REPORT OF THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE TEXAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SEGREGATION
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SEPTEMBER 1, 1956

Special Note: This report was completed and adopted by the subcommittee on September 24, 1956. However, due to the everchanging
nature of the subject matter it was necessary that a fixed date be given
to the report.

 REPORT OF THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE TEXAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SEGREGATION
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

HISTORY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

The Texas Advisory Committee on Segregation in the Public
Schools was appointed on July 27, 1955.

The Committee met in

Austin on August 1 and heard Governor Shivers• address requesting
the examination of three major problems and the presentation of
· recommendations leading to their solution.

The problems are:

( 1) The prevention of forced integration.
(2) The achievement of maximum decentralization of school
authority.
(3) The ways in which the State government may best assist
the local school districts in solving their problems.
This Legal and Legislative Subcommittee was set up and
published its preliminary report on August 21, 1955.
this report is attached as Appendix I.

The text of

On February 8, 1956, this

subcommittee was requested to make a study of the recently revived
doctrine of interposition.

The results of this examination are accordingly

set forth in this report.
During the latter part of April a report was made by each member
of the full committee,

giving his views on community action on and

 z.
attitude toward integration and his recommendations on the subject.
When compiled, these reports gave a picture of majority opposition
to integration throughout most of the State.
the committee's survey.

Later events confirmed

The recommendations made at that time

and further suggesth · :> made in the light of more recent occurrences
form the foundation of the report of this subcommittee.
The complex nature of the problem, together with the .need for
obtaining data at the local level, has necessitated a deliberate pace
in the preparation of this report.

The fact that this is an election

year has urged us to delay until after the primaries, in order to
prevent this report's entanglement in primary politics. As a result
of this delay, we have had the benefit of studying the actions taken
by our sister states to solve this problem.

We now submit to you

our findings and recommendations.

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION
Viewed in the light of established legal principles and precedence,
it is the opinion of this subcommittee that the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is clearly
wrong and judicially unsound in that the present court has re-interpreted
the Constitution to accord with the personal views of the present
members of the court in disregard of the prior interpretatio.n of the

.

Constitution so long and firmly established; and in so doing has diverted
from the well understood rules of proper judicial function.

 3.
The "'separate but equal"' doctrine was proclaimed in Plessy v.
Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, in 1896.

Since that time it has been upheld

eleven times in the U. S. Supreme Court, thirteen times in the U. S.
Courts of Appeals, twenty-seven times in the U. S. District Courts,
and 106 times in State Supreme Courts and the District of Columbia.
Among the U. S. Supreme Court cases is that of Gong Lum v. Rice,
2 75 U. S. 78, decided in 192 7.

Here we find another Chief Justice,

Taft, a former President, reading an opinion for another unanimous
court, which included such other outstanding jurists as Holmes,
Brandeis, Stone, Van Devanter and McReynolds.
"'The question here is whether a Chinese citizen of the
United States is denied equal protection of the laws when he is
classed among the colored races and furnished facilities for
education equal to that offered to all, whether white, brown,
yellow, or black. Were this a new question, it would call for
very full argument and consideration, but we think that it is
the same question which has been many times decided to be
within the constitutional power of the State Legislature to
settle without intervention of the Federal courts under the
Federal Constitution. 11'
On the State level, the courts of last resort of twenty-three of the
ratifying states have held that the "'separate but equal"' doctrine does
not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Surely, if a doctrine has

ever been the established and admitted law of the land, "'separate
but equal"' is this doctrine.

The Decision and The Constitution
In view of the long settled and well established "'separate but
equal"' doctrine of constitutional law so firmly embedded in the law
of this nation from Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 until May 17, 1954,

 4.
the Brown decision of that date not only represents a rejection of the
judicial restraint expressed by the Supreme Court in 1927, when it
unanimously stated that the same question had been many times decided
to be within the constitutional power of the State legislatures to settle
without intervention of the federal courts u.nder the federal constitution,
but also represents a deliberate and willful departure from or violence
to the United States Constitution in the followi.ng spheres:
(1) Article I, Section I.

"'All legislative powers herein granted

shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'" It is
obvious that the Brown decision represents a radical alteration
in the law and is, in effect, legislation.

This powe·r was .not

vested in the Federal judiciary.
(2) Article I, Section 8.

11

'The Congress shall have power • • •

to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any department or officer thereof."'
Congress has passed no law proscribing segregation.

It is

not the Supreme Court's function to do what it may think
Congress should have done.
(3) Article V.

This provides for amendment of the Constitution

by three-fourths of the States.

The Supreme Court seeks to

amend the Constitution without giving the people any option on
the amendment.
(4) Amendment X.

'The powers not delegated to the United

11

States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are

 5.

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 11' The
power to regulate the schools of the States is not delegated
to the United States nor prohibited to the States, nor does
segregation come under the discrimination ban of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as witness every decision on this question for
many decades prior to 1954.

Therefore, the power to segre-

gate the public schools is reserved to the States and their
people.
(5) Ame.ndment XIV, Section 5. · "'The Congress shall have
power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of
this article.'" Even if the Brown decision properly interpreted
the Fourteenth Amendment, which we categorically deny
because it is diametrically opposed to the decisions of more
than 157 major courts of record over a period of more than
eighty years, the implementing decision of 1955 is a gross
violation of the powers of Congress, which has the express
duty of enforcing the provisions of the amendment.

The Decision and Judicial Review
Not only does the Brown decision undermine constitutional
government, but it strikes at the heart of our traditional process of
judicial review in the following ways:
(1) As we have seen, the number of precedents supporting
"'separate but equal'" is multitudinous.

Stare decisis is the

keystone to the orderly common law process of judicial review,
but, without being able to cite a single case upholding its

 6.
decision, the Supreme Court sees fit to throw down the entire
structure and overrule the case law of many decades.
(Z) The Court cited as authority books which were never
introduced in evidence.

The fir st 'notice the defendants had

of their existence came with the rendering of the opinion.
In addition, the books were clearly inadmissible as evidence.
(3) The Court says that in interpreting the amendment,
11

·we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the amendment

was adopted or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was
written,'" thus rejecting the cardinal principle of following
legislative intent in interpretation of the law.
(4) The Brown decision is admittedly based on psychology and
sociology, the two least precise of all disciplines, for the
Court said, "'Whatever may have been the extent of psychological
knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is
amply supported by modern authority. 11' The Court based its
decision entirely o.n inexact and controversial scie.ntific authority
after first reviewing a long line of established legal precedence
to the contrary.

While showing great concern for the effect of

segregation on the psyches of negro children, the Court neglected
to display any concern whatsoever for the effect of integration
on Southern white children and their parents.

The Decision and. Historical Facts
There are two particularly palpable examples in the decision
of inattention to recorded, historical facts.

 7.
(1) The Brow.n decision says,

11

ln • • • Gong Lum v. Rice

the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. 11' Yet,
in that decision we find, "'The case then reduces itself to the
question whether a State can be said to afford to a child of Chinese
ancestry bor.n in this country, and a citizen of the United States,
equal protection of the laws by giving her the opportunity for
a common school education which receives only colored children
of the brown, yellow, or black races. 11'
(2) In discussing the intent of the Congress which proposed the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Court said, "'This discussion and
our ow.n investigation convince us that, although these sources
cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with
which we are faced.

At best, they are inconclusive.'" The

same Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendme.nt
provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia;
yet the Court says the evidence of Congressi'Onal intent is
I The Court ch'Ose to over!l.oek the fact that
Congress., which is specifically charged wH:h 1m.for-cing the
Fourteenth Amendment, in lilts most recel!it a·cthm. bearing ion
>the :suihjte-ct., passed a gr.aint·s-in-aid pro:gra.m

in !1:94·6 w'hiodh recognized the

school 1unches

but e·qua>l'" ·doctrine..

"1 l'C!TSCA. lJ. ii&©...
'['he Court's Scientific Authorilties
Senator Eastland has exposed the "'modern authorities"' upon
which the entire decision is based.

Of the six '"authorities"' cited,

K. B. Clark was an employee of the same NAACP whose lawyers were

 8.

arguing the case.

Theodore Brameld has ten citations for Communistic

activities by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and
E. Franklin Frazier has eighteen.

The chief reliance of the Court

was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma, which states that the
U. S. Constitution is "'impractical and unsuited to modern conditions'",
and its adoption was "'nearly a plot against the common people'".
This, then, is the decision which has been used as the wedge
which will force integration of not only our schools, but also our
transportation system, our recreation system, and every other facet
of our lives. Again, we reiterate our firm conviction that if this
decision is left unchallenged in our law books, the beginning of the
end of our liberty is upon us.

ACTIONS OF OTHER STATES
The initial decision of May 17, 1954, left the Southern people
confused and despairing, but as time progressed the realization
dawned that there are many courses left open to the States in their
battle to preserve their dual school systems'.

The first half of 1955

saw several States strengthen their segregation laws, but most of
them waited for the implementing decision.

