Appendix — Richmond v. United States
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
midis
APPENDIX JAN 30 1975
Volume II — Pages 261-534
-_«
MICHAEL RODAK, JP_ CUE
Mecememeatiomnenen
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74201
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,
Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
WILLIAM B. SAXBE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, and
CURTIS HOLT, SR. et ai. and
CRUSADE FOR VOTERS OF RICHMOND, et ai.
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED AUGUST 29, 1974
JURISDICTION NOTED DECEMBER 16, 1974
—{[_—_—_—_——SSESoO or oo
Washington, 9.C. e CLB PUBLISHERS « LAW PRINTING CO. « (202) 393-0625
a
(i)
INDEX OF TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
Page
Transcript of Testimony from Holt v. City of
Richmond et al, 334 F. Supp. 228 (E.D.
i Serer Lvctceseteneue es 6-606 .3 aol
A. Transcript from trial beg.nning September
20, 1971:
1. Testimony of Dr. William S. Thornton ...... 261
2. Testimony of Henry L. Marsh, HI .......... 288
3. Testimony of Melvin W. Burnett .......... 292
4. Testimony of Grady W. Dalton ........... 314
5. Testimony of Irvin G. Horner ......... cos oar
6. Testimony of Donald G. Pendleton ........ 333
7. Testimony of James G. Carpenter .......... 341
8. Testimony of B. Earl Dunn .............. 344
9. Testimony of George W. Jones ........... 347
10. Testimony of Roger C. Griffin) ........... 350
11. Testimony of George R. Talcott .......... 352
12. Testimony of Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. ........ 354
13. Testimony of Phil J. Bagley, Jr. ........... 358
14. Testimony of A. Howe Todd ............ 362
15. Testimony of Alan F. Kiepper ............ 368
16. Testimony of Nathan J. Forb ............ 375
17. Testimony of James C. Wheat, Jr. 2. ....... 376
18. Testimony of Leland Bassett ............. 378
19. Testimony of Henry L. Marsh, HI... ...... 382
B. Transcript from hearing of October 19, 1971 .... 386
Testimony of Alan F. Kiepper .............. 386
(ii)
ll. Transcript of Testimony in City of Richmond vy.
United States et al., trom Hearing Before Special
Master Held October 15-17, 1973. ..............
A. Testimony of Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. ...........
B. Testimony of Dallas H. Oslin, Jr. 2... .........
©. Wertieme OF A. TRUS TORE on ccc ccc cseees
D. Testimony of Henry L. Marsh, HI ............
E. Testimony of Melvin W. Burnett .............
i. Deposition Testimemy oo wc ccc cece cccens
A. Deposition of Dr. William S. Thornton:
Discovery Deposition taken by Intervenor
ff } S SePerereerr ee reer Tee
261
1. Transcript of Testimony from Holt v. City of
Richmond et al., 334 F.Supp. 228 (E.D. Va.
1971), (Holt 1).
A.Transcript from trial beginning September 20,
ove. |
+ 1, Testimony of William S. Thornton:
*“* *
i
{9] WILLIAM THORNTON, called on behalf of the
plaintiff, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. VENABLE:
Q For the record, Dr. Thornton, would you state
your full name, age, address, please, sir.
A Iam William S. Thornton. I am a podiatrist. |
live at 2602 Brook Road.
Q_ Have you lived in Richmond long, Dr. Thornton?
A Except for my time in the service and the time
away in school I lived in Richmond all my life.
Q Your age, sir?
A lam fifty years old.
Q Dr. Thornton, have you been politically active in
the City of Richmond?
A Since 1956 I have been politically active, yes.
Q_ In what way have you been active, sir?
A In 1956 the Crusade for Voters was formed. |
served as the first Chairman and the first President of
that organization. Prior to that time there had been a
committee in the City of Richmond to close public
schools and the Crusade for Voters was formed as an
outgrowth of that particular committee. At that time
we found that [10] there were very few blacks
262
participating in political activities and that fewer than
4,000 voted in that particular referendum on January 9,
1956, so a group of us decided to found the Crusade
tor Voters. This was formed in 1956.
We decided the Crusade for Voters should be a
non-political organization, non-partisan, and should not
be affiliated with the Republican nor with the
Democratic Party and that we would not field political
candidates but would recommend to the voters the
candidates that would benefit black people the most
and who were ‘he lesser of the evils for us. The
candidates of course did not necessarily have to be
black. It could be black or white as long as they were
somewhat willing to uphold the Constitution of the
United States and would give freedom to all black
people regardless of race and creed.
Q Was the Crusade formed by a mixed group
racially, or was it a black group?
A It was a black group that formed the Crusade for
Voters.
Q_ Its orientation, sir, from 1956 until the present
time, is it a black organization or a white organization?
A There are some white members of the Crusade
for Voters, but it is a black organization mainly [11]
and the leadership has always been vested in black
people.
Q What office have you held in the Crusade since
its inception in 1956?
A From 1956 until the present time, until this
year, early in the year, when | resigned as a Chairman
of the Board, | have been Chairman of the Board
throughout those years. The first four years of the
»
263
Crusade for Voters | was also the President of that
organization.
So I have served as President and as Chairman of
the Board of the Crusade for Voters.
Q Dr. Thornton, could you give us a little more
definition of just how the Crusade has operated in its
time of existence? From 1955, what has the growth of
the Crusade been both in its activities and its effect?
