion to the Negro population.
Q. Without comparing the curricula at all, or other items, how many accredited law schools do the records show there are in Texas?
A. Three—let's see. Yes, three, Baylor and S. M. U. and a public law school, the University of Texas.
Mr. Daniel: Accredited by whom?
A. The American Bar Association.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Now, getting to the fourth point of the criteria to compare schools, public education in general, did you compare the faculty at Prairie View with the faculty at these other schools you have testified to?
A. I have.
Q. What do the results of your examination show?
A. I might say that the basis of my examination is twofold. Number one, salary; number two, training. Obviously, to have a good faculty and to hold it, you have got to pay them attractive salaries and give them satisfactory [fol. 435] working conditions. That is why I took salaries from the point of view of training. I wanted to see whether or not the training at Prairie View seemed to be, or some of the members, at least, seemed to be equal to the training of some of the white teachers in some of the white State teachers colleges and other higher institutions, which got high salaries.
Now, as to salaries, the salaries in general at Prairie View are too low, in general, to attract and hold a sufficiently large number of good teachers, or even to meet the com-petition from other Negro colleges, as I will point out in a moment..
Q. Do you, as Dean of the Graduate School of Howard University, have any knowledge as to the necessities of this Negro university as to faculty members?
A. Very definitely so.[262]
Q. Is the item of salary an item that is at least a part of the consideration?
A. A very large part.
Q. Go right ahead.
A. Now, I would like to refer again, if I may, to the study that I referred to, Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas, in which two statements, at least, were made concerning salaries. Page 36, the first statement, and it is as follows, and I quote:
"With reference to Prairie View, further study was [fol. 436] made to determine the number of faculty members who had accepted offers from institutions out-side of Texas. Investigation disclosed that twenty-five 'well prepared and able teachers' were lost to other institutions within the past five years because of the inability of Prairie View 'to match their salary offers.' Of the twenty-five faculty members lost, eleven held the degree of Doctor of Philosophy."
The next quotation, page 39:
"In no professorial rank is the median salary in Prairie View equal to the lower limits of the range in State supported white colleges. The median salary of a full professor in Prairie View is $2,025.00, while the lowest salary paid a full professor in a State supported white college is $2,700.00. The corresponding figures for associate professor are $1,530.00 and $2,000.00; for assistant professor, $1,520.00 and $1,800.00; and for instructor, $1,170.00 and $1,500.00."
Now, not only was that statement true in 1942 or 1943, when it was gathered for this study; the same is true in 1946 and 1947. Except one white teacher in thirteen white State supported higher institutions, holding comparable positions in comparable departments, the highest salary paid a full [fol. 437] professor in Prairie View is lower than the lowest salary paid a white professor in any one of these thirteen institutions, on a nine months basis.
Again, the principal—
Mr. Daniel: May I interrupt there? May I get this down to date? What is the date of it?[263]
A. 1946 and 1947.
Mr. Daniel: And the data you read a minute ago was—
A. From this book in 1944, which was in 1942 or 1943. The principal of Prairie View in 1946-1947 got a salary that was $1,000.00 less than the lowest paid head of any four year State supported institution in Texas.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. In going through the records of these several institutions, did you find any other institution in Texas giving college and graduate work that has a principal at the head of it?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Have you ever heard of any University in the United States giving graduate work that is headed up by a person with the title of principal?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. What is the usual title?
A. President or chancellor, or something of the sort.
Q. Go right ahead. [fol. 438]
A. Now, Prairie View's faculty as a whole obviously—I won't say obviously—Prairie View's faculty as a whole isn't adequately trained. However, there are some adequately trained teachers at Prairie View, and naturally they should be paid accordingly. Let's look at the training for the moment. In 1940-1941, and this is found in the National Survey of Higher Education for Negroes, page 31, —page 14, 8.33% held the Doctor's Degree, 45.5% held the Master's Degree. In 1942-1943,—this is from the Senior colleges this study here, Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas, in 1942-1943, 6% had the Doctor's Degree and 52% had the Master's Degree. In 1945-1946, according to the Prairie View catalogue, and the degrees listed therein, 9.3% had a Doctor's Degree 52.3% has the Master's Degree. I said a moment ago that Prairie View would obviously have to raise salaries considerably in order to meet the competition of other Negro colleges. There arc some four or five Negro colleges, to my knowledge, that pay as much as $5,000.00 for a full professor.
Q. Isn't it also true that in recent years Negroes have been given opportunities to teach in colleges that are not designated as Negro universities?[264]
A. That is true. There are some fifty or sixty Negroes now teaching in northern institutions.
Q. So that you have additional competition now? [fol. 439]
A. That is right.
Q. You go right ahead.
A. The library, obviously, is very important. It is the life-blood of graduate work. The present library holdings of Prairie View are 25,000 titles, 465 serials.
Q. I think we know what titles are. What are serials?
A. Any sort of thing that runs in serial magazines and proceedings which run in serials. Leaving out of account the library at the University of Texas, which is one of the best university libraries in the south, it certainly has the largest collection of any university in the south, and taking the State Teachers Colleges libraries, the holding of white State Teachers Colleges libraries in Texas are larger than Prairie View. For example, the holdings of twelve white, lour year schools, that is, teachers colleges and four schools in 1945, ranged from 28,357 in the Texas College of Arts and Industries, to 750,974 in Texas University.
North State Teachers College had more books, 144,426, than all the Negro public and private colleges in the State of Texas in 1945. The number of books that the negro colleges in Texas was supposed to have in 1945 was one hundred and ten thousand and something.
Now, East State Teachers College, with 1205 students in 1945-1946, had library holdings of 81,974 volumes in 1945, as compared with Prairie View in 1947 with 1619 and [fol. 440] 25,000 volumes.
The Southwest State Teachers. College, with a student body of 957 students, had 56,612 volumes in the library in 1945. The Sam Houston Teachers College, with 1401 students in 1945-1946 had 63,100 volumes in the library in 1945.
Q. Dr. Thompson, from your experience as Dean of the Graduate School of Howard University, is it one of your responsibilities to ascertain as to whether or not that library is kept up to standards for accredited graduate schools?
A. That is true.
Q. And in your position as inspector for the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, is it one of your jobs to inspect, as to the adequacy of libraries in the colleges ?[265]
A. Yes.
Q. On the basis of your experience in those two fields over a period of years, what is your opinion as to the adequacy of the facilities which you saw and inspected at Prairie View last week?
A. Well, frankly, they are inadequate.
Q. Did you see the library at the University of Texas, for example?
A. I didn't go in it.
Q. Are you acquainted with the number of books in it?
A. I am acquainted with the holdings.
Q. How does Prairie View library, regardless of the num[fol.441]ber—just the number of books—is there any semblance of equality between the two?