On January 9, 1956, the

people of Virginia gave overwhelming support to the report of the
Gray Commission, and the great counterattack on the decision began.
At the present time all the Southern States except Tennessee,
Arkansas, and Texas have taken significant steps toward maintenance
of their schools.

Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and South

Caroli.na have passed bills providing for various types of pupil

 9.
assignment and transfer plans. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and South Carolina have either ended compulsory education or provided
for an end thereof in districts which might have to integrate.
also was a proposal of the Gray Commission.

This

South Carolina, Georgia,

Alabama, North Carolina, and Mississippi have taken measures for
closing the public schools if integration is forced upon those States or
districts thereof.

Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama have

provided for tuition grants to students of districts in which the public
schools may be closed, and the Gray Commission report embodies
such a plan.

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida,

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana have interposed in
behalf of segregation.
Such is the present situation in the other Southern States.

The

pattern in each State varies, as it must, in order to represent the
trend of thought in the respective States involved, but all plans have one
thing in common: the dual school system shall be maintained, or the
entire public school system will be in jeopardy.

Before this subcommittee

decided on its recommendations, it sought to evaluate the situation in
Texas and to determine the will of our people in this matter.

THE SITUATION IN TEXAS
The situation in Texas as regards segregation is a varied one.
The fact which strikes one immediately upon studying the problem is
that there is not A problem, but rather there. are hundreds of problems.
The situation varies from county to county and even from district to
district within a county.

The most recent figures given by the Texas

 1o.

Education Agency on the number of white and negro scholastics
by county are attached as Appendix II.

They show that there are

forty-four counties without a single negro scholastic, while there are
five counties in which the white scholastics are in the minority. An
additional ninety counties have less than 50/o negro scholastics, while
there are ten with 40-500/o.

There are nineteen counties with 30-400/o

negro scholastics, twenty-four counties with Z0-30%, ten with 15-20"/o,
twenty with 10-15%, and thirty-two with 5-100/o.

A map showing the

location of these counties is hereby attached as Appendix ill.

With

.

the exception of Hall, Wilbarger, and King Counties, all the counties
with more than 10% negro scholastics are east of the line ·Goliad-SeguinAustin-Waco-Fort Worth-Bonham.

In addition, the degree of opposition

to integration varies even in counties in the same percentage bracket.
It is clear that the problem must be handled at the local level to as
great an extent as is possible.

The Plight of the Negro Teachers
Texas has an excellent public school system, one which attempts
to provide substantially equal facilities for both races.

The pay of negro

and white teachers has been equalized by the Gilmer-Aikin Law.

At the

present time there are 56, 897 white, and 8, 493 negro, classroom
teachers, including vocational teachers, who receive respectively a
total of $259, 905, 819 and $3Z, 098, 320 in annual salaries.

These negro

teachers are the leaders of the negro communities throughout the State
and have done an excellent job of helping to raise the standards of their
people.

Yet judging by the fact that there are fewer negro teachers

 11.
in all the North and West put together than there are in the State of
Texas, and viewing the effects of integration on the hapless negro
teachers of the border States, we must conclude that few indeed will
be the number of negro teachers who will be hired by the local boards
to teach white children in integrated schools.

If integration were to

come to Texas, our negro teachers will probably suffer the same fate
as those of Oklahoma and Missouri.

The Present Extent of Integration in Texas
In seeking to determine the present extent of integration in Texas,
we have found ourselves hampered by a lack of official information
on the subject.

The Texas Education Agency does not have full

information on integration from the local districts and has no comprehensive figures available.

We must therefore state that though

our list of integrated districts is as complete as possible to the date
of its compilation, it probably lacks the names of several integrated
districts.

The numbers of white and negro

are those

given in the most recent statistical report of the Texas Education
Agency, which is for the 1954-55 school year.

The figures given as

the number of actually integrated pupils are approximatio.ns of the
local superintendents in many instances.

With the above qualifications,

we now report our findings on integration in Texas.
A total of eighty-four districts have integrated either partially
or completely, all of which, except seven, are in counties that have
less than 10"/o negro scholastics.

The exceptions are: the Moody State

 12.
School at Galveston (Galveston County. 19. 3%), which school has
2. 4% negro scholastics; Nordheim (DeWitt County, 13. 8%), with
2. 6% negro scholastics; Austin (Travis County, 14. 8%), with 14. 5%
negro scholasticsi and Marion, Navarro, Schertz Cibolo. and Seguin
(Guadalupe County, 13. 7%), with 20.

6%,

10. 7%, • 6%, and 16. 7"/o

negro scholastics respectively.
Six integrated districts have more than 10% negro scholastics;
the highest of these is Marion, with ZO. 6%, the only district with
over 20% negro scholastics.

Eleven districts have between 5% and 10%,

thirty-seven districts have between 1% and 5%, and thirty districts
have less than 1% negro scholastics.
We have not included in the list of integrated schools those
schools on military reservations.
federal executive order.

These schools were integrated by

The boards are composed of military

personnel appointed by the State Commissioner of Education with the
approval of the State Board of Education.

They receive State funds

based on average daily attendance, and the remainder of their funds
come from the federal government.

The only requirement they must

meet for State funds is that the quality of education meets the State
standards.

'"The Texas Commission on Race Relations'"
No school district nor official should confuse the Texas Commission on Race Relations with any official agency of this State for

 13.
it has no official standing of any kind.

It has issued a report or reports

from time to time which we have checked and found to be inaccurate
and unreliable.

Action should be taken to prevent persons from

operating under color of official title, thereby misleading the public.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
Having examined the present situation in Texas in regard to the
location of negro scholastics, the plight of the negro teachers, and
the amount of integration in the State, we turn our attention to the
dominant fact of the entire issue--the will of the people of Texas,
which it is the function of representative government to execute.
What is the will of the people of Texas? In the Democratic
Primary of July 28, 1956, the people of this sovereign State rendered
a verdict of unmistakable clarity.

By a ratio of three and one-half

to one, seventy-eight per cent of the voters expressed themselves as
being in favor of maintaining segregation in the public schools.

The

percentage of voters favoring segregation and interposition in each
county is shown in Appendix V.

A map of the State showing the location

of the vote for segregation is hereby attached as Appendix VI.

A

comparison of this map with the two foregoing maps provides several
interesting observations.

As might be expected, the percentage in

favor of maintaining our racial mores is generally highest in those
areas in which the percentage of the negr<> population is highest.

This

is only natural, for the people in these areas best understand the
advantages which segregation offers to both races because segregation
is a fact and not just a legal theory. As t.he percentage of negro

 14.

populatio.n declines, so declines the vote in favor of segregation, for
those who have fewer contacts with the other race must by nature have
less understanding of the necessity for and advantages of segregation.
A detailed examination shows the following:
The five counties with a .negro scholastic population of over 50%
all approved the referendum by better than 80%.

Ten counties with

40-50% negro scholastic populatio.n all approved by better than 80%.
Of nineteen counties with 30-40%, eighteen approved by better than

80% and one by 79%.

Of twenty-four counties with Z0-30%, sixteen

carried by better than 80%, and the remaining "eight carried by 70-80%.
Out of ten counties with 15-ZO% negro scholastics, eight carried by
better than 80%, one by 74% and one by 64%.

Of twenty counties with

10-15%, eleven carried by better than 80%, seven by 70-80%, and two
by 60-70"/o.

Of thirty-two counties with 5-10%, thirteen carried by more

than 80%, twelve by 70-80%, six by 60-70%, and one did not carry the
referendum on the ballot.

Of 134 counties having less than 5% negro

scholastics, twenty-three carried by more than 80%, forty-eight by .

70-80%, forty-three by 60-70%, sixteen by 50-60%, two did not carry,
and two did not have the opportunity to vote on the referendum. It is
interesting to note that in the two counties, Castro and Webb, which
disapproved the referendum, there are

z. 54% and

• 03% negro scholastics

respectively, and that all sixteen of the counties which approved the
referendum by 50-60% have less than 5% negro scholastics.
All in all, twenty-one counties approved the referendum by more
than 90%, eighty-three by 80-90%, seventy-seven by 70-80%, fifty-two

 15.
by

and sixteen by 50-60o/o; two disapproved, and three counties

were illegally denied the right to vote.

In Bexar, Uvalde, and Kleberg Counties, in which the major
school districts, i. e., San Antonio, Uvalde, and Kingsville have
integrated, the County Democratic Executive Committees denied their
people the right to vote on this issue.

It is unfortunate that the people

in these three counties we re thus denied the right to express their
opinion on this issue, but judging from the results in the State at large
and in the counties adjoining these three, we think it safe to assume
the results would have been in favor of segregation.
A comparison of the results of the referendum with a map of
the integrated school districts reveals that the people in those counties
voted for segregation.

This indicates that the people in such counties

do not necessarily agree with the action taken by the school boards.
There are indications that a substantial majority of negroe s
do not wish to attend integrated schools.

For example, in Fort

Stockton the school board conducted a poll which showed that the majority
of negroe s in the district favored segregated schools, and in Victoria
378 negroes were eligible for transfer to an integrated school, but only
52 applied for transfer.