A Well, from 1956 until 1960 we were primarily
interested in an educational job for the voters of the City
of Richmond. We were educating them on the proper
way to fill in a ballot, the proper way to fold a ballot,
and just when to vote. We tried to educate them on
issues arising during that time. So from 1956 until 1960
it was primarily a job of educating the public on what
the Crusade was. We did this by organizing precinct
clubs. We tried to organize precinct clubs into
predominantly black precincts in the City of Richmond.
These precinct clubs would in turn send two representa-
tives to the Crusade for [12] Voters because in the
Crusade for Voters we do not and we never have had a
membership list that we have a mailing list for, but not
a membership list. There are neo dues or other
requirements to be a member, to be on our mailing list.
Q Does the Crusade field the candidates, Dr.
Thornton?
A We have never in the years that | was Chairman
or President, we have never asked anybody to run for
public office. We do not field candidates. We wait until
the candidates are fielded, and then we recommend
those candidates that we feei are the lesserof the evils
to the voters.
204
Q Dr. Thornton, if I can take you back just a little
bit, back to 1956, can you catalog for the Court the
ability of the black citizens of the City of Richmond to
participate in the political process. What have the
changes been through the years up to date, and how
the Crusade has worked with the black voter.
A In 1956 when the Crusade was formed there
were many impediments placed in the way of a person
who wanted to register to vote. We had a poll tax at
that particular time that a person had to pay and had
to pay for three years back in order to register. There
were many impediments that were placed in the way of
this particular [13] person because once he paid his
poll tax he was assessed for other taxes in the City that
he probably had not paid like personal property taxes
and | personally know of persons who once they went
down to register and to pay their poll taxes, they soon
got a bill for $30.00 or $40.00 for personal property
tax they had not been paying prior to this time.
* * *
Q Dr. Thornton, what was the need of the Crusade
in Richmond?
A In 1956 we found there were less than 4,000
persons qualified to vote in the City of Richmond, and
we wanted to introduce this so that black people could
have some part of the political process in the City.
THE COURT: Excuse me, Doctor. You mean less
than 4,000
A Black voters in the City of Richmond. So [14]
that black people could have some voice in the politics
of the City. There were no black people or very few
black people on City committees. There were no
“b
265
directorships of any City utility or service, and we felt
that if we got into the mainstream of the political
activity that we could at least give some of these people
assignments On committees, probably directorships and
additional jobs in the City.
Q How effective has the Crusade been? How are
you doing now?
A According to the Registrar we have increased
from 1956, from 4,000 voters, we have now over
35,000 black voters in the City of Richmond.
Q Dr. Thomton, | hand you a_ book that
encompasses plaintiffs exhibits 1, 2, 3a, through
plaintiff's exhibit 4.
* * -
MR. VENABLE: [15] Your Honor, the map I am
referring to is plaintiffs exhibit | basically showing
the City divided into voter precincts and in the
Court’s copy you will see four maps_ which
correspond to the four overlays beginning with
1940 and taking every ten years, 1950, 1960 and
actually 1971.
BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Dr. Thornton, you have a copy in your hands.
Have you had an opportunity to study this map?
A Yes, I have.
Q In your experience in working with voting
patters and racial patters, housing in the City of
Richmond, do you consider that map to be accurate,
sir?
A I consider all of the maps to be accurate except
in 1971 | think in Precinct 25 that it is a mixed
266
precinct probably with fifty percent white and fifty
percent [16] black voters in that particular precinct.
Q Precinct 25, it is shown on the map as what, sir?
A Asa white precinct.
Q_ If I can bring your attention back for a moment,
Dr. Thornton, you were talking about the impediments
which black citizens have had in participating in the
political process. You talked about some of the formal
impediments, poll taxes and so on. What informal
impediments have black citizens in the City of
Richmond faced as they seek or sought to enter into
the political process of the City of Richmond”
MR. OTT: I object to the form of the question, if
Your Honor please.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
A I think some of the informal impediments would
be for one thing moving the office of the Registrar up
to the Mosque, from the City Hall itself. | don't
remember exact!y when it was moved, but certainly this
was an informal impediment, that had a person who
paid his poll taxes at the City Hall and would have to
travel all the way to the Mosque to become registered. |
think this was one of the informal impediments.
I think by not having any black people working in
these offices were also impediments to black [17]
voters in the City of Richmond because just not seeing
a black friendly face in the registrar's office or in the
tux collector's office certainly was an impediment to
black people to register and vote.
Other things that caused black people to register
and vote, there are some people on welfare, and the
word was spread that if those persons registered to vote
they
267
* * *
[18] BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Dr. Thornton, was it your understanding these
remarks about which you were to testify a few
mements ago, was it your understanding these remarks
emanated from the City of Richmond, officials of the
city?
A Yes. I had this impression that they did [19]
emanate from City officials.
Q_ What were those remarks, sir?
A That if he registered to vote he would be taken
off welfare.
Q Continue with your testimony, Dr. Thornton,
about any other informal impediments which were
placed on Negro participation in the political process.
A Certainly black people did not realize any
benefits from voting. There were no black people on
commissions or boards. There were no black elected
officials in the City of Richmond since 1948 when Mr.
Oliver Hill served on City Council. So they felt their
vote was wasted, and I| think this was an informa!
impediment, that they were not rewarded for their
vote, as such.
Q_ In 1948, you said Mr. Oliver Hill was elected. He
was a Negro?
A That is right.
Q Was he elected under the old ward system or
under an at-large system?
A Mr. Hill was elected under the first City Manager
type of government we had in the City of Richmond.
This was just after the ward system in the City.
Q Wher was the form of city government and the
electoral process changed?
a
268
In 1948 it was the first election for [20] that.
It was the first election that followed it?
Yes.
In the old ward system was there a predomi-
nately black ward”?