A. There would not appear to be.
Q. And the figures you have given on the books are figures that arc used in that opinion of yours; is that correct?
A. That is right.
Q. Do you believe that Prairie View's library is adequate to maintain a graduate school?
A. In fact, Prairie View doesn't have a first class under graduate library. That isn't only my opinion, but the opinion of this survey committee. They quoted the late Dr. Bishop, who was one of the outstanding librarians, who was last at Michigan, if I may quote that, page 64, and this is the quotation:
"A well selected library of 50,000 volumes will per-haps suffice for the needs of sound teaching in a college of not more than 500 students. This number (does not include duplicates."
Q. Does Prairie View have anywhere near that amount?
A. They have 25,000 volumes.
Q. And how many students?
A. 1619, I think I mentioned that a moment ago, 1619 students.
Q. Dr. Thompson, in the earlier part of your testimony, I think your last criteria was the one of—I don't think this is the exact phrase for it—accreditation or standing in the [fol. 442] scholarly world. Did you check on the accreditation of Prairie View with the other public supported schools in this state?
A. I did.[266]
Q. What was the result of that study?
A. Well, the results that I found are as follows: I might explain, in order to explain what the results mean, the highest accreditation which any college can get in this country is to get on the approved list of the Association of American Universities. The highest accreditation that a university can get is to be a member of the Association of American Universities. There are three white State schools on the approved list of the Association of American Universities; Texas A. & M, North Texas State Teachers, and Texas College for Women.
Q. What about the University of Texas?
A. The University of Texas is a member of the Association of American Universities.
Q. Is Prairie View a member?
A. No, Prairie View is not a member.
Q. Is it accredited by that association?
A. No.
Q. Well, did you—about how much accreditation did you find Prairie View to have?
A. Prairie View is accredited by the regional association [fol. 443] in this area, the Southern Association.
Q. Does it carry any other accreditation that is recorded in the legal proceedings, that you know of?
A. Not that I know of, except the State accredits the institution, of course.
Q. Well, now, what about for example, the Medical School of the University of Texas? Is that accredited or not?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the—it is already in about the Law School. What about the School of Engineering?
A. The School of Engineering is accredited by the Engineering Council for Professional—I will give you the name of it—Engineering Council for Professional Development.
Q. Dr. Thompson, as a result of your study that you have made of Prairie View with the other schools and universities in this state that are publicly supported, can you compare favorably—can you compare Prairie View favorably with any one of them?
A. I don't think so, at present. I can't think of any institution that it would compare—would you define "compare favorably" for me, so that I may be sure to know what you are talking about? [267] Q. Pick the smallest State teachers college in Texas— your mind. Tell the Court whether or not there is any State supported school in the State of Texas that will give a Negro the equivalent of the education that can be obtained by a [ fol. 444] white student in the smallest of the teachers colleges in Texas.
A. I doubt if I can answer that.
Q. I will ask you this. In your criteria you used to compare the schools, how do you compare Prairie View with the University of Texas?
A. There is no comparison there. I can answer that.
Q. What do you mean, there is no comparison?
A. I mean that Texas University is a university. Prairie View is the university—I don't know how else to say it. It is a poor college.
Q. And it isn't—and is it or is it not a university in the field of general educational policies?
A. You mean on paper?
Q. No, as it exists today. Is it or is it not a real university?
A. No, it is not a real university.
Q. Can it give to the Negro student the type of education that is given to the white student at the University of Texas?
A. Not at all.
Q. Can a graduate student attending Prairie View University get the type of education that a graduate student at the University of Texas can get?
A. I doubt it very seriously.
Q. In your experience in your field of education, and as Dean of the Graduate School, is it possible to put graduate [fol. 445] work, adequate graduate work training on to a school that gives inferior under graduate training?
A. If I may turn the question around, I would say it is highly undesirable. It is possible to put it on there and have just as poor graduate work as you have under graduate work.
Q. Would it inevitably follow that the graduate work would be inferior?
A. I think so.
Q. Your witness. [268]
Cross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:
Q. Dr. Thompson, you are not opposed to good separate schools for Negroes, are you?
A. Would you mind elaborating on that question?
Q. I mean, based on your experience as an educator, for the best interests of all of the people concerned, are you opposed to having the establishment of good separate schools for Negroes?
A. Emphatically, yes.
Q. You are opposed to it?
A. I am.
Q. Do you know Ambrose Caliver?
A. Yes, I know Dr. Caliver.
Q. Is he a Negro or a white man?
A. He is a negro.[fol. 446]
Q. Are you acquainted with his summary made for the National Survey of Higher Education of Negroes for the United States Department of Education? I will hand it to you and see if you are acquainted with it.
A. I am generally acquainted with it.
Q. The book that you have there in your hand, I will ask you to state whether or not that is a similar study to the one you have testified here about on direct examination?
A. It is one of the series of volumes of that study.
Q. The one you have testified about, I believe, is dated 1942, is it not?
A. That is right?
Q. The one I have handed you is dated 1943, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. That is the latest one out, the one you have in your hand now, isn't it, the latest one you have any knowledge of?
A. May I give a qualified answer to that?
Q. All right.
A. The summary was written after the other volumes were set up, naturally.
Q. Yes.
A. And was printed after that. That is why it bears a later date.[269]
Q. That is the latest thing then arrived at from the work that was printed ahead of it?
A. It is a part of the study summarized by Dr. Caliver. [fol. 447]
Q. Your Honor, I would like to make clear that I am cross-examining him, and I still want to retain my hill of exception, and I am cross-examining him just in case the Court desires to consider this evidence.
The Court: All right.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Is Dr. Caliver a recognized authority in the same field that you have testified about that you are acquainted with, through experience and training?
A. By some people, yes.
Q. Well, do you recognize him as such?
A. In some areas, yes.
Q. He has made a much more comprehensive study of the subject in preparing this work for the Government than you have in preparing for your testimony here today, hasn't he?
A. I doubt it.
Q. You doubt that?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you if you agree with his conclusion contained in this work that the kind and amount of education needed by any individual or group in a democracy at any given time is determined by their capacities, their interests, their abilities, disabilities, and their goals?
A. Certainly.
Q. You agree with that?
A. Yes.[fol. 448]
Q. Do you agree to his conclusion here in this summary that in addition to taking into consideration the amount of money spent and the facilities available, in determining the question as to whether or not equal opportunities are offered for higher education, that in addition to all of that, in determining what should be offered, that you should take into consideration the environment and social order of the particular area in which the schools are established?
A. I don't know that I get that. Would you mind relating it?[270]
Q. Suppose I read you what he says, and then you tell us whether or not you agree to that. This is from page 1 of this summary:
"National Survey of the Higher Education of Negroes, a Summary,"
printed in 1943 by the United States Office of Education:
"Formerly in our educational processes, particularly in organized education, this inter-relationship has not always been recognized,"
talking about inter-relationship between social order, that I have been talking to you about, and the fixed facilities.