There are other examples, but these serve

to illustrate our conclusion.
INTERPOSITION
A substantial number of the States and large segments of the
people of this Nation are protesting and objecting to the federal

 16.
government invasion of various areas of rights reserved to the several
States and their people, the segregation cases being but o.ne example.
The third proposition on the referendum called for an expression by
the people of Texas on the use of interposition to halt illegal federal
e.ncroachment in those areas reserved by the Constitution to the States
and their people.

This proposition carried by a greater majority than

the one on segregation.

Eighty-one per cent (810/o) of the voters of

Texas favored the use of interposition to halt such destructive and
unconstitutional federal action.

A map showing the location of this

vote is attached as Appendix VII.
The states of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, North
Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Texas are protesting in various ways
against invasion by the federal government of their historic and traditional
right to operate and control their own schools.

While the pr.otest by

and in each of those States and their people is generally denominated
''interposition"', the actions and courses of action vary from state to
state.

Interposition, as we use the term, has the meaning attributed

to it by Governor Allan Shivers and the State Democratic Executive
Committee.

Concisely stated,

'interposition°' in Texas is a one-word

11

description of the lawful and constitutional protest by the State and its
people against the invasion of its reserved rights under the Constitution,
including but not limited to the right to govern and operate its public
free schools.
As related to the segregation cases, it may fairly be stated that
those who favor mixing the white and colored races have sought and are

 17.

still seeking to minimize the objections of the affected people by
disparagement of the idea of protest and non-consent that is inherent in
interposition.

Such attempted disparagement has followed the line that

interposition is the same thing as the historic doctrine of nullification,
or the line that interposition has no standing in court as a judicial procedure similar to injunction, mandamus, etc., and hence has no meaning.
During the current constitutional crises there has been no attempt
by ballot, convention or legislative act on the part of Texas to declare
any act of the federal government forever null and void within the
borders of this State, which is of course the essence of nullification.
The fact that inte'rposition is not a remedial, procedural court doctrine
for judicial action such as the remedies of injunction or mandamus, etc.,
does not imply that it has no meaning.

On the co.ntrary, our whole

history shows that unpopular laws to which the people do not consent,
whether established by judicial fiat, legislative act or executive edict,
are ultimately changed; and this is especially true in the United States
where the people have the freedom to express their dissent, to asset
their protest and to petition for their rights rather than resort to
revolution as practiced in those countries that are not governed by
constitutional law similar to ours.

The many instances of successful

interposition by the people of this Nation against laws to which those
people do not consent are recorded in the history of our country for
all who will to see and read.

Those who favor mixing the white and

colored races are loudly proclaiming that the Supreme Court has spoken

 18.
in the segregation cases and that we should all accept those decisions
without objection, protest or attempting to undo the manifest harm
to the local communities directly affected thereby.

The inevitable

question arises, however, as to why the people, both white and colored,
must accept the most recent judicial expression thereon when the fact
is that we would .not now be faced with this explosive situation had
the NAACP and its supporting politicians been as willing to accept the
157 or more previous judicial opi.nions and decisions which were
directly contrary to that to which our submission is now demanded.
The referendum shows beyond cavil the will of the people of
Texas to use interposition to halt the illegal federal encroachment.
In relation to the segregation cases, implementation of the will of
81"/o of the voting citizens of Texas to use interpositio.n lies in the
following practical course:
(1) Individual, personal rejection of compliance with what
is merely the latest expression of judicial opinion; refusal
by every individual to observe a judgment to which he was

not a party and for the performance of which he is not liable,
being subject to no penalty for such refusal.

This individual

protest and objection may and will be shown in every lawful
act of omission and commission of such individual, as well
as by written and spoken word.

Such individual protest will

find its reflection in appropriate action or non-action of those
individuals holding any office of honor, trust or profit under

 19.
this State and every governmental subdivision thereof, as well
as all private organizations of which the individuals are members.
(2) Official action or non-action, as the case may be, of the
Legislature, local, State and district officials, boards, bureaus
and departments will be expressive of protest and objection to
the extent and only to the extent that the incumbent officials
utilize every legal means at their command to avoid and circumvent compliance, and to maintain a dual school system so long as
the people of this State and the local communities desire it.
(3) Adoption by the next Legislature of the State of Texas of
an appropriate resolution calling for an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to clarify the State-Federal
relationship and thereby halt illegal federal encroachment in
those areas reserved to the several States and their people
in the interests of their freedom.

The State has the right,

under the Constitution, to initiate such an amendment and the
amendment should in .no wise be limited to the segregation
cases, but must be applicable to the whole field of StateFederal governmental relations because the segregatio.n cases
are but one aspect of the constitutional dilemma this Nation
faces today.

 20.

GOUR T DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
In examining the requirements which the various courts have
laid down regarding segregation, we reached the conclusion that
there are five decisions which have particular bearing on the situation
in Texas.

These decisions are ( 1) Brown v. Board of Education of

Topeka, May 17, 1954, 347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873;
(2) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, May 31, 1955, 349 U. S. 294,
75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 653; (3) Briggs v. Elliott, July 15, 1955,
132 F. Supp. 776; (4) McKinney v. Blankenship, October 12, 1955,
282

s.

W. 2d 691; and (5) Jackson v. Mans.field Independent School

District, June 28, 1956, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

We have studied these cases closely and believe

they are quite clear as to what the States are and are not required
to do.

We now present our findings on the effects of these decisions.
( 1) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, May 17, 1954.
''We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of
children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even
though the physical facilities and other 'tangible 1 factors may
be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal
educational opportunities?

We believe that it does.

11

"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine
of 'separate but equal 1 has no place.

11

(2) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, May 31, 1955.

"Full

implementation of these constitutional principles may require
solution of varied local school problems.

School authorities have

 21.
the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving
these problems; courts will have to consider whether the action
of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of
the governing constitutional principles."
"But it should go without saying that the vitality of these
constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because
of disagreement with them.
"While giving weight to these public and private considerations,
the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and
reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954,
ruling.

Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that

additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective
manner."
"They {the courts) will also consider the adequacy of any
plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to
effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school
system.

11

"The judgments below, except that in the Delaware case, are
accordingly reversed and the cases are remanded to the District
Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees
consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit
to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all
deliberate speed the parties to these cases.
(3) Briggs v. Elliott.

.

11

What do the above two decisions require?

.

The best interpretation of them is found in Briggs v. Elliott.

 22.

"It is important that we point out exactly what the Supreme Court
has decided and what it has not decided in this case.

It has not

decided that the federal courts are to take over or regulate the
public schools of the states. It has not decided that the states
must mix persons of different races in the schools or must require
them to attend schools or must deprive them of the right of choosing
the schools they attend.

What is has decided, and all that it has

decided, is that a state may not cieny to any person on account of
race the right to attend any school that it maintains.

This, under

the decision of the Supreme Court, the state may not do directly
or indirectly; but, if the schools which it maintains ·are open to
children of all races, no violation of the Constitution is involved
even though the children of different races voluntarily attend
different schools, as they attend different churches.

Nothing

in the Constitution or in the decision of the Supreme Court takes
away from the people freedom to choose the schools they attend.
The Constitution, in other words, does not require integration.
It merely forbids discrimination.

It does not forbid such segregation

as occurs as the result of voluntary action.

It merely forbids the

use of governmental power to enforce segregation.

The Fourteenth

Amendment is a limitation upon the exercise of power by the state
or state agencies, not a limitation upon the freedom of individuals."
Thus there is nothing unconstitutional about the dual school
system.

Based upon voluntary segregation, it may be retained,

provided that discriminatory features are removed.

It may be

 Z3.

assumed that segregation is voluntary if after original assignment
to a negro school, the negro student does not file a transfer
petition.

Transfer from the negro system to the white system

may not be denied because of race, but the meeting of other
qualifications prior to such transfer is not prohibited.

The courts

do not seek to "'take over or regulate'" the transfer or monetary
policies of the State, as long as they are nondiscriminatory.
(4) McKinney v. Blankenship.

Though the text of this opinion is

both technical and tedious, it is necessary to include certain
portions thereof in this report before we seek to interpret the
decision.
"'When the language of the Court is so limited it will be evident
that what the Court condemned as unconstitutional and void, and
all it condemned, was constitutional, statutory, and local law
provisions which require or permit forced segregation through
and by governmental officers and agencies.

The Supreme Court

did not direct immediate and complete integration in all schools. 11 ·
"'The parties have treated the word 'allotments• in the second
sentence of Article Z9ZZ-13 as meaning 'funds'.
funds.

It does not mean

Article 2922-12 defines the term 'professional units 1 as

teachers and administrative personnel, who will be referred to
hereafter as 'teachers'.

The first sentence of Article 2922-13

provides that 'The number of professional units allotted' to each
school district shall be based upon and determined by average

 24.

daily attendance of students for the preceding school year,
'separate for whites and separate for negroes.

1

Sub-sections

(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Section I of Article 2922-13 provide the basis for determining the .number of teachers to be
allotted to each school district.

Thus it appears the word

'allotments 1 as used in the sentence under consideration means
'teachers', and when it speaks of 'such allotments 1 it speaks of
'such teachers'.