A There was one predominately black ward known
as Jackson Ward in the central section of the City of
Richmond.
Q Are you familiar with the percentage of blacks
living in Jackson Ward just prior to the changing from
the ward system to an at-lerge system, sir?
A From what | have read it was close to ninety
percent at that particular time.
Q Dr. Thornton, you have talked about the first
four years of the Crusade being educational, from 1956
to 1960. |
Let me ask you: Did the thrust of the Crusade
change from 1960 on, from being educational to
something else?
A I think that we changed in the Crusade after we
realized that in order for people to register to vote, in
order for people to take part in the political process,
then we had to recommend candidates and become
more active politically. We started in 1960 to actually
[21] participate in all elections.
Q When was the poll tax removed as a burden to
the black registration, sir?
A The first election for nonpoll tax payment was
the Presidential election of 1964.
Q_ When was the first councilmatic election that was
not under the poll tax?
A In 1966.
OPO >
ee Se a
269
Q Docior, if you will take the exhibits -- You
notice plaintiff exhibit 2 sets out the census tabulations
from 1930 through 1970.
What was the white-black ratio in the City of
Richmond, sir, in 1940?
A In 1940, according to these exhibits and
according to the census figures, there was sixty-eight
percent white persons in the City and thirty-two
percent nonwhite.
Q_ In 1950, sir?
A In 1950 the percentage was the same, sixty-eight
percent white and thirty-two percent nonwhite.
Q Had the City expanded the boundary areas
between 1940 and 1950, sir?
A We had annexation in 1942.
Q_ What is the racial percentage in 1960?
A In 1960, fifty-eight percent of the [22]
population was white and forty-two percent was black.
Q At what point between 1960 and 1970 did the
Negro population match that of the white population in
the City of Richmond?
A In 1968 the population was fifty percent black
and fifty percent white, in 1968.
Q If annexation of Chesterfield County had not
occurred, sir, in 1970, January 1, what would have
been the ratio of black and white in the City of
Richmond in 1970?
A In 1970 without annexation, fifty-two percent of
the population would have been black and forty-eight
percent would have been white.
Q In actuality annexation occurred January |,
1970. What was the percentage of whites-black in the
City with annexation?
a ee
270
A The percentage in 1970 was the same as it was in
1960, fifty-eight percent white and forty-two percent
black.
Q The percentage in 1950 was the same as the
percentage in 1940. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Between 1940 and 1960 and 1970, in those two
spans, annexation occurred, did it not?
A That is right.
Q [23] What was the percentage of black citizens
actually annexed by the annexation in 1970?
A 1.2 percent.
Q_ What is the exact figure of people?
A The total number of people, 47,262 persons were
annexed.
Q How many of those were black?
A Fee.
Q Calling your attention now to plaintiffs exhibit
3, a through m, the councilmatic tabulations for
election, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970 —
Have you had an opportunity to review these
tabulations, sir?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you find them to be accurate and correct?
A For the most part. There were one or two
corrections | had.
Q When we get to them you can point them out to
the Court.
Dr. Thornton, what has been the success of the
Crusade at the time it changed its posture from one of
education to political education, from 1960 to date?
A In the first councilmatic election of June, 1960,
June 14, there were only white persons running in that
271
particular election, and those persons who were |24]
endorsed or recommended by the Crusade for Voters,
they all were elected to public office.
At that particular time there was the Richmond
Citizens Association and they had seven of the nine
candidates that the Crusade also recommended along
with them, There were two independent candidates
running that the Crusade also endorsed, Mr. Throck-
morton and Mr. Garber.
Q May I stop you. Why would you recommend an
R.C.A. candidate, sir?
A We recommend candidates because we feel that
they would be favorable to black people in the city,
and they just happened to have been the lesser of the
evils.
Q Continue, sir.
A In 1962 the Crusade with two black candidates
running, the Crusade was able to also recommend some
candidates with R.C.A. and five of the candidates
that were recommended by both the Crusade and
R.C.A. were elected and one or two — two can-
didates with Crusade support only were elected.
They were Mr. Heverly who led the ticket and Mrs.
Herrick. Two of the Crusade candidates lost in 1962,
who were black candidates, Clarence Newsome, getting
35.5 percent of the vote. In 1964 with R.F. in
existence at that particular time
Q RF
A Richmond Forward, the R.C.A. had changed
{25] its name to Richmond Forward, and this was a
new organization that was being formed. They had
asked Mr. Cephus, a black man, to run for City
Council. The Crusade endorsed Mr. Cephus and also
272
Richmond Forward endorsed Mr. Cephus. We had two
other black candidates running that the Crusade for
Voters did not recommend, Mr. Eggleston and Mr.
Charity, and Mr. Cephus became the first black
Councilman since Oliver Hill in 1948.
Mr. Cephus was elected in 1964. The councilmatic
election of 1966, five of the six candidates that the
Crusade recommended were elected to public office,
and at that particular time they had three black
members of City Council, Mr. Cephus, Mr. Mundill and
Mr. Henry Marsh. The three black candidates who chose
to run were elected in 1966.
Q_ In the 1966 election was the poll tax on at that
particular time?
A There was no poll tax in 1966.
Q. This was the first time without it?
A The first election without poll tax.
Q How did the Crusade do in the black precincts in
1966? Before | forget — Is the Richmond Citizens
Association or Richmond Forward at this time — Is
that a white or black political organization, sir?
A I would consider it to be a white [26] political
organization.
Q_ In reference to the black precincts in the 1966
elections, how did the Crusade do with its candidates as
opposed to Richmond Forward’s candidates?