"The Survey of the Higher Education of Negroes, however, which this volume summarizes, attempts to view education in its social setting, and consequently, not only are institutional matters studied, such as student personnel, curriculum, faculty, administration, and other facilities, but also the social and economic [fol. 449] factors surrounding the institutions and influencing the lives of the students and their communities."
Now, my question is, do you agree with that statement from the summary that these educational things, in addition to what you have testified about here today, must necessarily be taken into consideration in deciding upon how you can offer equal educational opportunities in a given community ?
A. That was a basic assumption underlying all of my study. What Dr. Caliver means there is apparently the thing that I do not agree with. I have argued with him about it.
Q. You don't agree with his conclusion on that?
A. I don't agree with this general educational philosophy of what a university of[sic] college is, or what it is supposed to do for an individual.
Q. Do you agree with this portion of the summary?
"In saying, therefore, that the higher educational needs of Negroes should be considered in light of their backgrounds and special interests, a principal is enunciated which applies equally to any other group in our body politic."
[271]A. I think that perfectly odd.
Q. Do you feel like, for a white student you should establish the kind of school the need or demand calls for?
A. Yes, and if I may explain that, I don't think there are [fol. 450] any needs among the white part of the community that are not among the Negro part, or shouldn't be.
Q. You have been here through this testimony today, haven't you?
A. I certainly have.
Q. I don't mean today. You have been on the talking end of it today, but since the case began Monday morning?
A. Off and on.
Q. You have heard it testified here that the relator in this case is the first applicant for law to the only State Law School that was in existence at the time he applied, haven't you?
A. I believe I heard that, yes.
Q. Yes. You know of no other applicants for law, any other students who wanted to take law in the State today before this time?
A. I didn't even know he wanted to take it before this case came up. I don't mean to the[sic] facetious about that.
Q. I understand. I don't mean to be, either. I am trying to lead to the point as to your opinion as an expert as to what should be available before there is a demand for it. In other words, is there is only one Negro student who wants to take law, none before him, do you feel like that the State should have provided a law school prior to that time for Negroes?
A. I think that the State should have provided for Negroes [fol. 451] in 1876 or whenever it was that Prairie View University or the Texas A. & M. was set up. I think it should have been then. The fact that only one Negro student wants law, it seems to me, is immaterial in this state or any other state, from my point of view.
Q. You don't teach broom making and mattress making at Howard University?
A. No, those are not college subjects.
Q. You don't have demand for them?
A. Negroes have demands for them, and we teach them in the trade schools whore they ought to be taught.
Q. Until there is a demand for certain subjects at Howard University that you do not now teach, you just don't offer them, do you? [272]
A. That isn't true, no. You see, there is a difference between demand and being able to meet the demand. We put on three departments last year that we didn't have. We didn't know a single student would take those subjects geology, geography and another that I can't think of at the moment. We put those subjects on, not because of the fact that we had a demand, but because we thought students ought to have the opportunity to get an education in those fields, and I think the same thing about a university. The opportnity ought to be there, because the opportunity itself is stimulating.
Q. Regardless of whether the students want to take the [fol.452] courses or not?
A. That is right. The only way to determine whether a student wants to take a course is to make it available, in my opinion.
Q. Now, you have studied—you have read the survey and the summary that has been made on this question, you have testified about, by the Federal Government, haven't you, Dr. Thompson?
A. Two or three years ago, I read the summary. I read the other volume because, to be perfectly frank with you, I knew Dr. Caliver, and I didn't agree with him on educational philosophy, and I knew about what he would put in the summary. I was interested in the basic facts so that I might draw my own conclusions rather than have his conclusions.
Q. Let me read another one.
''Changes in the social structure—of which the educational system is a part—must come slowly if disorganization is not to result."
A. I agree with that.
Q. Then, in order to solve this problem that we have here, as you have testified about, in your opinion, in this State the problem that you have testified about as having existed in past years, don't you believe that the only way to solve it is by a gradual change, a gradual change from failing to furnish equal educational opportunities to a system, setting [fol. 453] up those equal educational opportunities by State supported schools?
A. If I may answer it this way, I would have answered the first part of your question yes, but the latter part forces [273] me to say no. May I explain? I think I know what the question that you started out—I won't put it that way. I think I know what you are driving at.
Q. You answer what you think I am driving at, and if you don't get it, I will come back.
A. What you are saying in so many words is this, is what I think you were saying, assuming that this thing ought to be done gradually, the change ought to be made gradually.
Q. I am not saying it. I have read from Dr. Caliver here, and I asked you did you agree with him.
A. You gave me a question.
Q. Yes, I did. Go ahead.
A. Do you want me to answer your question, or Dr. Caliver?
Q. Go ahead and answer what you understood I am driving at.
A. What I understand you to be driving at is this; that where we have certain customs in the south, and to change overnight would cause disruption of one sort or another, you are saying gradual change, that is more or less authentic, it seems to me. You have got to start somewhere. This is the first time I have been to Texas. I have been in practically all of the southern states, and was born in the south, but I [fol. 454] have been very much impressed with it since I have been to Texas, by both the white people and the Negroes in Texas. I think you are a very progressive community. It is my opinion that the time is ripe to start with professional and graduate work. I think it could very easily be done in law, and then work gradually. That is what I mean by a gradual change. Of course, if you tried to change the system overnight from the kindergarten through the University, you might have more disruption than otherwise; and yet, I don't know whether the disruption would be so much at that.
I think, to answer your question, to be begin with the law school and graduate school, and then the college and high school and so forth, that that would be a gradual change, and I think most people would agree that is gradual.
Q. Whatever the State should do to accomplish the purposes we have both been talking about, whatever should be done, don't you believe should be first taken into consideration the desires of the Negro citizens of this state, if that is what they want, the general desires of the Negroes as to [274] what they want? Just answer yes or no so that we can speed along.
A. I don't want to speed along and answer it wrong. May I answer and qualify it?
The Court: You may answer and explain it.
A. The thing that has surprised me; I have been pleasantly [fol. 455] surprised to see that Negroes really want to go to the University of Texas.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. That isn't responsive to my question at all.
A. I am merely explaining.
Mr. Daniel: I ask that it be stricken.
The Court: I doubt if it is responsive to the questions.
A. Very well, Your Honor.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. You are acquainted with the facts and figures as to the number of northern Negroes who come to southern separate schools for education, are you not?
A. In a general way, yes.
Q. I will ask you if this statement by Dr. Caliver, in your opinion, from your studies, is substantially true?
"While southern Negroes often go north for graduate work, there are large numbers of Negroes resident in northern states who go south to attend Negro colleges. Moreover, even in northern colleges and universities there are often, if not usually, special problems which confront Negro students regardless of their places of residence or previous training."