As reconstructed in this setting, the second

sentence provides:

'Such teachers based upon white attendance

shall be utilized in white schools, and teachers based upon negro
attendance shall be utilized in negro schools.' It follows that the
limitation, if any, imposed by the sentence on the use of public
funds applies only to their use in the payment of salaries to teachers
assigned to teach in integrated schools.
"Counsel for the Board of Trustees and Superintendent of
Big Spring School District admitted in oral argument that there is
no necessity or occasion for declaring the last seven words in the
first sentence of Section 1 of Article 2922-13 unconstitutional, and
we agree.

There is nothing in those words requiring segregation,

and there is nothing in the Brown decision which can be interpreted
as nullifying a state statute directing that white and negro students
be enumerated separately, on the basis of average daily attendance,
in determining the number of teachers to which a school district
is entitled. 11'
"The language of the sentence (the second sentence of Article
2922-13) is mandatory to accomplish its purpose but it is not

 ZS.

prohibitory.

While it requires the use of teachers allotted on

the basis of attendance of white students in white schools, and
the use of teachers allotted on the basis of negro attendance in
negro schools, it does not provide fhat none of such teachers may
be used in integrated schools. 11'
"'Section 7 of Article VII of the Constitution is declared unconstitutional and void to the extent that it requires segregation of
white and negro

in the public schools. 11'

'The first sentence of Article 2900 is declared constitutional

11

and valid.

The second sentence of the article is declared

unconstitutional and void.
11

The third sentence is immaterial."'

'The first two sentences of Article 2922-13 are given a

construction consistent with this opinion and are declared constitutional and valid. 11'
Thus, the Gilmer-Aikin Law is valid in its entirety.

The

interpretation which the Court has placed on the second sentence
of Article 2922-13 is somewhat puzzling.

Does it mean that

negro students in white schools, or vice versa, are not to be
counted in calculating professional unit allotments for that school?
If a white school in which one negro is enrolled, or vice versa,

automatically becomes an integrated school, how are allotments
then determined?

Are they determined on the basis of the number

of the students of the predominant race or on the basis of total
enrollment, both negro and white?

The decision does not answer

these questions, nor does it indicate that it will not accept

 26.

whatever answers to them the Legislature sees fit to render.
(5) Jackson v. Mansfield Independent S_i hool District.

"We think

it clear that, upon the plainest principles governing cases of this
kind, the decision appealed from was wrong ln refusing to declare
the constitutional rights of plaintiffs to have the school board,
acting promptly, and completely wiinfluenced by private and public
opinion as to the desirability of desegregation in the community,
proceed with delibe:rate speed consistent with administration to
abolish segregation in Mansfield's only high school and to put·
into effect desegregation there.

11

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
This subcommittee finds itself confronted with a dilemma.

The

federal courts, correct or not, have ruled in favor of integration,
but the people of the State of Texas have made their wishes in regard
to segregation quite clear.

We believe that the recommendations

herein submitted reconcile the two as far as is possible.

The Legal

and Legislative Subcommittee recommends the enactment of legislation
in substance as follows:
(I) That schools should be designated by the local boards as
either "white 11 or "negro".

Negro students should be assigned

at the beginning of the fall term to negro schools, and white
students should be assigned to white schools.

However, it should

be specifically stated that such assignments are tentative, and
no student is to be denied transfer from one school to another
because of race or color.

 27.

With the removal of race or color as a bar to transfer, the
dual school system should meet the test of "a racially nondiscriminatory school system".
(2)

That school districts which maintained both negro and white

schools for the school year 1953-54 should be required to
continue doing so or to re-establish the dual system if the
schools for one race within the district have been dispensed
with.

Those districts which did not maintain facilities for

both races in 1953-54 should be required to continue or to
re-establish arrangements made for educating children of the
race for which schools were not provided.
In the latter case, the children of the race whose opportunity
for education was so arranged should accept such arrangements
as the local board made with neighboring districts for their
education.

The children might not be denied the right to transfer

into schools within the district desigm·.ted for the other race
because of race or color.

This also should meet the test of

"a racially nondiscriminatory school system 11 •
(3)

That as to transfers under these recommendatiors,

· n shonk

be paid by the State at a fixed rate per child in average daily
attendance for and in behalf of sending districts which are
financially unable to pay tuition for pupils transferred to a
receiving district or districts.
This is necessary in order that districts which did not maintain

 28.

schools for one race in

may continue to send these

children out of the district, as provided in recommendation
number 2.
(4) That the local school board should not have the power to
abolish the dual school system or to abolish arrangements for
transfer out of the district for the minority race in favor of a
fully integrated system.

The board of trustees shall have no

authority without a prior vote of the people to abolish a dual
school system, and they shall have no transfer authority that
will result in an integrated school without a vQte of the people.
To avoid harassment of the people in the district, such an
election might be held no oftener than once every two years.
An election might be required upon the petition of twenty per cent

of the qualified voters in the district.

Since the schools

would already be on a racially nondiscriminatory basis, this
provision would not conflict with the Mansfield decision.
(5) That there should be a specific statement that negroes in
schools designated as white and whites in schools designated as
negro might not be included by either white or negro schools in
the computations of average daily attendance of pupils for the

 29.

purpose of determining the number of professional units under
Article 2922-13, schools integrated in accordance with the
provision of number four excepted.
We believe that this conforms to the interpretation of Article 2922-13
given by the decision in McKinney v. Blankenship and also to
the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, for the
courts have not undertaken the task of directing the legislature
as to how the schools are to be financed.
(6)

That any child may be exempted from compulsory attendance

at integrated schools provided however that compulsory educational
requirements are otherwise complied with.
The referendum made the will of the people quite clear on this
specific point.
The abolition of compulsory education in such situation gives
the parent a choice, the choice of integrated education for his
children or no education.

We do not believe that this is a satis-

factory choice, and accordingly we recommend that the Legislature
give serious consideration to some sort of tuition grant plan,
whereby a parent who does not wish to place his child in an
integrated school may receive State funds to have the child educated
in a segregated, non-sectarian private school.

Such aid should

be given only upon affidavit that the child was being withdrawn
from the public schools due to the parents' dislike of integration.
Needless to say, the child could not then be enrolled in an integrated
private school. Misuse of the tuition grant should be made a felony.

 30.

(7)

That the Attorney General should furnish legal advice to

persons seeking to charter non-sectarian educational corporations.
(8)

That substandard physical facilities of non- sectarian private

schools should not cause loss of accreditation.
(9)

That, to retain accreditation, non-sectarian private schools

should be required to give uniform tests devised by the Texas
Education Agency for the purpose of determining whether or not
educational standards in such schools meet State standards.
(10)

That members of the staff and administration of non-sectarian

private schools should be allowed to participate in the State's
teacher retirement program proportionate to the number of
pupils attending under the provisions of number six above.
( 11)

That transfer within a district should be only with the approval

of the local school board upon the' recommendation in writing of the
principal of the school from which the pupil seeks to transfer and
the school superintendent.

The petition for transfer should be

filed with the local board within five days after notification of the
assignment of the pupil, and the local board should act on the
petition within ninety days from the time it is filed.

A petition

should be for only one year's duration, and to continue in a school
other than that to which the pupil was originally assigned, a new
petition should be filed every year.
( 12)

That, in considering a petition for transfer, the local school

board should take into consideration such factors as health, morals,
family background, intellectual aptitude, course of study, location
of residence, previous training, and welfare of the particular child,

 31.

his effect on the academic standards of the school to which he
seeks to transfer, the welfare of the other children in that school,
his compatibility with the children in that school, and any and all
other reasonable factors which the local board sees fit to take
into consideration.

Race or color is not a reasonable factor.

(13) That the permission of the local board should not be necessary
for the transfer of a child from a school designated for the other
race to one designated for his own race.
· { 14) That a Joint Legislative Committee on School Assignments
should be established by the Legislature, and that the course of
an appeal from the decision of a local school board on assignments
or transfers which involve constitutional questions should be to
the State Commissioner of Education and thence to the Joint Committee.

If the Commissioner of Education should rule contrary

to the ruling of the local board, the local board should be allowed
to request the aid of the Attorney General's Office, which might
then carry the appeal before the Joint Committee.

The action of

the Joint Committee should be final, and all further jurisdiction
in the matter should be removed from the local boards.

Any action

in the courts should have to be brought against the Joint Committee.
The members of the local boards have full-time jobs in addition
to their service on the school board.

They do not have time to

 32.

handle routine district business and also suffer constant harassment
by appeals from their decisions, nor should they be burdened by the
threat of

proceedings against them.

This recoinmendation

would enable the local boards to do their job as they saw best, and

if someone objected thereto, it would no longer be the local board's
worry.
( 15) That any parent who wishes to protest the transfer of any
child from a school designated for his own race into a school
designated for the other race, which his child attends, might
appeal the decision of the local board through the channels provided
for in Recommendation { 14) above.

The transfer of such child

should be denied until final disposition of the appeal.
According to the opinion rendered on July 7, 1956, by Judge
Thomsen in Rose Marie Robinson v. Board of Education of St.
Mary's County in the U.

s.