A In the 1966 election, in the black precincts,
predominately black, Mr. Henry Marsh, who was
recommended by the Crusade, got 83.4 percent of the
black vote. Mr. Cephus who was recommended by
Richmond Forward and the Crusade got 77.2 percent.
273
Mr. Mundill who was recommended by Richmond
Forward and the Crusade received 69 percent. Mr.
Carwile who was recommended by the Crusade received
62.5 percent, and Mr. Bagley, who was recommended
by both R.F. and the Crusade, received 54.1 percent.
Mrs. Sheppard who was not recommended by the
Crusade but was recommended by Richmond Forward
received 42.1 percent.
Mr. House who was recommended only by the
Crusade received 33.9 percent. Mr. Cubbie, an indepen-
dent, received 33.6 percent.
Mr. Crowe who was recommended by Richmond
Forward received 33.2 percent.
Q How many members are there on Council, sir?
A Nine members.
Q_ In the top nine slots in the black precincts, the
rankings, how did you compare?
A [27] Five of the Crusade recommended candi-
dates were in the first nine in the black precincts.
Q You are familiar with city government and how
it works?
A Yes, I am,
Q How many members of City Council does it take
to have effective control of Council on money matters?
* * *
A 1 think in appropriations, to be effective in
appropriations, there is a need for six votes on the
budget, on the appropriations.
Q_ Six votes?
A_ Yes, sir, to be effective.
Q_ Take a look at the split precincts in 1966, the
mixed precincts.
274
Just dealing with the rankings in the first nine
slots, how did your Crusade perform?
A Of the nine candidates the first nine, percentage
wise, the Crusade had six candidates in the running.
Q In 1968, Dr. Thornton, were Mr. Mundill and
Mr. Cephus running for office?
A In 1968 Mr. Mundill and Mr. Cephus did [28]
run for office, yes.
What was their endorsement?
Richmond Forward.
Did the Crusade endorse them?
No. They did not in 1968.
Why?
They were actually candidates of Richmond
Forward, as such. At that particular time we thought
that other candidates that we could recommend would
be the better candidates for black people in the City of
Richmond.
Q_ Turning to the black precincts tabulations in the
1968 councilmatic election, how did the Crusade
perform?
A In 1968 in the biock precincts Mr. Marsh
recommended by the Crusade received 9! percent of
the vote. Mr. Carwile, recommended by the Crusade,
received 88.9. Mr. Carpenter, endorsed by the Crusade,
received 85 percent.
Mr. Walter Kenney received 73.3 percent. Mr.
Melton Randolph recommended by the Crusade _re-
ceived 65.8 percent. Mr. Cephus who was recommended
by Richmond Forward received 23.4 percent. Mr.
Mundill recommended by R.F. received 19.9. Mr.
Ragley, by R.F., received 16.3 percent. Mr. Crowe
received 15.5.
FP OPrO PO
275
Q Out of the top nine how about the black votes
in 1968?
A [29] In the black precincts the Crusade carried
the first five candidates in all the black precincts.
Q_ Turn to the mixed precincts in 1969.
THE COURT: Mr. Venable, | want to be sure I am
not misreading this. The last question was based on
what? You may approach the witness.
MR. VENABLE: It is based on PX 31.
THE COURT: Did | understand you to say, Dr.
Thornton, that the Crusade endorsed the first five?
That is, by precinct?
A Yes, Your Honor. This is one of the mistakes |
had mentioned in the book. We did recommend Dr.
Carpenter at that time and the exhibit shows Mr.
Carpenter was endorsed as a candidate but the Crusade
did recommend Mr. Carpenter.
THE COURT: When you come across one of those
would you let me know.
A All right.
* * *
Q Dr. Thornton, turning your attention to the
mixed precincts in the 1968 election, plaintiffs [30]
exhibit 3H, Your Honor
A In the mixed precincts Mr. Carwile recommended
by the Crusade received 66 percent of the vote. Mr.
Carpenter who was recommended by the Crusade, and
this is a change, Your Honor, to $7.5 and the sheet has |
independent, but he was recommended by _ the
Crusade.
Mr. Marsh, recommended by the Crusade, received
55.4. Mr. Bagley, R.F., received 47.7 percent.
276
You had recommended Mr. Bagley in 1966”
That is right.
Continue.
Mr. Bliley received 46 percent of the vote, being
recommended by Richmond Forward. Mr. Kenney
recommended by the Crusade received 43.3. Mr. Crowe,
R.F., 42.2. Mr. Forbe, R.F., received 40.6. Melton
Randolph, endorsed by the Crusade, received 39.9.
Q Out of the top nine how many Crusade
candidates were placed in the top nine in the mixed
precincts of 19687
A Five.
Q How many total did you recommend that year?
A Only five we recommended.
Q Where did Mr. Cephus and Mr. Mundill stand in
the mixed precincts? What ranking?
A [31] Mr. Cephus ranked thirteen. Mr. Mundill
ranked fourteen in the mixed precincts.
Q If I can take your attention back to plaintiffs
exhibit 3S, how many Crusade candidates did you
recommend in the 1966 election, sir?
A There were six.
Q Were there cross recommendations?
A Yes. Mr. Cephus received recommendations from
Richmond Forward and from the Crusade, Mr. Mundill
and Mr. Bagley.
Q Would you look at plaintiffs exhibit 3D which is
the total results for 1966.
How many Crusade only, candidates that were
endorsed only by the Crusade, made it in the top nine
of 1966?
A There were two, Mr. Marsh and Mr. Carwile.
> OP?
277
Q If you would look at plaintiffs exhibit 3G,
which is the total result .or 1968 — during which time
you have dropped Mr. Bagley and Mr. Mundill and Mr.