A. I think that is true.
Q. I will ask you to state whether or not you are acquainted with this survey and the conclusion drawn from it [fol. 456] by Dr. Caliver, making the survey of eight northern universities where negroes were admitted. This is from page 13.
"Whereas very few southern Negroes were attending these eight northern universities in 1939-40; in the year preceding, nearly 4,000 northern negroes attended Negro colleges. Almost three thousand of this number [275] attended colleges in southern states. The majority of these Negro students were residents of eight northern states which rank high in economic resources. Thus, instead of the northern states carrying an undue burden in the higher education of Negroes, it appears that institutions located in those states which have the least wealth are providing educational facilities for Negro residents from more economically favored regions."
Do you agree with that?
A. I think the facts stated in the first part of the statement are correct. I think the implications may not be.
Q. In other words, the majority of your northern Negroes who have available to them institutions that they can attend, a majority of the northern Negroes attending colleges actually elect to go to separate Negro schools?
A. No, that isn't true. Dean Caliver said they studied eight institutions. The 4,000 students came from all over the [fol. 457] north, is that correct?
Q. Yes. Do you have the figures on how many Negro students are attending college, northern Negro students?
A. We made a survey—Dr. Jenkins, who was a member of the Bureau of Educational Research, made a survey this fall.
Q. Could you get that for us by morning?
A. I might have it here. I don't know. I will look and see. I haven't—let's see, in 1945, there was something like five or six thousand Negroes attending school in the north, and the estimate now is that about twice that many, because of the G. I. Bill and things of that sort.
Q. Suppose you try to get me those figures overnight?
A. All right.
Q. Have you read the conclusion by Dr. Caliver as to what is the best thing to be done for the Negroes who want to have equal educational opportunities in both the north and south, contained in this summary, or survey you have been testifying about here today, under Chapter 6, pages 40 through 50? Have you read that? Are you acquainted with that?
A. I probably read them, but as I said a moment ago, don't put much weight on the conclusions, because Dr. Caliver and I don't have the same educational philosophy.
Q. You don't find anything in his conclusions which would [276] indicate that it was necessary to do away with separate schools in order to give equal opportunities? [fol. 458]
A. I don't remember his conclusions, but I doubt seriously if he put that in print, being in the Office of Education
Q. That is the conclusion that he has on that matter. Is that one you disagree with him on? You know what his conclusion is?
A. His public conclusions and his private conclusions may be different. You are talking about his public conclusions.
Q. You tell us you know his private conclusions, and yon disagree with them. Isn't it true his private conclusions are like his public conclusions here, that separate schools, if established on an equal basis, can solve the problem as far as giving equality of educational opportunity to the Negro students?
A. I have come to the conclusion from discussions with him that his private conclusions are not that, but his public conclusions are probably motivated by the fact that we have separate schools, and if a Negro is going to get an education, he has to go to them until we get an integrated situation.
Q. You are not positive about his private conclusions?
A. No.
Q. You wouldn't undertake to tell this Court the man has signed and printed something for the Government other than what he actually believes about it, would you?
A. No, I wouldn't do that.
Q. Now, as I understand, all of your testimony as to what [fol. 459] you have examined in the way of funds available for Negro students as compared with white students, up to the pending bill over here in the Legislature for this session, and Senate Bill 140, which is already enacted, bad to do with past years, what had been done for Negroes in past years, as compared with white schools; is that correct
A. Up to 1947.
Q. Up to 1947?
A. That is right.
Q. The school year 1946-1947?
A. I might correct that. I was talking about H. B. 246, and it was ruled out this morning. I have gone into those proposals, and that was ruled out, and I didn't go into it.[277]
Q. Up to that time, and Senate Bill 140 that has passed, all of your testimony has been what has happened in the past?
A. Yes.
Q. You have read Senate Bill 140, the provisions setting up the new Texas State University for Negroes, have you not?
A. Yes, I have read it. I wouldn't want to have to quote it, or give the substance of it.
Q. You have, I suppose, in making your survey as to what is available down here in Texas for Negroes, you have made a survey of Houston College in Houston for Negroes, have you not?
A. No, I haven't. You mean a personal survey? [fol. 460]
Q. Or the kind of survey which you made from the books of all of the other schools you have testified about ?
A. Houston College was included in some of the material which I gave. For example, I gave the number of students who had Master's Degrees and doing graduate work at Houston College.
Q. I heard you mention Houston College once. When you were figuring the funds the State put into State schools for Negroes in Texas, you didn't include any money spent by the State on Houston College, did you?
A. Yes, '43 or '44.
Q. On Houston College. You have not examined those facilities of Houston College, the buildings and the 53 acres of land, have you?
A. No, I have not.
Q. I believe the amount of money that you gave as having been appropriated by Senate Bill 140 to maintain the new university and its various branches as one million dollars?
A. For current expenses, it was five hundred thousand dollars for two years, which would make one million dollars. I believe that is correct.
Q. Did you read the text of the hill where other funds were made available?
A. Yes, I took that into account. As I counted it up, There were $350,000.00 made available for various and sundry purposes for Negro higher education. [fol. 461]
Q. Actually, then, it was $1,350,000.00 for maintenance and support, instead of one million, wasn't it?[278]
A. There were some items in there about Prairie View something about some other institutions. It was scattered so through the bill it was practically impossible to tell exactly where the money was going, or how it was to be used.
Q. You mean impossible for you to tell ?
A. Yes, for me to tell.
Q. You could tell the bill provided for two million dollars for the establishment of the University?
A. Yes, and I took that into account.
Q. At the beginning didn't you say Prairie View was the only separate Negro College maintained by State funds in Texas?
A. I think I did that.
Q. And wasn't quite a bit of your testimony based on Prairie View being the only State supported Negro college in Texas?
A. Not throughout.
Q. But quite a bit of it?
A. Here is what I understand, if I may explain. Up until 1945 I understand the Houston College for Negroes was a municipally owned and controlled institution. Around 1946, I understand it changed to some other status, which I couldn't find. I have taken into account the State's appropriation to Houston College for Negroes up until that time.
Q. In giving your total amount of money appropriated [fol. 462] by the State for 1945-1946 school years, that was a figure of $72,790,000.00. You itemized it; look at your figures there. Did you put Houston College in it?
A. No, sir.
Q. You allowed no money in there for Houston College?
A. No, nor did I have any for Texas Tech or the University of Houston.
Q. I asked you about Houston College. You can get that in some other way.
A. Pardon me.
Q. You can make a note of it so that you can ask him. Do you know whether or not these amounts of money appropriated to Negro schools in Texas were sufficient to operate those schools in accordance with the number  students who applied to go to them? Do you know that of your own knowledge or not?[279]
A. Looking at Prairie View—how about Prairie View? The amount of money that Prairie View had, or even if you have them all of the money appropriated under S. B. 14U, it wouldn't be sufficient to operate it on the basis on which it is supposed to operate.