District Court, Maryland, and according

to many other cases, these administrative remedies would have
to be exhausted before a case could be brought in the Federal courts.
( 16) That any district whose school board might violate any of the
above provisions should lose all Foundation Program Funds and
should also lose its accreditation.

Individuals who might violate

the above provisions should be liable to the penalty provisions of
Article 2922-21.

In addition, any school board guilty of such

violation should have its offices declared vacant, and a special
election should be held within twenty to thirty days.

 33.
(17) That a special assistant or assistants be designated in the
Attorney General 1 s Office to assist the local districts, the
Commissioner of Education, and the Joint Committee on School
Assignments in any legal questions or controversies arising i.n
the field of segregation, and the State should bear all costs
adjudged against the local school board in these matters.
(18) That the Legislature establish a perrnane.nt Joint Legislative

Committee on Segregation to give attention to these matters as
further developments take place.

The continuing .nature of the

problem necessitates a continuing study of that problem.
(19) That the Joint Legislative Committee on Segregation should
retain a State psychologist and/or sociologist to furnish advice
to the local districts on these matters.
(20) That the Texas Education Agency be required to gather

statistics on the number of integrated school districts in Texas
and the amount of actual integra"ti!on within those districts, and
that failure of a district to cooperate in this matter be made
punishable under Recommendation (16) above.

These measures cannot be considered as separate measures but
must be viewed as a whole.

They are designed to be most effective

when utilized thusly.
We believe that the above recommendations will meet the requirements of the various court decisions of the last two years and will also

 34.

maintain our higher standard of public free school education for all
the races.
Our study has not included State colleges and universities, but
we note that the legislatures of some of the affected states have
adopted certain admission requirements which our Legislature might
profitably study.
This Subcommittee also recommends that the next Legislature
pass a resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States,
particularly Amendments IX and X thereof, to more specifically define
the limited powers granted by such Constitution and the Amendments
thereof to the United States government, and more specifically defining
the powers reserved by the States and the people thereof, to accord
in substance with the intention of the States originally ratifying such
Constitution.
We recommend that the Legislature give consideration to an
amendment to the U. S. Constitution along these lines:
"Congress and the courts in matters between the States
or matters between the State and federal government shall use
the level of government closest to the community for all
public functions and utilize co-operative intergovernmental
arrangements only when appropriate to attain economical
performance, reserving national action for residue participation where State and local governments are not folly adequate.
State responsibilities shall not be pre -empted by the United
States except where a State has failed to meet its obligations
to the nation and to the people. 11
In conclusion, we wish to thank Governor Allan Shivers, Attorney

General John Ben Shepperd, Commissioner of Education Dr. J. W. Edgar,

 35.

and their staffs, and also the Dallas Morning News and Richard M.
Morehead of its Austin staff for their advice and assistance in the
compilation and writing of this report.
Respectfully submitted,

Hall E. Tim.anus, Chairman
Mrs. Joe Fisher
J. V. Hammett
Charles Howell
Will Crews Morris, Ex officio member

Senator A. M. Aikin, Jr., a member of this subcommittee, has
been unable tc attend any of the meetings or discussions concerning
this report due to serious illness, and therefore is hot a .signer of
this report.

 APPENDIX I

Preliminary report of the Legal and Legislative Subcommittee,
Texas Advisory Committee on Segregation in the Public Schools:
"Austin, Texas
August 18, 1955

Honorable Will Crews Morris, Chairman
Texas Advisory Committee on Segregation in the Public Schools
San Antonio, Texas
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to the authority given by the Texas Advisory
Committee o.n Segregation in the Public Schools a.t its recent
organization meeting in Austin, you appointed the Legal and Legislative Subcommittee. This Subcommittee was deemed essential
by the Advisory Committee, and its Executive Comn1ittee, in the
performance of its assigned task.
This preliminary report is presented for submission to the
Executive Committee and to the Advisory Committee. Because
we feel so strongly that its contents should be broadcast as soon
as possible, for whatever public benefit may accrue therefrom,
we urge you to release it upon receipt. It should be emphasized that
it represents the views of this subcommittee, and does not necessarily
reflect those of the Advisory Committee
Our obvious first step was to study the decision of the United
States Supreme Court on May 17, 1954, in the school segregation
cases, and its impact upon the laws of the sovereign State of Texas
regarding segregation in its public schools. W.?. have given much
time and thought to both. We have con£ erred with State and local
officials •. However, we have not had sufficient time to study all of
the related problems which are present, such as the effect of the
decision on school administration, transportation, personnel, attendance areas, nor have we considered other Texas laws relating to
segregation. Because of its basic importance, our initial study was
directed to Senate Bill No. 116, 51st Legislature, 1949, more
commonly known as one of the Gilmer-Aikin Laws, which set up the
F. undation School Program. Under the terms of this Act, the State
furnishes financial aid to local school districts. It provides for
allotments based upon, and determined by, the average daily attendance in school districts, but on the. basis of separate schools for
whites and negroes.

 In making this preliminary report your Legal and Legislative
Subcommittee is evidencing its conviction that some type of advisory
report on the status of this Gilmer-Aikin Ln.w in particular was
needed prior to the forthcoming fall school term. We have taken
cognizance of the suit filed recently at Big Spring, Texas, seeking
a declaratory judgment. As long as this suit is pending it will not
be possible, we are informed, to secure an Attorney General's
Opinion covering its subject matter, since it is the policy of the
Attorney General's Office not to issue such an opinion under the
circumstances. However, your subcommittee felt that time is of
the essence as it has learned that many school boards believe that
under the decision of the Supreme Court integration was mandatory
for the coming school year. Therefore, this preliminary report is
made available to you at this time so that you may in turn make it
available to any interested person or school district for whatever
guidance it might afford.
Your Subcommittee would like to point out that this report
does not in any way attempt to solve the problems of segregation
or desegregation, but it does recognize that they are of such
character that well-considered solutions cannot be reached quickly,
and that the period of transition must be entered into with extreme
caution, and final steps taken only after a careful study of all of the
problems facing each school district.
As of this date, and in full light of the Supreme Court's decision
which is recognized as the supreme law of the land, your Subcommittee
finds the following:
1. That none of the segregation cases have attaci{g,d the GilmerAikin Laws nor have they been declared unconstitutional directly
or indirectly, and that they are presently in full force and effect.
Insofar as Texas is concerned, neither the State, its agencies,
nor any of its school districts were before the Supreme Court in
the school segregation cases.
2. That the Gilmer-Aikin Law setting up the Foundation School
Program is not in itself a segregation law, but is merely a law
by which State funds are made available to the various school
districts.
3. That the Supreme Court decision does not specifically
require integration, but rather prohibits segregation. This
finding is based on the opinion of John J. Parker, Chief Judge,
Fourth Circuit, District Court of the United States Eastern
District of South Carolina. This decision was rendered in the
case of Briggs vs. Elliott, which was one of the cases on remand
from the Supreme Court of the United States. It was decided
on July 15, 1955. According to information available to your
subcommittee the school districts which were before the Supreme
Court in segregation cases have not yet integrated, nor do they
plan to integrate for the coming school term. Judge Parker stated
in his opinion:

 'Nothing in the Constitution or in the decision of the
Supreme Court takes away from the people freedom to
choose the schools they attend. The Constitution, in
other words, does not require integration. It merely
forbids the use of governmental power to enforce
segregation. The Fourteenth Amendment is a limitation
upon the exercise of power by the State or State agencies,
not a limitation upon the freedom of individuals. t
Judge Parker's opinion is the first clarifying analysis of the
effect of the decision of the United States Supreme Court.
He is well known as an outstanding jurist in this country.
4.

That there is no danger of any school member or trustee
held in contempt in carrying out the provisions of the
Gilmer-Aikin Laws. Each individual school district has
different fact situations and problems to consider rega.rding
integration. This was clearly recognized by the Supreme
Court in its decision in that it allowed time for studying
and planning to carry out its edict. The Supreme Court itself
set the pattern for calm deliberation when it took more than
a year to formulate its decree.
We are convinced that no Federal court in Texas will interfere
in the operation of any school district until the district is involved
in a law suit. Not until then will the particular school board be·
subject to a Federal court order. Judge Parker, in the above quoted
·opinion, states that the Supreme Court did not say that the Federal
courts were to take over and regulate the public schools of a state,
nor did it decide that states must mix persons of different races in
the schools, or must require them to attend schools, or must deprive
them of the right of choosing the schools they attend.
Your subcommittee wishes to point out that, in view·- of the above,
every local school board should stop, look and listen before taking
any steps regarding integration. School districts face a distinct possibility of jeopardizing the funds they are eligible to receive under the
Gilmer-Aikin Program, if integration is prematurely effected. The
Big Spring law suit undoubtedly will shed some light on this question;
however, we see nothing from a legal standpoint to prevent schools
starting in September on a dual basis, if the districts so desire, and
continuing for the 1955-56 session in that status. We believe it highly
unlikely that any court would order a school district to change its
policy in this respect while the term is in progress.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court decree was handed
down shortly after the 54th Legislature had adjourned, consequently
the Legislature did not have an opportunity to consider a revision of
Texas laws in view of the Court 1 s decision.