Cephus. How many Crusade candidates were elected”
A There were three, Carwile, Carpenter, Mr. Marsh.
THE COURT: That is another error?
A There is another error. Mr. Carpenter.
MR. VENABLE: He is listed as independent [32]
and he should be Crusade”
A Yes.
BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Calling your attention, Dr. Thornton, to plain-
tiffs exhibit 3M, the 1970 old city black precincts, the
total vote from the old city, how many Crusade
candidates had you endorsed in 1970”
A The Crusade endorsed nine candidates. The
exhibit will show Mr. Shiro was an independent, but he
was also endorsed by the Crusade.
Q_ In the black precincts in the City of Richmond,
the old city, without annexation, in 1970, how did the
Crusade fair in ranking?
A All nine of the candidates that the Crusade
recommended came from the top ten.
Q_ What positions did those recommended by T.O.P.
achieve in the black precincts of the old city in 1970,
that is the Team of Progress”
A Mr. Bliley was the tenth person, and he was
recommended by T.O.P. Mr. Levinston was nine. He
received 44.6 of the vote. In tenth place, Mr. Bliley
dropped to 15.3 percent of the vote.
Q The other T.O.P. candidates for this year, what
rankings did they achieve in the black precincts?
°
278
A [33] Fourteen. Mr. Daniel is fourteen. Mr.
Rennie, seventeen. Mr. Valentine, eighteen. Mr. Morris,
nineteen. Thompson, twenty. Orendorff, twenty-one.
Q Take a look at plaintiffs exhibit 3L which shows
the mixed precincts of the old city in the June, 1970
election.
A In the old city, June 10, 1970, it shows Mr.
Carwile who had Crusade endorsement received 62.9
and was ranked first.
Q Give the rankings. Dr. Thornton, one through
nine.
A Eight of the nine candidates recommended by
the Crusade were in the first nine with Mrs. Jaquelin
Taylor in eighth place.
Q Was Mrs. Taylor
A She was not recommended. She was an indepen-
dent. |
THE COURT: Was Mr. Shiro”
A Mr. Shiro was recommended by the Crusade.
THE COURT: There is another error?
A Yes.
BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Sir, take a look at plaintiff's exhibit 3N which
shows the white precincts in the old city in the [34]
June, 1971 election.
A The T.O.P. candidates took the first eight places.
The ninth place went to Mr. Carpenter recommended
by the Crusade.
Q Mr. Carpenter's race?
A Mr. Carpenter is white.
Q Take a look at the plaintiffs exhibit K which
shows the (otal vote results without the annexed area.
279
How many Crusade candidates would have been elected
but for the annexed area vote?
A There would have been four Crusade endorsed
candidates elected in 1970 in the old city.
Q Leaving how many for T.O.P.?
A Leaving the balance of five T.O.P.
Q Take a look at plaintiffs exhibit J, 4, which its
the election results of the councilmatic election of 1970
with annexation.
How many candidates did the Crusade actually
place on City Council?
A The Crusade recommended and placed on City
Council three candidates, Carwile, Marsh and Carpenter.
Q Under the old city without the annexed vote,
who was the fourth individual who was not placed on
City Council?
A Walter Kenney.
Q [35] His race?
A He is a black man.
Q Dr. Thorton, are you familiar with the events
surrounding an attempted merger between the County
of Henrico and the City of Richmond in December.
1961 when the vote was taken?
A Yes, lam,
Q Would you look at plaintiffs exhibit 4. Plaintiffs
exhibit 4 is a tabulation of the vote by precincts in the
City of Richmond in 1961. What percentage of the
black precincts voted against merger?
A One hundred percent of the black vote voted
against merger in 1961.
Q What percentage of the mixed precincts voted
against merger? |
A Sixty-two percent of the mixed precincts.
280
Q What percentage of the white precincts voted for
merger?
A Ninety-five point seven percent of the vote was
yes.
Q Dr. Thornton, from 1964 to 1966, the poll tax
was dropped for city elections. Correct, sir?
A That is right.
Q Did the Crusade note any increase in_ its
effectiveness from that date forward?
A [36] Yes, the Crusade did notice an increase in
its effectiveness because more black people were voting
in those elections, and it was easier to register to
become qualified. In 1964 we had in the Crusade the
greatest increase in black voters in the City of
Richmond. when we were able to register 11,000
persons because of area registration and because of
night hours the registrar held for the first time.
Q Was there a steady increase in voting strength
and participation by already registered Negro voters
from 1966 forward?
A There was a greater political awareness on the
part of the black people because at that time we had
some blacks elected to City Council, and | think they
could see the result of their vote.
* * *
Q [37] Dr. Thornton, how many people ran in
1970?
A There were twenty candidates in 1970.
Q How many ran from the annexed area?
A | can see at least seven down this list | think that
ran in 1970.
Q Your mention of four then was based on just a
mere subtraction of the annexed area. Is that correct?
281
A Of the actual vote at that particular time when
four of the persons would have been elected, who were
recommended by the Crusade. Of course, had not the
area been annexed one of the men who won, Mr.
Thompson —
[38] Go ahead.
A Mr. Thompson, who lives in the annexed area,
could not have been a candidate in 1970, and therefore
we would have had probably another person elected in
his place.
Q Dr. Thornton, let us take another question,
another line here for a moment: From 1956 to present,
what has your position beer. in the Crusade?
A Until the first of this year | was the Chairman of
the Board continuously from 1956 to the present time.
QQ. Have you or any other elected officials, to your
knowledge, ever been approached by any member of
the city government from —
THE COURT: I am sorry. I did not hear.