Q. Do you have the total figures on how many white students attended college in Texas during the years you have testified about on Negro students?
A. You mean total students?[fol. 463]
Q. Total number of white students attending Texas colleges during the years you have testified about on Negro students?
A. I think I have Negro students.
Q. I am talking about State supported schools.
A. 19—what is it, 1945-1946, that we are talking about now?
Q. You gave several years. Let's take that one to begin with. You gave the total number of Negro students?
A. At Prairie View there were 1,576 students in 1945-1946.
Q. And how many students were attending all of the other State supported schools for whites?
A. I could not tell you that. I can tell you some of the other institutions.
Q. You have the available books for that, do you not?
A. I suppose you could get it from the catalogue, or some place of that sort. All of them aren't available.
Q. In other words, you have drawn no comparison as to the total number of white students as compared to the total number of Negro students in making your financial comparisons, have you?
A. No.
Q. The ratio you have used is strictly a ratio of State funds appropriated as compared with population of Negroes compared to the total population of the State; right ?
A. That is correct, and—[fol. 464]
Q. That is the ratio you testified about here under your point number one on the amount of funds, and the ratio you have used all along in determining the percentage that the Negro Schools would have been calculated to under said ratio; right?
A. Yes.
Q. You have not applied in this case the ratio of students [280] attending, white students attending, as compared with Negro students actually attending school in the State, have you?
A. Yes, but not all of the State, if I may explain, Your Honor.
Q. Let me get my question. As I understood it a minute ago, you haven't even drawn the total of the white students attending State supported institutions for any one year you have testified about, have you?
A. That is right.
Q. Then you have not arrived at the ratio of expenditure, a ratio fixed by the number of white students attending school, total number attending State institutions as compared with the total number of Negro students attending, have you?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned a minute ago on direct examination Meharry Medical School in Tennessee, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You offered Meharry as an example of a medical school in Tennessee which was operating, and caused the [fol. 465] State of Tennessee to be far ahead of the State of Texas in the number of doctors and dentists per Negro— per so many hundred Negro population; right? Meharry is a separate Negro school, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you acquainted with the—what is the name of that senior college survey that you have in your pocket?
A. The Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas.
Q. May I borrow it a minute ? Are you acquainted with the Chairman of the Committee of this study, Dr. T. S. Montgomery, professionally ?
A. No, I am not.
Q. Are you acquainted professionally with the reputation of Dean Pittenger?
A. I know his reputation.
Q. Is he a recognized authority in the same field in which you work?
A. You mean in racial comparisons?
Q. No, as an educator. You know his standing in the field of education, do you not?
A. He is the Dean of the School of Education at the University of Texas.[281]
Q. You quoted several places from this book, from this study made by that committee, the Biracial Committee which studied senior colleges for Negroes. I will ask you [fol. 466] if, in your opinion that committee was, working over the long period of time that it worked to compile this volume, I will ask you if you do not believe they were in a better position to find out what is best for equality for the Negro students of this State, and in better position than you are from your short study of this particular State?
A. I doubt if I could answer that. As I said a moment ago, I have given five or six weeks of intensive study to this subject. I don't know how much time they gave to the study which is involved there.
Q. I would like to read you a conclusion from that study, and ask you whether or not you agree with it. On page 83 of the study that you have been reading from:

"Admission of Negroes to existing State universities for whites is not acceptable as a solution of the problem of providing opportunity for graduate and professional study for Negroes, on two counts: (1) Public opinion would not permit such institutions to be opened to Negroes at the present time; and (2) even if Negroes were admitted they would not be happy in the conditions in which they would find themselves."

I will ask you whether or not, first, you feel like you are in a position to agree or disagree with the conclusion therein drawn after having made only five weeks' study of [fol. 467] the matter in Texas?
A. I should say that I do not have enough facts to evaluate that opinion. I would want to know, have you made a poll of opinion of the people in Texas, number one. I would question the assumption underlying the statement, namely; that even if the poll showed that the opinion might be different, or it might be divided 60 to 40, or something of the sort, I don't think that is sufficient justification in itself in arriving at this conclusion, so I am not in a position to agree with the opinion, because you do not have enough facts state there.
Q. In other words, that is the point I am going to get to. The men who have made a longer study, and have more facts at hand on which to arrive at the opinion as to what [282] can best furnish equality in Texas on this subject are certainly in a better position than you to judge the matter.
Mr. Marshall: The question assumes that they had more opportunity, and had more facts.
The Court: I think it is rather sustaining himself, or failing to sustain himself, anyhow. He is probably going to recommend himself, if he testifies. I would.
Mr. Daniel: I doubt that he will.
The Court: An answer to that would either be to say that what you have been saying is well founded or it isn't well founded. [fol. 468]
A. Well, what I have been saying is well founded.
By Mr. Daniel:
Q. In your opinion?
A. In my opinion.
Q. You read from this book here on several occasions, did you not, as to the study made by these men?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Aren't you willing to admit, Dr. Thompson, that from the long study that they made on this matter over a period of years, if the evidence shows it took them a period of years, won't you admit they are in better position to judge what is best for the equality of opportunities?
A. I don't want to appear immodest, Mr. Attorney General, or facetious, but I doubt it seriously. I have been in this field of race relations for some 25 years. Most of the difficulties involved in the situation are this; that we imagine things will happen. There has been no test to determine whether or not—in fact, there has been a test, I understand, if you will allow me to give a hearsay example.
Mr. Marshall: No.
A. The attorney says no, but there has been no test to determine whether or not the time is ripe or not, as they say—I think so, coming in the State from other states, and that sort of thing, but I wouldn't say at all that I have any more basis for my opinion than they have for theirs.
Q. I will ask you again whether or not you are willing [fol. 469] to admit these gentlemen, after years of study, the evidence shows they have had years of study, would be [283] in a better position to arrive at conclusions than you, after your five or six weeks in Texas?
A. I would have to know what they studied.
Q. I thought you had been reading it?
A. Yes, I picked out facts, and not conclusions.
Q. That is all.
Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Thompson, you were questioned about this conclusion in this study of senior colleges for Negroes in Texas that "even if Negroes were admitted they would not he happy in the conditions in which they would find themselves." You have already testified you were born in Mississippi. Is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. Subsequent to that time you went to the University of Chicago, after attending a Negro school in Richmond, Virginia; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the University of Chicago has all races; correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were in classes with other students of other races?