 We are limiting our advice only to the 1955-56 school session.
Beyond this we do not venture to forecast. Your subcommittee
recognizes that the responsibility lies with the school districts to
start implementation in accordance with the Supreme Court• s decision.
It does feel, however, that in view of the Gilmer-Aikin Laws, which
form the cornerstone of our present public free school system operation,
state and local officials concerned should realize their obligation to
advise and assist local school districts by providing them with any
information available on the latitude they may have legally, within the
framework of the decision, to work out their problems. Hasty, illadvised action should not be allowed to mar efforbs to build a better
school system for all Texas children.
Respectfully submitted.,

/s/ Eugene E. Sanders
Eugene E. Sanders, Chairman
For the Legal and Legislative
$ubcommittee 11

 AFrnlmIX II
SCHOLJ'.STIC

County
.tinder son

.Andrews
Angelina
3

.Archer
..t\r111s·t,1•ong

iltascosa
Bailey
B:mdcra

Baylor
aee

Bell
Bexar

Blancc:>
Do:-dcn

Bosque
Bowio
Braz,:>ria

Brazos
Brewster
Briscoe

Brooks

.Rr.y..;n

Burleson

Dur net
Caldwell
Cdhoun

Cnllahan
Crur1erc1n

CMtp
Carson
Cass
Cast.ro
Chainbers

Cherokee
Childress
ClP.,Y

Cochran
Coke

Coleman
Collin
Coll incsr.,01°th
Colnrado
Co1r;.3l
Corrtnnche

Concho

POPUI.i\TION

No. ot'
\·Jhite

No. of
C:olored

%of
Colored

4,119

2,450

31.30

2,116

6,A2J

1,160
l,.S25
390

5,234

l,S85
2,0l.i4

76o

2,550

1,217

5,266

13,140
115,369

8$0 .

198

2,160

13,80.5

5,572
1,3'79
71'2

2,389

4,915

23
1,353
17

51
81

l,5ob

44

. ,J.38

1.08

16.55

1.44

--

1.08
28.90
3.81
37.10
J.h9

2.55

1,818
6,591
22

12.16

99

4.38
26.74

3,Roh

1,562
2,1JB
11

49

--150

5.38

--

2.52

10.16

27.73

. • 19

6.1?

-

2.96 .

3,000

1,075
3.3
670
162

36.83
1.72
15.18

35,h78

ll·g

.33
42.77

l,Ahl.i

1,891

3,7hh

1,7!6

1,1?.J..i

--

840

--

5.12

3,885
1,.536

2,297

4,827

1,937
122
9
80

28.64
6.69

95

J.47
12.33
9.63

1,711

1,101
1,801

1,526
873
2,645
1, 190
1,596
2,909
4,066

2,304

890

l.,O

455

1,096

170.
1,157
78

37.16
2.54
21.01

.50

4.98

2R.46

1.88

 County

Cooke
Coryell
Cottle
Crane
Crockett
Crosby
Culbers.,n
Dallam

Dallas
l.>awson

Deaf Smith

Delta
Denton
.De i:1tt
Dickens
Dimmit

DonlHy
Duval
J.!:astland
&:to!'

Edwai·ds
!!:llis
bll 1·aso

Fnlls
b'annin
1-;-nyc' t. t•;)
l<'ishet'

&'l:1:1d.
fOf!l'd

.F'o1•t Bend

I•'rflrklin

Frio

No. of

No. of
Colored

4,.11 1..

194

l,062

56
60

3,795
901
937
2,202

643
1,6JJ
l29,J59

4,049

2,608
1,,303

7,414
4,862

l,,JS8

2, 774
1,044
J,968

4,042

Qµ i.ucs

GAr.'M

GU.lesi:;ie
Gl)lia.d
Oonz11.lf:s

upe

l

Eale
Hall
Hamilton
Hans.i'o1•d
Hardeinrui

5.35
2.09

232

9.53

11
20, 710
245
17

.67
13.80

...

206

572
775
61
17
77

5.71

.65
lJ.65

1.16

13.75
.61

6.87
1.80
J.82

6,hll
51,529

2,716

29.76

),134

1,956

.79
.38.

3,,462
1,662

J.rJ3

942

21.39

2,756

4,772

2,!i2h
671.:

795
22

678

191

6,,h87

75
1,,755

...

l,68h

7SO

1 ,_

22,1ii,5
1,l128
2,,075

243

.3,273

]l"!l;t;t

Grl;M.in

s.a2

74

1

Gra:; so11
Or egg

20

3.90

4. 79

562

14,152
707

2, 795
3,02fi

Galv(ir,t.1.m

191

%of
Colored

127
30

72

5,352
s1

5

21.29

11.t .on

S1.S1
1.06
2.32
19.25

--.3.45
2.02

li,,C.26
1,$05

26.39

$, 20?
7,932

r\24

1,,633
1,059
1,,703

7.30

1.Q')

11.11

1,369

1,, 763

6.10

150
957
182

12,789
ll,,232
l, 11.U

l.52

51-lB

264

--

182 .

22.62
2.95

9.67

45.3?

13.66

."6.46 .

1.3 .02

9.66

 Courit;r

Enrdin
P.arris

Herrison
Hartley
HaskelJ

Hays

Hemphill

Hellderson
Hidaleo
Hill

Hockley
Hood

Hopkins
Houston
Howard
Hudspeth

Hunt
Hutchinson
Irion
Jeck
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Devis
Jeffer son
Jin
Jim

Johnson
.Jones

Karnes
Ka u!.'man
KendBlJ.

.Kenedy

Kent

Kerr
Kimble

v•i.ng
••

Kinney
Kleberg
Knox
Lamar
Lamb

Lampasas
La Salle
Lci.vaca

lee

L-eon

Limestone
Lipscomb
Live Oak
Llano
Loving

Lubbock

Lynn

Hadison

r::arion
Fart in

No. of

No. of'
Colorf"jd

;; of
Colorr:id

Jh,762

803

15.23
17.08

2,551

13h

!1.98

627
3,698
45,C..32
4,L;.L.
5,306

21)

1.i.56

1,307
88
1,19;;

26.11
.19
21.29
5.18
l.V

L,1,71

168,823

5,.:..)t
,.,. ,
258

4,Lt9c;
....

1,051

3,455

2,L2J

6,649
796
6,2n3
7,656
315

1,550

. 3,290

6,0 1)2

290
13

651
2,070
277

1,531
127

23
450

1
_,,__.,,,..

3,913
436
.36,069

11, ·100

8,40.5
6,6oS
4,029

71
400
3.'31

l,3'13

3, 798
4,138

l,2L.o
llt3
222

53.lil

-·

15.85

46.07
boo.
1.63

--1.h6 .
12 .03

28.39

--

24.h8
.84

134
2,184

J.hl

10

5

5.71
7.59

34.55

.Bo

2.20

2,671

105

161

19

l0.56

5,873

166

3.01
7.36
20.59
8.57

856

465

1,887
6,269
4,937
1,942
2, 717

J,u99

1,523
1,471
5,682

2,781
737

2,139
847
23

23,h85
2,416
IJ93

BBl

l,J.4h

49

150
1,625

463

33

549
704
1,317
1,632
1,607
2

2,310

115
610

1,293

06

3.78

--

9.53

1.67

13.$6
.31.61
h7.24
22.Jl
.36.62

..."!;
8.96

4.,4

40.59

59.hl.l
6.99

 County

Nason
r!at.agorda
HcCulloch

I-le Lennan
Medina
Mena rel

Niu land
Mih.un
Nil ls
!"!itchell

Hont.aeu9

.

x.orr1s
Motley
'.,{

No. of
ll'foit':'

871

:20.n

2,027
23,0.36
195

5,385

80

3.00
18.95

3, 716

4,707

628
9,536

910
2013

7.66

4,71+7

1,571

24.f.i7

1 , ,.•C-:n

1,045

36.37

2,J.37

36.11
29.97
37.?.4
3.88

954

3,Jl:il.i

3, 756
679

5

7f\q
I . ,

95·7
165

hl3,7CG
651
11,<h'/
3, 702
2,561

rarr:1er

2,019

Fe cos

') r'r1

P.ciins

Randall
H.eagnn

Real

P..e:d !i'.ive:r

F.efur;io
Hoberts

Rnnnels
S<:m A1.'.gustine

.San Jacinto
San fs.tric io
Sfln Saba

Schleicher
Scurry
.Shnclw.lf orr.i

Shelby

"""''.) ..-2 ........
),i.:>
....

, ,

20,678
1,529
699
l

-:it,3

, ..... 1 ..

