United States v. Lassiter, Civ. A. No. 8567
| Decision Date | 25 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8567,8612,8593. |
| Citation | 203 F. Supp. 20 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Albin P. LASSITER et al. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Ragan D. MADDEN et al. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission v. F. Jean PHARIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
St. John Barrett, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Bernard A. Gould, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., T. Fitzhugh Wilson, U. S. Atty. for Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, La., for plaintiffs.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of State of Louisiana, George M. Ponder, Asst. Atty. Gen. of State of Louisiana, William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen. of State of Louisiana, F. Jean Pharis, Dist. Atty. for 9th Judicial District of State of Louisiana, Alexandria, La., A. M. D'Angelo, Asst. Dist. Atty. for 9th Judicial District of State of Louisiana, Alexandria, La., Ragan D. Madden, Dist. Atty. for 3rd Judicial District of State of Louisiana, Ruston, La., for defendants State District Judges and District Attorneys.
Grove Stafford and John L. Pitts, Stafford & Pitts, Alexandria, La., for defendant Continental Southern Lines, Inc.
Arthur R. Carmody, Jr., Wilkinson, Lewis, Madison and Woods, Shreveport, La., for defendant Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
T. W. Holloman, White, Holloman & White, Alexandria, La., for defendant Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co.
Before BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, Jr., and PUTNAM, District Judges.
These three cases having come on for hearing on January 5, 1962, upon the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions and each of the plaintiffs and defendants being represented by counsel, the Court having heard testimony and argument, all parties having stipulated that the evidence and argument might be considered by the Court in each of these cases in connection with the granting or denial of permanent injunctive relief, and the Court being of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment, the Court now enters its findings of fact, its conclusions of law and final decree. The findings are based upon evidence which is entirely uncontradicted and most of which was agreed to by stipulation of the parties prior to the hearing. The findings, conclusions and decree are entered by Circuit Judges BROWN and WISDOM and District Judge DAWKINS in Actions Nos. 8567 and 8593, and by Circuit Judges BROWN and WISDOM and District Judge PUTNAM in Civil Action No. 8612. Each Judge subscribes to and adopts as his own findings, conclusions and decree all of the findings, conclusions and decree of the Court in each case upon which he sat and joined in rendering judgment.
1. Continental Southern Lines, Inc., is a common carrier by motor vehicle engaged in the transportation of passengers in interstate and intrastate commerce to, from and through Alexandria, Monroe, and Ruston, Louisiana. The Interstate Commerce Commission has issued to Continental a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing and requiring it to provide transportation of passengers, baggage, express, mail and newspapers in interstate commerce to and from those three cities. The Louisiana Public Service Commission has issued a similar certificate to Continental with respect to transportation in intrastate commerce. In the discharge of its obligation under these certificates and for the comfort and convenience of its passengers, Continental maintains passenger terminals in Alexandria, Monroe and Ruston.
2. The Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as L & A) is a common carrier by rail engaged in the transportation of passengers in interstate commerce to, from and through Alexandria, Louisiana. One hundred percent of the stock of L & A is owned by The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as K C S). A majority of the officers and at least some of the operating employees of the two railways are common employees of both. The L & A owns and operates a passenger terminal in Alexandria in discharge of its obligations under the Interstate Commerce Act and for the comfort and convenience of its passengers. The passenger trains of the L & A which stop at the terminal are in through service between Kansas City, Missouri, and New Orleans, Louisiana.
3. On November 7, 1955, the Interstate Commerce Commission entered its order in Docket No. 31423 (297 ICC 335) requiring K C S to cease and desist, on or before January 10, 1956, and thereafter to abstain from practicing the undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage found to exist by the Commission, including the maintenance in its terminals of waiting rooms designated for the exclusive use of Negro passengers. A copy of this order was served upon K C S.
4. On September 22, 1961, the Interstate Commerce Commission entered its order in a proceeding entitled "Discrimination on Operations of Interstate Motor Carriers of Passengers," Docket No. MCC-3358, adding Section 180(a) to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations set forth in Section 180 (a) became effective on November 1, 1961, and provide, among other things, that no common carrier by motor vehicle in interstate commerce shall, in the operation of its vehicles in interstate commerce, provide, maintain arrangements for, utilize, make available, adhere to any understanding for the availability of, any terminal facilities which are so operated, arranged, or maintained as to involve any separation of any portion thereof or in the use thereof on the basis of race or color. The regulations further provide that the term "terminal facilities" includes waiting room, restroom, eating, drinking and ticket sales facilities which the carrier makes available to passengers of a motor vehicle operated in interstate commerce as a regular part of its transportation, and that the term "separation" includes the display of any sign indicating that any portions of the terminal facilities are operated, allocated, restricted, provided, available, used or otherwise distinguished on the basis of race or color.