A. That is correct.[fol. 470]
Q. What I want to ask you is, did you find that, you "would not be happy in the conditions in which you found yourself?"
A. No, I wasn't more unhappy; in fact, I was happier at the University of Chicago than I was at Virginia Institute.
Q. You can testify to that of your own knowledge, can't you?
A. That is correct.
Q. The faculty at Howard University, is it restricted to
A. All races.
Q. Is there any unhappiness among them?
A. Well, I don't suppose any more than the average faculty in any university.
Q. On these studies showing that Negroes in the north "who attend southern universities, is there any showing as to how long those Negroes were in the north before they went back south? [284]
A. I don't know of any—I can't recall any information now.
Q. What is your experience at Howard University as to students who come from most of the separate Negro schools in the south, as to their ability to shape up?
A. They have pretty weak backgrounds, on the whole. I mentioned a case this morning, in the case of chemistry, where one of the chemistry departments of the Negro college doesn't have physical chemistry. They come to Howard University to take graduate work, and they have to take a [fol. 471] year of physical chemistry before they can begin the graduate work. You face deficiencies in any of them.
Q. Isn't it true that many of the Negroes from southern schools are ineligible to attend a northern university; isn't that true?
Mr. Daniel: You are asking a leading question. We ask that you not lead him
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Are there any Negro schools in the south that are unaccredited ?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you get into an accredited university in the north if you come from an unaccredited school?
A. You can get in, but you are conditioned.
Q. Does a condition mean that you have to do more work?
A. Yes. My own personal experience bears that out. I got a Bachelor's Degree at Virginia University, and when I went to the University of Chicago, I had to do more work to get another Bachelor there.
Q. And you had already been to some kind of an academy in Mississippi, hadn't you?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, as to your experience in examining the relationship between the education in white and colored schools, on the question that was asked you on cross-examination as to one applicant to a law school, I want to ask you if, in your [fol. 472] opinion, what, in your opinion, would be the same viewpoint of a governmental agency as to that one pupil applying for a law school—
Mr. Daniel: We object to that. That would be a conclusion of the witness.[285]
The Court: I don't see what a governmental agency would have to do with it.
Mr. Marshall: I am speaking of the University of Texas, with the University of Texas, with one Negro student applying for the law school, and the duty of the University to conserve the funds of the taxpayers.
A. I believe it would be the same answer that I gave the Attorney General when he asked me the same question a while ago in a different form. It seems reasonable the student should be admitted to the University of Texas.
Q. The question was asked whether or not Meharry was a Negro school. You testified on direct examination as to both Meharry and Howard. I now ask you whether or not Howard is a mixed school, or a Negro school?
A. Howard University has no restrictions as to race. In fact, we have all types of races at Howard. At least, they have had during the 20 years that I have been there.
Q. Getting back to this question of comparing the schools, the population of schools, is the population of the school— [fol. 473] what determines the number of students a school can accommodate?
A. Well, there are a number of things. Of course, your physical plant, the things I enumerated this morning, physical plant, the number of teachers you can get, the number of facilities that you can offer.
Q. Even assuming that they are doing no better job than they are doing right now, could Prairie View accommodate any more students?
A. I doubt it. I was there last week, and I understand they are overcrowded.
Q. As to library facilities, you did compare Meharry as to individual schools and student body?
A. Meharry?
Q. I mean Prairie View.
A. Yes.
Q. And are you familiar with the approximate size of the State of Texas—are you not?
A. I thought I was until I came here. I doubt it.
Q. What relationship to the number of students attending college is it to the fact that in one instance you have eleven schools scattered all over the state and in the other instance you have one school at the far—one of the far sides of the state?[286]
A. Of course, geographically, it would be difficult, if [fol. 474] Negroes lived on the other side of the state, and would have to come to the other side of the state.
Q. Does that have some determinative bearing as to the number?
A. It probably would.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.) The Court: We will take a recess for a few minutes.
Court was recessed at 3:15 p. in., until 3:40 p. in., May 15, 1947, at which) time proceedings were resumed as follows :
Mr. Daniel: It is agreed that the following publications may be marked by the Court Reporter and left with him, and that he shall place in the record excerpts from such publications that may be requested by either of the parties.
Mr. Durham: We want to be bound only by what portions we offer.
(Thereupon, the following publications were marked for the purposes above stated as:)
(Exhibit A, 16th Census of the United States, 1940.)
(Exhibit B, Accredited Higher Institutions, 1944, Bulletin 1944, No. 3, U. S. Office of Education.)
(Exhibit C, General Studies of Colleges for Negroes, Misc. No. 6, Vol. II, U. S. Office of Education.)
[fol. 475] (Exhibit D, Directory, Colleges and Universities offering Graduate Courses leading to Master's and Doctor's Degrees, 1940-1945.)
(Exhibit E, Federal Government Funds for Education, 1944-1945 and 1945-46, Leaflet No. 77.)
(Exhibit F, Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1942-44, Statistics of Higher Education, 1943-44.)
(Exhibit G, Biennial Surveys of Education in the United States, 1938-40 and 1940-42, Statistics of Higher Education, 1939-40 and 1941-42.)
(Exhibit H, Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1942-44, Statistics of State School Systems, 1943-44, Chapter II.)[287]
(Exhibit I, Federal Security Agency Biennial Survey of education, 1936-1938.)
(Exhibit J, Statistics of Land Grant Colleges and Universities, year ended June 30, 1944.)
Mr. Daniel: We wish to take one in this group from which we read excerpts in the case.
Mr. Durham: We object, first, that it hasn't been certified to, and that nobody has identified it as being the official document.
The Court: Well, I think I will let him offer it, as the Doctor has testified from it.
(Said instrument, the same being National Survey of the Higher Education of Negroes, a Summary, Misc. Vol. [fol. 476] IV, was admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit No. 15.)
Mr. Daniel: Number sixteen will be the Report of Senior Colleges for Negroes. We will get that from Dr. Thompson tomorrow.
( Said instrument, being '' The Senior Colleges for Negroes in Texas," was admitted in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit No. 16.)
Donald G. Murray, a witness produced by the Relator, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give your full name.
A. Donald G. Murray.
Q. And your address?
A. 424 Y Court, Baltimore, Maryland.
Q. Your present occupation?
A. Attorney.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. Amherst College.
Q. Where is that?
A. Amherst, Massachusetts.
Q. When did you finish Amherst?[288]
A. 1932.[fol. 477]
Q. And did you apply for admission University of Maryland Law School?
A. I did.
Q. First; and what happened to your application?
A. it was refused.
Q. On what grounds?
A. On the grounds it was against the policy of the State of Maryland to admit Negroes to the University of Maryland Law School.
Q. What happened thereafter?
A. I consulted briefly with attorney Thurgood Marshall,
Mr. Daniel: We object to that as being irrelevant and immaterial, as to how he got in the school. The Court: Tell me your purpose of it. I don't quite see.
Mr. Marshall: the whole purpose of it is that in the State of Maryland they have segregation statutes similar to the State of Texas.  He was refused admission, and a lawsuit was filed, and they said if he was admitted to the school it would wreck the University, and he was admitted, and everybody got along fine.