Q_ Have you or any elected officials, any officials of
the Crusade for Voters, ever been approached by the
members of the city government of the City of
Richmond to participate in committees or assignments
within the governmental structure?
A lI do not know of any person who is in an
official capacity of the Crusade who has ever been [39]
approached to serve on any committee for the City. |
am including myself in this particular grouping here.
BY THE COURT:
Q How many persons do you have, Doctor?
A We have President, Vice President, Secretary,
Treasurer, Chaplin, Research Committee, and various
282
other standing committees. None of these have been
officially approached to serve on any committee.
BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Have they in fact served on any committee?
A None have. As a matter of fact when Mr. Crowe
was Mayor, Mr. George Purnell was President of the
Crusade for Voters. Mr. Purnell and | went to see
Mayor Crowe about various appointments. He asked us
to give him the names of black people that we thought
could serve on various committees in the city. Mr.
Purnell and I gave Mr. Crowe, we sent Mr. Crowe a list
of twenty-five persons that we thought could serve ably
on committees and boards, and it is my belief that Mr.
Crowe used this to exclude persons because none of
those twenty-five were ever put on any boards or
committees cs the City of Richmond.
Q Dr. Thornton, | show you a plaintiff exhibit,
number 29. Can you identify it for the Court. [40]
please. |
A (Viewing paper writing). This is a letter that was
sent out on January 1, 1968, by the Crusade for
Voters, to the members of the Richmond delegation to
the General Assembly at the State Capitol in
Richmond.
Q 1 call your attention to two points to which the
Crusade addressed itself. Something about a bond issue
and something about annexation. Would you read those
into the record, with the numbers.
A Number eight, is. we oppose the amendment of
Section 702 of the City Charter in order to permit the
sule of bonds to cover annexation costs.
Q. What is nine”
283
A We favor asking the General Assembly to endorse
a moratorium on the annexation of Chesterfield County
and Richmond.
Mr. Venable?
MR. VENABLE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We will take a brief recess.
NOTE: A brief recess is taken, after which the
testimony is resumed as follows:
[41] BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Dr. Thorton, when we took a recess, we were
talking about plaintiffs exhibit 29 which was a letter.
MR. VENABLE: Your Honor, for your edification,
we can pass it to you.
THE COURT: All right.
NOTE: A paper writing is handed to the Court.
THE COURT: is this the original?
MR. VENABLE: That is the only copy we have,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is the original exhibit?
MR. VENABLE: Yes, sir.
BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q The two recommendations that | referred to are
what numbers?
A Eight and nine.
Q Dr. Thornton, what was the Crusade’s official
position? Why were you against that change which
would have allowed general obligation bonds to pay for
annexation?
A [42] The Crusade was against annexation.
Therefore, we were against a sale of bonds to cover this
annexation because we were against annexation of this
particular area at that time.
284
Q This was a City Charter change?
A That is right.
Q In your ninth recommendation you asked for
what?
A A moratorium on the annexation of Chesterfield
County and Richmond. We asked the General Assembly
to do this.
Q Why were you against annexation? Why were
you for a moratorium on annexation?
A We were against annexation because it would
dilute the black vote in the City of Richmond. We were
against any dilution of the black vote in the City of
Richmond just when we were beginning to gain some
political power through the vote in the City of
Richmond, and the black vote had increased from 1956
when the Crusade was organized until this 1968 when
this letter was written.
We felt that it would just dilute the black vote by
annexation of parts of Chesterfie!< County.
Q Despite the enormous gains by 1968 by the
Crusade and its candidates, how did the blacks
themselves fare in the overall political picture in the
City of {43] Richmond? Their vote increased. Did they
increase in their participation in the City of Richmond
after 1968”
A After 1968 we still had, as far as | know, no
directors of any bureaus in the City of Richmond. | am
thinking about things like school administration or
personnel department, fire department, police depart-
ment, no black people who actually could employ black
people or persons who were qualified for iiie jobs. We
had some committee appointments by 1968, but most
of these were token appointments. They were in such
285
few numbers they could not influence the outcome of
any vote.
Q You had how many members on Council in
1968, sir?
A There were nine members on City Council.
Q How many did the Crusade have?
A In 1968 there were three Crusade endorsed
candidates on City Council: Carwile, Carpenter and Mr.
Marsh.
Q Despite the growing Negro vote of strength, Dr.
Thornton, as of 1968 you still were not effectively
participating in the city government itself. Is that what
you are saying?
* * *
A Because there were only three Crusade [44]
endorsed candidates the City Council could still control
the city government with R.F. endorsed candidates at
that particular time. We were not getting the benefit of
our vote in 1968, but we were a growing power. The
population of the City of Richmond had increased
greatly with black people. The voting strength had
increased with black people and according to your maps
there, Mr. Venable —
Q You can start with the first one.
* * *
Q This is overlay, plaintiffs exhibit | overlay,
1940.
THE COURT: All right.
A In 1940, only five precincts were predominately
black. They were 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 45 and by 1971 —
Q_ Take them one at a time, Dr. Thornion.
A In 1950 —
286
Q Overlay 1956, plaintiff's exhibit |.
A We had added also precincts 64, 18 and 19 toa
predominately black precinct in the City of [45]
Richmond.
Q This is overlay, plaintiff's exhibit 1, 1960.
A This had grown to include most of the East End
precincts, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 1, 4, 46, 47, 24, 18
and 19.
Also, we had a number of split precincts at that
particular time, 68, 6, 7, 3, 25 and 45, 54, 55 and S51.