7JS
262
')._, fi7
., 0

4,n52

2,598
211

-:4,.,.;-:-i:..c
..... _,,

975
3,338
5 J'il.f')
1,282
1,181
619

12,367
i,Ite4
5'98

4 ') f C:
, .... J

',,,-

Bl.:2

3,6h7

9.35

3.81

1,172

1,311

10.60

1, 7;,:;h

40.?.3
1.78
.98

156

84

h:irkCI'

Presidio

9.23

2,509

Kolan

l'olk

.68

1.57

1,119

'

.t·anols

33

10

4,o.c:. o

L,6l.3
Ir o::.::
'. ·-

Orang'J
f alo fint.o

l.:U1

1,169

li,lJS

Oldbam

10

% of

h,h73

lfacl'fScloches

Ochiltri:-ie

N'='• ct
Colored

l

25

' o<'.l

. ..,.,)

1,05.3

4.o4

.96
30.12

4.85

1

112

.01
13.81

52

6.58

1,165
ll.i5

28.83

3.45

2eo

'?.13

-,502

l.11.
"_,. _._,,

3,041

J6.oo

..;'/

9h

33.9?

2.70

804

30.09
40.50

203

1.61

39
93
19
1,613

6.12

986

5.

.34

2.08
2.21
J(•.67

 County
Sherman
Smith

Sornervell
Sta.l•r

Stephens
Ste1•lin3
Stonewall

Su"t,ton
Swisher

Ta.rI'nnt

Taylor
•rerrel.l
·rel·i.·y

Throckmorton
Titns
Tom Green
'I'rnvls
'Irinit.y

Tyler
Upton
Uv:;,·J.de
Val lli:irrle
Vnn Zmld.t.

Vfot.oria
'.ii2.1l·:e::o
;,:·;i.llcr

bard

ingt.on

Webb
Wharton
\'1heeler
:.'le hi ta
·;,ilbarger

:·:nincy

\'ij.JJ.lamson
\'iil8on
1{tnkle't"

:.bod
Yo;-1kllln
Y0tmg

Za._pata

Zavala

Ho.

or

White

578
11,695
h.58
5,099

1,667
325

691

646

2,394
eo,435'

14,058

5?0

3,352

623
3,088
12 ,4.17
28,979
2,230
2,959
1,589

4,518

4,756

No. of
Colored

31.84

67
l
32
18
66

3.86

-

645
80

673
627

s,01s

667
682
1,h83
67

J,8b9

1,6.54
3,300

i,007
3,395

l0..54

-...

4.39
2

l.80
4.81
14.75
23.42
33.38

4.os

l,164

4.$.20

46

3,054

4.43
2.08
2.68

1.66
10.32

2,854

2,471

.Jo

41
91
451
195

1,621

2,348
16,113
7,576
l,957
18,070
3,307
.5,622
6,701
3,511

--

5,t!.64

3,?18
8,967
1,704
1,411

%of

Colored

l,770
5
2,098
66

l,.317
385

21
1,286

86

59

42

700...
27

--24

.90

8.14

so.51

1.59
b2.98
.03
21.68
3.26
6.79
l0.43

.31
16.10

2.39
2.J3
1.36
15.39
.18
.81

.10

 APPENDIX I I I
PERCENTAGE OF NEGRO SCHOLASTIC POPULATION
BY COUNTY

of
)UNTIES
).

5
10

i#

50%

0

40 - 50%

•0

20

10

D

15 - 20%

rn

*

19

*•
-

•• •• •• •• ••
•• --• •-··• •••
•• •• ••• *.**
Di\a;'9A•

30 - 40%
30%

10 - 15%
5 - 10%
0 -

5%

_.,."..,

...........

........,.... ........

Ol. . T._

_..

......

o... ..

IUU.\.

·-........

SCALE
•-.;•5:111:11;i··-"ii::=:::i
......
.1·

·-- --·
-·· - .

.......

..........

....."""

TEXAS

 APPENDIX IV -A
LOCATION OF INTEGRATED DISTRICTS

fo. of Integrated Districts
Per County
)istricts

Counties

9

l

6

1
1

5
4
3
2
1

0
84

3
2
3

..........

---s .._

··-

........

.-.&•

40
Z03
Z54

......

..................,.
.S7

51
-·-·

.JI** .

.

SCALE

x

y

'!

Mtl.I•

llll.U9I

TEXAS

 APPENDIX IV-B
PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTEGRATED

School
District

Number of
Scholastics
White
Negro

Per Cent
Negro Scholastics

Actual Integration
Expected in 1956
White
Negro

1. Abilene
State Hospital

ZlZ

zo

a. 6%

Complete
ZlZ

zo

z.

504

1

•zo/o

Complete
504

1

Agua Dulce

3. Alamo Heights

4,068

1, 143

4.

5. Arnarillo

18,679

6. Aransas County,
Rockport

1, 130

7. Aransas Pa·,s

1,760

·s.

Austin

9. Austwell-Tivoli
10. Beeville

22,956

zz
7

1,008

14

56

• 5o/o

• 6%

5. 1o/o

1.4%

3.lo/o

Permissive
Z,100

lZ

Complete
900

15

Complete
1,750

60

388

40

9. 3%

Unknown

3, 143

107

3. 4%

H. S.
450

Z78

5.zo/o

12. Bishop

l,Z8Z

47

3.5%

14. Brownwood

8

14. 5o/o

5,024

13

Complete
950

3,901

11. Big SprinG

13. Brownsville

Choice
3,850

H. S. Choice
7,000
13

40

Elem. Choice
3,150
15
H. S.
190

11, 988

17

• 1o/o

Unknown

3,031

137

4. 30/o

H. S.
Unknown

10

 Number of
Scholastics
White
Negro

SC:.-1001

District

15. Burnet

750

20

Per Cent
Negro Scholastics

Actu;d
in l 'JS.

--z. 6%

H. S
20'.j

16. Cafovun County, 2, 938
Port Lavaca
17. Carrizo Springs

18. Corpus Chrinti

1, 663

30, 626

150

4. 9%

G1·3.d•.,:;

3

-12

3,200
13

1,440

.8%
4. 5%

Complete
l, 663
Complete

15,000
25

1. 0(-)%

Z 1. Edgewood,
San A.ntonio

61

3. 9%

11,027

340

3.0%

7,342

Edinburg

1,200

36

• 5%

31,515

645

2. 0%

25. Fo:i:-tStccli:·

r1

53

5.0(-)%

Unknown

l, 786

21

1. 2%

H. S.

275
0

0%

10,128

3

.03%

San A11t0nio

28, Harlingen

9, 160

62

• 7%

Complete
10,200

1,578

16

1. 0%

1

1

7

H. S., Elem. Choice

8,500
29. Hondo

400

Complete

762
Z7. Ha:rlandalc,

30

Complete

1,014

754

120

Grades 4-12

35,000
24. Flor<:' svill0

zo

Choice

5,000

23, El Paso

25

Choice

1,484

10,500

zz.