The Court: How is he going to prove what the State said except by hearsay?
Mr. Marshall: We have here a document from the Court of Civil Appeals, and motion to advance a case, signed by [fol. 478] the Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General, from the State of Maryland. That is the only piece of evidence we are going to introduce in evidence as to what thc State of Maryland said.
Thc Court: Might not that be the attorney's contention?
Mr. Marshall: He was representing it as the official attorney of the State of Maryland.
The Court: I will let you have it on your bill. You can offer it on your bill.
Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Was a lawsuit filed as a result of your case?
Mr. Daniel: We object to that.
The Court: It is on his bill.
Mr. Daniel: The records would be the best evidence.
The Court: He can say whether it was filed or not.[289]
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Did the Court of Appeals of Maryland in a decision reported in the official documents of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, and reported in the Atlantic Reporter, the title of which was Pearson against Murray, decide upon thc case of which you were speaking?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Now, I ask you as to whether or not you were admitted to the University of Maryland prior to the decision of the [fol. 479] Court of Appeals of Maryland?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And prior to the decision of that case, I will ask you, did the Attorney General in Maryland, Herbert R. O'Conor, and the Assistant Attorney General, Charles T. LeViness, III, file a certain document with the Court of Appeals of Maryland concerning your case?
A. Yes, they did.
Mr. Daniel: As I understand it, all of this is going into his bill of exceptions?
The Court: That is right.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I show you this document entitled Raymond A. Pearson, President, and other names, versus Donald Murray, in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, with thc certification from the archivist of the State of Maryland, and ask you if you can identify it?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What is it?
A. It is the notice to advance the hearing in thc Court of Appeals of Maryland on the case Pearson, et al. vs. Murray.
Mr. Marshall: If Your Honor please—you still have your objection to it?
Mr. Daniel: Yes, my objection is already in, and thc court sustained it.
The Court: Yes, and it is coming in on the bill of excep[fol.480]tion.
(Thereupon counsel for relator had the Reporter mark said instrument and referred to as Relator's Exhibit 19-725 [290] No. 7, and same was admitted for the purpose of the Bill of Exception as such exhibit.)
Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.
Q. Mr. Murray, the sum and substance of the relator's Exhibit No. 7 is the request to the Court of Appeals of Maryland to advance the hearing in this case from the October term on the theory that if you were admitted that dire results would come about at the University of Maryland; is that not correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were admitted in September, 1935, were you not?
A. That is correct.
Q. Will you tell briefly to the Court what, if anything, happened to bear out the predictions of the Attorney General of Maryland?
A. Absolutely nothing happened.
Q. Were you ostracized in any way?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Were you segregated in any way?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Were you mistreated in any way?
A. No, I was not.
Q. What was your experience, briefly? [fol. 481]
A. My experience, briefly, was that I attended the University of Maryland Law School for three years, during which time I took all of the classes with the rest of the students, and participated in all of the activities in the school, and at no time whatever did I meet any attempted segregation or unfavorable treatment on the part of any student in the school, or any professor or assistant professor.
Q. Where is the University of Maryland Law School located ?
A. Baltimore, Maryland.
Q. Are the public schools there mixed or separate, according to race?
A. Separate.
Q. Are housing conditions mixed or separate?
A. Separate.
Q. Are eating facilities mixed or separate?
A. Separate.[291]
Q. With the exception of the separation of races on buses and trolley cars here in Austin, do you find any item of segregation that is not present in Baltimore, Maryland?
A. As far as I have observed, I have observed none.
Q.. Attorney General Herbert O'Conor signed this motion to advance, did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Who gave you your diploma when you graduated from the University of Maryland? [fol.482]
A. Governor O'Conor.
Q. The same man?
A. Yes.
Q. And Charles T. LeViness, III, signed that motion as Assistant Attorney General?
A. Yes.
Q. Who gave you your first job when you left the law school?
A. Charles T. LeViness, III.
Q. How did that come about?
A. I applied for a position as inspector with the Board of Liquor License in Baltimore City. At the time Mr. LeViness was the Chairman of that Board, and in charge of the hiring of applicants. I applied and was accepted and worked for about eight months with him.
Q. And then you went to the Army?
A. No, I went in private practice.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether other negroes have attended the University of Maryland since your time?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. About how many are in there now?
A. Nineteen.
Q. Has there been any trouble of any kind since you have been there that you know of?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Your witness.[fol.483]
Mr. Daniel: That is on the bill of exception. No questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Durham: Your Honor, we desire to offer a portion of the cross interrogatories of the witness E.L. Angell, and [292] I will ask Mr. Nabrit to read the answers as I read the questions.
(Mr. Durham read the following cross interrogatories and Mr. Nabrit read the answers, from Deposition of E. L. Angell.
E. L. Angell (Deposition) :
Q. 3. How much money was expended in setting up this Law School for Negroes in Houston?
A. 3. I do not know.
Q. 4. Were books, equipment and supplies for this Law School for Negroes in Houston purchased for cash or by State requisition or vouchers ?
A. 4. They were purchased by Prairie View University using their funds.
Q. 5. If purchased for cash, who paid for them and out of what fund was the money secured and on whose authority was the payment made ?
A. 5. They were paid for from funds of Prairie View [fol. 484] University and on the authority of the Principal of the Prairie View University.
Q. 20. How many rooms were there in this building or in these housing facilities and what was the floor area of each ?
A. 20. There was a suite of three rooms, but I do not know the floor area.
Q. 30. State what was the academic rank of each of these teachers in the faculty of the Law School.
A. 30. I do not know.
Q. 32. How many lecture rooms or class rooms were provided in this building or in these housing facilities and what was the floor area of each? For identification purposes, number this room or rooms.
A. 32. I do not know the disposition to be made of the suite of rooms that was rented.
Q. 33. Was an office for the Dean provided in this building or in these housing facilities? If so, what was its floor area and its approximate distance from the lecture rooms ? For identification purposes, number this room.
A. 33. I do not know.
Q. 34. Was an office for the registrar provided in this building or in these housing facilities?  If, what was its [293] area and its approximate distance from the lecture rooms? For identification purposes, number this room.
A. 34. The registrar for this court was the Registrar at [fol. 485] the Prairie View University, and I do not know if they provided any space in Houston for him or not.
Q. 36. Into how many rooms was this Law Library divided and what was the floor area of each? For identification purposes, number each of these rooms.
A. 36. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 37. What was the floor area of the main reading room in the Law Library? For identification purposes, number this room.
A. 37. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 38. What was the floor area of the cataloguing and receiving room of the Law Library? For identification purposes, number this room.
A. 38. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 39. Was there a librarian's office in the Law Library, if so, what was its approximate distance from the main reading room?
A. 39. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q. 40. What was the approximate distance of the Law Library from the lecture rooms, the Dean's office and the registrar's office?