Q. This is overlay 1971.
A By 1971 most of the precincts in the East End
were predominately black. Sixty-two, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, and in South Richmond precinct 6 and the West
End precincts 18, 19, 23, 24, and the North Side of
Richmond precincts 47, 46, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and
in the Central section of Richmond precincts 1, 4, and
45.
Q In 1968, Dr. Thornton, is it not true that the
actual number of white registered voters exceeded the
actual number of black registered voters by your
calculation? :
A In 1968? Yes, sir.
Q How did the vote compare, the percentage of
thosé actually voting in 1968?
A The Crusade has always been able to turn out a
greater percentage of the voters than the white [46]
persons in the City of Richmond. In most elections we
turn out about fifty percent of our voters: whereas,
only about thirty percent of the white people vote.
Q What was the rough ratio between white and
black people voting in 1968?
287
A There was very little difference between the
actual number of voters in 1968 between the black and
white people.
Q Did your registration drive continue between
1968 and 1970, sir?
A Yes. We have a continuous voter registration
drive.
Q You were adding new voters to the rolls?
A That is right.
Q_ Did the population increase towards the black —
Did the black ratio in the city increase between 1968
and 1970?
A Yes. The black population increased in the City
of Richmond from 1968 to 1970.
* * *
Q_ [47] Is it not true, Dr. Thornton, that except
for annexation with the growing voter registration trend
and the growing black population in the City of
Richmond, that the Crusade could have been successful
in placing at least four members on Council and
possibly five by 1970?
MR. OTT: I object.
THE COURT: Based on your past experience as
Chairman of the Crusade —
A 1 am positive that we would have been able to
get four persons elected to City Council who were [48]
recommended by the Crusade for Voters.
I mentioned earlier Mr. Walter Kenney would have
been elected had it not been for the vote in the
annexed area. We know we could have gotten four
persons elected, and we probably would have gotten
more had not a number of candidates come from the
288
newly annexed area, so we are sure we would have had
four and possibly five persons elected to City Council
in 1970.
2. Testimony of Henry L. Marsh, Ill
* * *
Q [64] You are the Vice Mayor? Mr. Marsh, is it
true the City of Richmond has a City Manager form of
government?
A That is correct.
Q Would you explain to the Court the decision
making process in a City Manager form of government.
A The policy of the city is set by the nine
members of the Council. The City Manager who is
appointed at the will of the Council executes the policy
of the Council.
Q Mr. Marsh, you have been on City Council for a
little over five years. During that time did you
participate in the decisions on boundary expansion
made by the City Council from 1966 when you first
went into office until January 1. 1970, when
annexation took effect?
A Some of the decisions, yes, | did. Some of them.
Q Some you did not?
A Yes.
Q Can you enumerate what you did and what you
did not?
A 1 recall several votes in the Council on the
question of whether or not we would request a Charter
165] change to permit the City to float bonds to pay for
annexation. | recall the vote on the question of whether
289
or not Mr. Horace Edwards, the former City Manager,
would be employed to represent the City in the
annexation.
Q How did you vote on that, sir?
A I don’t recall, frankly. I don’t.
Q Continue.
A_ I voted against the bond, the permission to float
bonds. There were other decisions from time to time
that came to the Council concerning annexation and
boundary expansion.
For the most part I believe I voted against all of
these matters. There are some other matters that were
decided apparently which I had no opportunity to
participate in.
Q Can you enumerate those, sir?
A The Aldhizer Commission was requested by the
State and appointed by the state had some activity
concerning boundary expansion. | was not ever
contacted by anyone from the Aldhizer Commission. |
only learned of their activity and their negotiations on
behalf of boundary expansion through the press.
Q Who is “they’’?
A The Aldhizer Commission, the city officials and
the Henrico officials in one situation, and all efforts [66]
for boundary expansion, the Aldhizer Commission made, I
had no contact concerning those until | learned about
them in the press.
Q_ Did you want to?
A Of course, as elected official | was concerned
about all of the decisions the government made.
Q Were you ever contacted as to any meetings,
prior to meetings with the Aldhizer Commission?
290
A No. | was not privy to any discussions among the
members of Council concerning the Aldhizer negotia-
tions.
Q For the record, Mr. Marsh, what generally was
the Aldhizer Commission supposed to be doing?
A This was a committee of representatives of the
state government that was charged to work to resolve
the boundary expansion problems in the City of
Richmond. There were no Richmond or Richmond area
representatives on this Commission.
it consisted of persons from other parts of the
state. It made some efforts to bring together a merger
with the part of Henrico and some other efforts at
boundary expansion. Another example of non-participa-
tion would be the compromise that resulted in the
annexation award. | had no knowledge of this
compromise except what I learned.
Q [67] When was the first time you did learn there
was a compromise of the annexation case?
A Only what I read in the newspaper about that. I
had no. prior discussions with other members of
Council, City Manager or any other city officials
concerning possible compromise.
Q Was it your desire to have participated in this,
Mr. Marsh?
A Of course.
Q Did the City Council have a position paper or
take any vote in support of or not in support of the
Aldhizer amendment?
A | don’t recall exactly. | believe we did, but | am
not certain. We took so many votes in the past five
years. | believe we did. | know we had some discussion
of it in Council. It might have been when the
291
Commission was created. | am not sure. It could have
been initiated in the Assembly.
Q Were your views known”?
A Yes, sir. | think my views on boundary
expansion and annexation in particular were known to
all members of Council, anyway.
Q What were those views?
A Well, | was opposed to annexation as a means of
boundary expansion. | was opposed to the attempts
[68] that have been made thus far to expand the
boundaries of the city.
Q_ For what reason, sir?