300

Complete

2,553
20. East Ccnt.t·al Flural
H. S,, Sau Antonio

1.3

Unknown

60

 School
District

30. Ingleside

31. Karnes City

Number of
Scholastics
White
Negro
632

1, 279

3

64

Per Cent
Negro Scholastics

• 5%

4.8%

32. Kenedy

l, 418

68

4. 6%

33. Kermit

1,937

31

1.6%

34. Kingsville

35. Kress

3 6. Lackland

37. La Feria

38. La Vernia

39. Llano
40. Littlefield

4, 611

584

361

1,706

223

172

25

7

16

27

3.4%

4.1%

1. 9%

• 9%

10. 8%

893

2

• 2%

1,953

250

11. 3%

41. Marion

177

46

20. 6%

42. Mason

891

10

1.1%

43. Mathis

44. McAllen

45. Menard

46. Mercedes

2,326

6,740

681

3,482

11

23

12

0

.5%
.3%

1. 7%

0%

Actual Integration
Expected in 1956
White
Negro
Complete
670

6

Complete
1,200

55

Unknown
Grades 9-12
2,000

8

H. S.
450

25

Complete
600

25

Complete
460

12

Complete
1,500

8

Complete
250

25

Unknown
Complete
1,700

200

Grades 7-12
Unknown
Complete
850

9

Complete
1,891

10

Complete
6,000

20

Complete
550

15

Complete
2,498

2

 School
District

47. Mission

Number of
Scholastics
White
Negro

3, 191

7

Per Cent
Negro Scholastics

.2%

Actual Integration
Expected in 1956
White
Negro
Complete

3,600
48. Monahans

1,959

38

1. 9%

Unknown

School ·

40

1

2. 4o/o

Unknown

50. Navarro

299

36

10. 7%

Complete

10

49. Moody State

260
51. Nordheim

346

9

2. 6%

Complete

325
52. Northeast,

3,407

0

0%

53. Northside,

1, 811

93

4. 9%

54. Odessa
55. Pearsall

12,787

556

4.2%

Complete
No Mixing

1,884

23

1. 2%

H. S.

453
56. Pecos
57. Pep

3,393

132

3. 7%

107

1

. 9%

59. Plains

703
435

0
0

0%
0%

337

0

0%

507

9

1. 7%

Ben Bolt

61. Poth

Complete
650

2,790

21

.7%

1,270

179

12. 3%

4

7

Complete
Anyone Admitted
Comple.te

6

H. S.

365
63. Refugio

1

Complete

630
62. Raymondville

7

Complete

540
60. Polito-Blanco,

20

Unknown

95
58. Pettus

0

Grades 9-12

375

San Antonio

5

Complete

3,407

San Antonio

29

H. S.
Unknown

9
35

 School
District

64. Robstown

Number of
Scholastics
Negro
White

5,505

97

Per Cent
Negro Scholastics

1. 7%

Actual Integration
Expected in 1956
White
Negro
Grades 9-IZ

500
65·. Runge

556

10

1.8%

66. San Angelo

8,492

62Z

6.8%

67. San Antonio

67,8Z6

5,381

7.4%

Unknown

5,000

1,884

41

2.1%

125

Complete

18,038
68. San Felipe

25

250

Complete

1,600
69. San Marcos

3,061

180

5.6%

H. S.

460
70. San Saba

1,078

9

.8%

835

5

.6%

1,277

60

4.5%

73. Seguin

3,140

629

16. 7%

Grades 10-12
No Mixing

74. Sinton

2,453

51

2.0%

Grades 9-12

308
33

1. 0(-)%

262

0

0%

78. Sundeen

632

6

.9%

1,235

9

• 7cy,

80. Uvalde

799
3,314

40

4.8%
1.3%

8

Complete

14

H. S.

850
42

46

Unknown

2,188
79. Tahoka

9

Choice

255
77. Stockdale

2

Complete

3,854
76. Spade

4

H. S.

300

75. South San Antonio 3, 389

5

Complete

900
72. Seymour

40

Complete

1,033
71. Schertz Cibolo

40

Unknown

3

 School
District

81. Victoria

Number of
Scholastics
White
Negro

6,689

612

Per Cent
Negro Scholastics

8.4%

82. Weslaco

4,722

11

.2%

83. West Oso,

1,519

116

7.1%

Grades 1-3
Choice
Unknown

13,329

1,132

7.8%

52

Unknown

H. S.

1,500

Corpus Christi
84. Wichita Falls

Actual Integration
Expected in 1956
White
Negro

Unknown

35

 APPENDIX V

COUNTY
Anderson
Andrews
Angelina
Aransas
Archer
Armstrong
Atascosa
Austin
Bailey
Bandera
Bastrop
Baylor
Bee
Bell
Bexar
Blanco
Borden
Bosque
Bowie
Brazoria
Brazos
Brewster
Driscoe
Brooks
Brown
Burleson
Burnet
Caldwell
Calhoun
Callahan
Cameron
Camp
Carson
Cass
Castro
Chambers
Cherokee
Childress
Clay
Cochran
Coke
Coleman
Collin
Collingsworth
Colorado

%FOR
SEG.

87
69
86
61
68
62
60(-)
79
74
67
87
79

66
80(-)
65
64
83
85
80(-)
76
63
68
57
71
89
69
80
63
76
56
94
72
91
49
82
85
78
75
81
76
83
88
83
82

%FOR
INTER.

88
78
86
74
76
72
69
80
82
73
88
84
73
85
70(-)
73
85
86
81
80(-)
73
73
61
79
90(-)
78
83
71
82
65
94
80
89
64
83
81
81
80(-)
85
81
88
89
85
82

COUNTY
Comal
Comanche
Concho
Cooke
Coryell
Cottle
Crane
Crockett
Crosby
Culberson
Dallam
Dallas
Dawson
Deaf Smith
Delta
Denton
De Witt
Dickens
Dimmit
Donley
Duval
Eastland
Ector
Edwards
Ellis
El Paso
Erath
Falls
Fannin
Fayette
Fisher
Floyd
Foard
Fort Bend
Franklin
Freestone
Frio
Gaines
Galveston
Garza
Gillespie
Glasscock
Goliad
Gonzales
Gray

o/oFOR
SEG.

58
73
64
83
86
89
75
72
76
75
62
80(-)
76
64
82
85
75
62
68
82
60(-)
80
74
77
88
52
80
79
75
92
82
83
81
77
94
85
71
80(-)

64
73
59
73
82
80(-)
72

%FOR
INTER.

64
77
76
83
88
89
79
76
82
82
75
82
83
76
84
78
78
67
75
82
65
84
79
79
89
63
84
81
76
92
85
87
85
81
94
86
74
86
71
78
67
81
84
81
81

 COUNTY
Grayson
Gregg
Grimes
Guadalupe
Hale
Hall
Hamilton
Hansford
Hardeman
Hardin
Harris
Harrison
Hartley
Haskell
Hays
Hemphill
Henderson
Hidalgo
Hill
Hockley
Hood
Hopkins
Houston
Howard

Hudspeth
Hunt
Hutchinson
Irion
Jack
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Jefferson
Jim Hogg
Jim Wells
Johnson
Jones
Karnes
Kaufman
Kendall
Kenedy
Kent
Kerr
Kimble
King
Kinney
Kleberg
Knox
Lamar
Lamb

%FOR
SEG.

"/oFOR
INTER.

85
91
90(-)
70(-)
78
83
76
84
84
88
73
86
75
90(-)
73
81
88
67
91
82
78
94
93
81
80(-)
91
79
81
86
82
95
75
81

84
90(-)
89
65
72
79
70
68
82
87
74
85
59
89
69
70(-)
87
56
89
77
97
95
91
75
77
90( ·)
71
72
82
79
94
62
82
57
64
87
75
65
86
69
82
80
74
75
87
64

70(-)
89
85
69
89
74
90
83
81
76
87
70

81
87
74

84
88
83

62

COUNTY
Lampasas
La Salle
Lavaca
Lee
Leon
Liberty
Limestone
Lipscomb
Live Oak
Llano
Loving
Lubbock
Lynn
Madison
Marion
Martin
Mason
Matagorda
Maverick
McCulloch
McLennan
McMullen
Medina
Menard
Midland
Milam
Mills
Mitchell
Montague
Montgomery
Moore
Morris
Motley
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Newton
Nolan
Nueces
Ochiltree
Oldham
Orange
Palo Pinto
Panola
Parker
Parmer
Pecos
Polk
Potter
Presidio
Rains

%FOR
SEG.

84
7Z
83
83
90
86
85
63
71
70(-)
85
73
78
86
91
82
58
79
57
75
81
69
67
62
64
80(-)
82
83
76
89
63
91
87
91
76
92
76
53
67
63
86
85
94
77
71
69
88
73
64
89

%FOR
INTER.

87
75
84
84
9Z
87
89
73
76
76
89
81
84
88
93
84
64
83
65
79
84
75
72
73
75
83
85
84
80(-)
89
75
91
91
92
82
93
82
63
78
73
88
89
94
83
82
77
91
79
76
. 91

 COUNTY
Randall
Reagan
Real
Red River
Reeves
Refugio
Roberts
Robertson
Rockwall
Runnels
Rusk
Sabine
San Augustine
San Jacinto
San Patricio
San Saba
Schleicher
Scurry
Shackelford
Shelby
Sherman
Smith
Somervell
Starr
Stephens
Sterling
Stonewall
Sutton
Swisher
Tarrant
Taylor
Terrell
Terry
Throckmorton
Titus
Tom Green
Travis
Trinity
Tyler
Upshur
Upton
Uvalde
Val Vt,rde
Van Zandt
Victoria
Walker
Waller
Ward
Washington

o/oFOR
SEG.

%FOR
INTER.

72
78
62
87
77
65
79
81
91
77
90
93
93
89
68
75
80(-)
61
77
92
76
86
74
60(-)
80
76
80
65
64
84
78
78
81
79
91
69
66
82
90(-)
95
71

79
83
69
89
83
73
84
81
93
81
91
95
94
82
75
80
84
71
84
95
82
87
79
66
84
79
84
72
82
86
83
80
86
82
93
76
71
85
91
93
76

68
84
64
81
86
77
92

73
85
69
83
86
84
94

COUNTY
Webb
Wharton
Wheeler
Wichita
Wilbarger
Willacy
Williamson
Wilson
Winkler
Wise
Wood
Yoakum
Young
Zapata
Zavala

%FOR
SEG.

%FOR
INTER.

24
76
8Z
74
84
70(-)
83
57
69
84
89
68
78
55
61

25
75
87
80(-)
87
78
84
61
83
86
89
76
87
62
71

 APPENDIX VI
PERCENTAGE OF VOTE FAVORING SEGREGATION
BY COUNTY

NO. OF
COUNTIES
21
83
77
52
16
2

••

TEXAS

90%

0
0

*

rJJ

80

90%

70

80%

60

70%

50

60%

'(5

•

.....

'"

Less than 50%

3

Not on ballot

·-

.....

.""

SCALE

••

II

..

10

..

y

.,

 APPENDIX VI I
PERCENTAGE OF VOTE FAVORING INTERPOSITION
BY COUNTY

NO. of
COUNTIES

0

28

90%

*

80

90%

73

•

70

80%

23

0

60

70%

0

50

60%

1

0

50%

126

3

•
•
......•.
•
,.,

Not on
Ballot

-

•

•a.......

. ..

SCALE

•

••

•

y

'! .....

.

TEXAS