5. On or about November 1, 1961, Continental, in compliance with the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission which became effective on that day, removed from its terminals in Alexandria, Monroe and Ruston, Louisiana, certain signs which it had previously maintained designating certain of the terminal facilities for the use of "white intrastate" passengers and other facilities for the use of "interstate passengers and colored intrastate" passengers. On November 6, K C S and the L & A, in compliance with the requirements of federal law, removed similar signs which they had previously maintained in the L & A railway passenger terminal in Alexandria.
6. On November 1, 1961, Mack E. Barham, as Judge of the Fourth Judicial District of Louisiana, issued, upon petition of the State of Louisiana, brought by Albin P. Lassiter as District Attorney of that District, a temporary restraining order restraining Continental and Ernest Hall, its terminal manager in Monroe, from violating Sections 1301 through 1305 of Title 45 of Louisiana Revised Statutes and requiring Continental and Hall to replace in the terminal the signs removed on November 1. On November 3, 1961, Walter M. Hunter, as Judge of the Ninth Judicial District of Louisiana, issued, upon a like petition brought by F. Jean Pharis as District Attorney of that District, a similar temporary restraining order directed to Continental, its President Morgan W. Walker, its Vice President and General Manager R. W. McClendon, and its local terminal manager in Alexandria H. Paul Miller. On November 13, 1961, another and similar temporary restraining order was issued upon a like petition brought by Ragan D. Madden, District Attorney of the Third Judicial District of Louisiana, by J. R. Dawkins, Judge of that District, directed to Continental, Walker, McClendon and O. F. Nealy, operator of the terminal used by Continental in Ruston. Each of these three state court orders was complied with by Continental, its officers, employees and agents by replacing in the terminals in Alexandria, Monroe and Ruston the signs which had been removed on November 1.
7. On November 10, 1961, F. Jean Pharis filed a second petition for the State of Louisiana with the District Court for the Ninth Judicial District of Louisiana asking that K C S and the L & A be restrained from violating Sections 1301 through 1305 of Title 45 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and requiring them to replace the signs which had been removed from the terminal on November 6. Judge Walter M. Hunter issued a temporary restraining order as prayed for and the two rail carriers, in compliance with the order, replaced the signs on or about November 11.
8. All of the signs above referred to are presently being maintained in the terminals and will continue to be maintained unless this Court grants injunctive relief.
9. The signs in the terminals have the effect of separating all passengers, whether interstate or intrastate, according to their race. No effort is made by the carriers or by the local officials to exclude white interstate passengers from the facilities designated for the use of white intrastate passengers and those facilities are in fact used by all white persons regardless of the character of their journey. On the other hand, the facilities designated for "interstate and colored intrastate" passengers are used exclusively by persons of the Negro race and are not used by white persons. Testimony of witnesses did show that on some unidentified occasions in the past Negroes were seated in the portion of the various bus stations reserved for "white intrastate passengers" and that they were not molested by the employees of the companies; they were not asked to find other seats;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. City of Philadelphia
...897 (M.D.Ala.1961) (Johnson, J.); United States v. City of Montgomery, 201 F.Supp. 590 (M.D.Ala.1962) (Johnson, J.); United States v. Lassiter, 203 F.Supp. 20 (W.D.La.) (3 judge court), aff'd per curiam, 371 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 21, 9 L.Ed.2d 47 (1962); United States v. City of Shreveport, 210......
-
United States v. Solomon
...Ku Klux Klan, 250 F.Supp. 330, 356 (E.D.La.1965); United States v. City of Shreveport, 210 F.Supp. 36 (W.D.La.1962); United States v. Lassiter, 203 F.Supp. 20 (W.D.La.1962), aff'd, 371 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 21, 9 L.Ed.2d 47 (1962) (per curiam); United States v. City of Montgomery, 201 F.Supp. 5......
-
United States v. State of Mississippi, Civ. A. No. 3312.
...6 As the Court pointed out, "Debs has been relied on as a basis for standing in three recent cases in this circuit: United States v. Lassiter, W.D.La.1962, 203 F.Supp. 20, aff'd 371 U.S. 10 83 S. Ct. 21, 9 L.Ed.2d 47; United States v. Klans, M.D.Ala.1961, 194 F.Supp. 897; and United States ......
-
United States v. City of Jackson, Mississippi
...rejected in Bailey v. Patterson; Morgan v. Virginia; Gayle v. Browder; Boynton v. Virginia and, of course, in United States v. Lassiter, W. D.La.1962, 203 F.Supp. 20, aff'd 371 U. S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 21, 9 L.Ed.2d 47 and Baldwin v. Morgan, 5 Cir., 1961, 287 F.2d 750, to mention just a few leadi......