A. 40. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 35.
Q.41. When was this library purchased and what was its purchase price?
A. 41. Some 400 basic reference law books were made [fol. 486] available by the Texas A. & M. College library, and it was ascertained that books for first year law students, a list of which, was furnished by the Dean of the Law School of the University of Texas, could be delivered on short notice, and the authorities of Prairie View were ready to Purchase these books if a student registered in the law course.
Q. 42. How many library stacks or book cases were acquired and what kind?
A. 42. These were to be furnished by the library of Prairie View University.
Q. 45. Give the name and qualifications and salary of each of these officers of the Law School for Negroes in Houston: (a) Dean; (b) Registrar; (c) Librarian.[294]
A. 45. The Dean and Registrar were officials of Prairie View University and Prairie View University was to furnish Librarian services at the Houston establishment.
Q. 48. Give the budget for the Law School in Houston for Negroes for the first year. Itemize as follows: (a) Salaries—Instruction. (b) Library. (c) Operation and maintenance. (d) Travel. [fol.487] (e) Publication. (f) Equipment. (g) Supplies and expenses. (h) Administration. (i) Scholarships and student aid. (j) Annuities.
A. 48. No specific budget was approved, it being understood that if a student registered for the law course that the officials at Prairie View would then submit a budget.
Q. 50. State whether announcements of the new school, its curriculum, its schedule of classes, its organizations, expenses and program was made. If written announcements were made, attach copies of the same to this deposition.
A. 50. The only announcement that I know was made by the press.
Q. 51. If oral, who issued them and how were prospective students to become aware of these verbal announcements?
A. 51. I do not know.
Q. 52. What officer of the Law School for Negroes in Houston made these announcements ?
A. 52. I do not know.
Q. 53. Did the faculty of the School of Law for Negroes in Houston prepare the curriculum, schedule the classes and otherwise conduct the general educational work of the Law School?
A. 53. It was understood that they would follow the course [fol. 488] offerings of the University of Texas.
Q. 54. How many meetings did the faculty of the Law School for Negroes in Houston hold. Attach copies of the minutes of these meetings to this deposition.
A. 54. I do not know.[295]
Q. 55. Who was the Secretary of the Law School for Negroes in Houston. State the qualifications of the Secretary.
A. 55. Prairie View University was to furnish secretarial assistance for the law course in Houston. I do not know the qualifications of the personnel.
Q. 56. Attach copies of the application blanks or forms for admission to the Law School for Negroes in Houston to this deposition.
A. 56. I have no copies, blanks or forms.
Q. 57. Attach copies of each of the registration forms, blanks or cards used by the Law School for Negroes in Houston.
A. 57. The registration forms would be those of Prairie View University. I haven't these forms available.
Q. 58. Is this Law School for Negroes still in existence in Houston?
A. 58. The facilities were rented until the 1st of March. It was understood that if no student registered that the authorities of Prairie View would discontinue the offering of the course and made disposition of the equipment. [fol. 489]
Q.59. If not, when was it closed and upon whose authority was it closed?
A. 59. See answer to Cross Interrogatory No. 58.
J. B. Rutland, a witness produced by the Relator, having been by the Court first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give your full name, please.
A. J. B. Rutland.
Q. And your address?
A. 4112 Duval.
Q. And your occupation, sir?
A. Director of Education for Negroes, State Department of Education.
Q. And do you also have a position with the Scholarship Committee for Negroes?
A. Executive Secretary of the Scholarship Committee.
Q. And what is the Scholarship Committee for Negroes? [296]
A. It provides for out of state scholarships, scholarships to out of State institutions for Negroes in subjects that are not offered at Prairie View.
Q. And when was that committee set up?
A. In 1939. [fol. 490]
Q. And how much money did it have to operate on the first year?
A. Twenty-five thousand.
Q. And was that all for scholarships, or was part of that for administration?
A. Part of it for secretarial.
Q. Approximately how much was available for scholarships?
A. About twenty-four hundred the first year.
Q. Twenty-four hundred ?
A. Twenty-four thousand the first year.
Q. And was that all contributed?
A. I am not sure about the first year. I wasn't in the office at that time.
Q. When did you take over?
A. 1945.
Q. 1945?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have the records there for the previous years? Will you look at those records and let us know how much was actually expended in 1939 ? I am wondering if we might shorten this by giving him time to consider each year. The thing I am interested in is the amount of money and the number of subjects that were covered by the students, and the students for each year, and then he could present that. Do you have it?
A. I have it for 1945-46 here.[fol. 491]
Q. We wanted it back a little ways, if we could. Do you have any other years there? Well, I think, if Your Honor please, I might ask one more question, and I might save you some time there. Is this 1945-1946 about the way it has been running since you have been there?
A. Since I have been there, it is.
The Court: That is the one since you have been there, isn't it?
A. Yes. [297]
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Do you have a copy of the rules and regulations for the issuance of scholarships that you mail to the pupils?
A. No.
Q. Is this it?
A. That is right.
Q. That is it. May we have these two marked?
A. 1943 and 1944 there was $24,000.00 spent.
Q. How many law school students were included in that year?
Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we would like to make the same objection to this line of testimony that we made to the previous testimony about other schools. The relator here is asking only the Dean and the Registrar and the Board of Regents of the University of Texas to get into the University of Texas. He isn't concerned at all with out of state scholarships, didn't want one, and didn't apply for one. We [fol. 492] think it is irrelevant and immaterial to this case.
The Court: We will hear the testimony.
Mr. Daniel: Note our exception.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Can you tell me how many law school students went in the year 1944-1945?
A. Three.
Q. And the previous year, can you go back?
A. The total up to now is 11, since we have started.
Q. The total is 11 in law schools?
The Court: Altogether.
A. Altogether since the work started.
By Mr. Marshall:
Q. When was the first year you had an applicant for a law school scholarship?
A. In this 1939 to 1943 report we have eight law students.
Q. You have eight law students in that report. You don't know what years they applied, do you?
A. No, except during the years 1939 to 1943.
Q. All right. Can we have the—is that a mimeographed copy, or is that the only one?
A. I have only the one copy.[298]
Mr. Marshall: Any objection ?
Mr. Daniel: The same objection we made to all of them.
Mr. Marshall: We are introducing as Exhibit 8 the report of the Scholarship Aid Fund for Texas Negro Graduate and Professional Students, 1945-1946.
[fol. 493] (Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator's Exhibit No. 8.)
Mr. Marshall: And Relator's Exhibit No. 9, from the office of the Executive Secretary of the Texas Scholarship Aid Committee, State Department of Education, statement of policy and procedure. That is applicable, of course, to the Negro Scholarship Fund.
(Said instrument was admitted in evidence as Relator's Exhibit No. 9.)
Mr. Marshall: That is all. Mr. Daniel: No questions.
(Witness excused.)
next section of transcript