A There were many reasons. First | felt these
efforts were made to dilute the black vote in the city.
In my own opinion | did not believe that even if
the city — I had some question first whether or not the
boundary expansion would really bring more assets to
the city in view of the tremendous expense involved in
meeting the needs of the new growing area. It has been
my information the cost of providing essential services
to the community are greater than where you have a
stable community with the existing services you don't
necessarily Cerive any financial benefits from annexa-
tion, but apart from that even assuming additional
assets, the question really is how the assets are going to
be used to solve the problems, not just getting more
assets.
In other words, if the citizens who are concerned
about equal opportunity cannot straighten their priority
over decision making, it does the city no goo?’ to have
more assets because the same problems in the city will
continue to grow. | was not convinced annexation or
292
boundary expansion was the solution to the problems
facing Richmond.
Q [69] Mr. Marsh, was this exclusion from
meetings and the decision making process that you
referred to, did this happen always with boundary
expansion? Were you included on any of the decision
making processes?
A Oh, yes.
Q. Other than voting in Council?
A There were some matters obviously that | was
not privy to but in other decisions | did participate.
Q You were not privy to what led up to and the
information about the progress of any negotiations or
compromising in the annexation suit, were you?
A No, sir. The first I learned of the possibility of a
compromise was through a press report.
Q Through a newspaper report?
A Yes, sir.
Q_ In reference to the Aldhizer Commission did the
Richmond Forward members and City Council get
together with you and discuss how you were going to
approach the Aldhizer amendment or suggest facts and
figures to you or in any way involve you in the
decision making process about what they were going to
do, when they went to meetings with the Aldhizer
Commission?
A No, sir. | was not approached about that at all.
* * *
3. Testimony of Melvin W. Burnette.
[91] MELVIN WALDO BURNETTE, called on
behalf of the plaintiff, first being duly sworn, testified
as follows:
293
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. VENABLE:
Q Mr. Burnette, for the record would you state
your name, age and your address, please, sir.
A Melvin Waldo Burnette. I am fifty-five years old.
I live at 3939 Cogbill Road.
Q_ Is that within the City of Richmond or County
of Chesterfield?
A County of Chesterfield.
Q What is your vocation, sir? For whom do you
work?
A | am the Executive Secretary of the Board of
Supervisors of Chesierfield County.
Q How long have you held that position, sir?
A Since May, 1949.
Q_ | assume you are more than painfully aware you
and your County were involved in an annexation suit in
1961 that ended in July, 1969, sir.
A Painfully aware, yes.
THE COURT: It must have happened while the
Navy was on leave.
Q Are you familiar with an agreement [92]
referred to sometimes as the Horner-Bagley agreement?
A Yes. This was a line the city agreed they could
live with, yes, sir.
Q Was this pursuant to a proposed compromise of
the annexation suit?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you participate in drawing that line. that
Horner-Bagley line?
A Not in the actual drawing of the line. | did
furnish our Chairman, Mr. Horner, with a great deal of
information from time to time which would allow him
294
to be prepared to draw such a line. | met with him
many times and gave him all the information we
required.
Q Over how long a period of time did you meet
with Mr. Horner to furnish him with this information?
A Several weeks.
Q Were you aware that Mr. Horner was meeting
with city officials to discuss a compromise?
A Yes, sir.
Q Over what period of time were you aware of
these meetings?
A It started back in 1965 when we had several
meetings and continued off and on, right up until the
day Mr. Horner went on the stand to give the
compromise agreement.
Q [93] Did Mr. Horner keep contact with the
Board of Supervisors during that period of time?
A Yes. Just about every time that he met with Mr.
Bagley or the other people he would come back to the
Board to report on the exact progress of the
negotiations.
Q Was he seeking information from you during this
period of time?
A Yes, indeed.
Q Did you participate in any of the compromise
negotiations between officials of the City of Richmond
and officials of the County of Chesterfield?
A Yes, on several occasions. I think it started out
in 1965 In 1968 we had some and in 1969 we had
some.
Q_ Starting with 1965.
A In 1965, there were two meetings | believe that |
attended at Jack Brent’s house. Present were Mr.
295
Edwards who was then City Manager and Mr. Crowe
who was then Mayor and Mr. Horner and myself. At
both of those meetings that was the makeup of those
present.
Q Who called those meetings, sir?
A Mr. Brent called them on behalf of the city.
Q What was the subject of conversation?
A Well, at that stage of the negotiations [94] |
believe this was more or less an exploratory situation.
They wanted to see if we were possibly in the mood to
negotiate a settlement, more like a feeler type of
meeting.
Q Did you get involved in positions? By that I mean
did either side present say we need so much land or
utilities, so much this, so much of that, at these Jack
Brent meetings’
A Yes. I believe that it was stated on a number of
occasions that the city needed people. They needed
some land in which to grow, and they needed a better
economic base.
Q What was the emphasis of the conference;
A It was always people, the number of people.
Q Was race discussed, sir?
A Well, | am sure it was. We pointed out to those
present that about 95 percent of the people around the
city would be white citizens and that any number of
people that the city annexed, what we would agree to
give them, would be white people.
Q How much discussion was centered around land
and economics?
A Very little, actually. We would start talking
about schools or land or something but —
Q_ Who is we?
296
A [95] It would come back to people, those doing
the discussion, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Crowe, Mr. Horner
and myself. Mr. Horner and I would talk about schools
and land, vacant land, for expansion, but Mr. Edwards
and Mr. Crowe would always come back eventually to
the number of people they needed.
BY THE COURT:
Q What was significant about that, so | will get it
straight, as you understood it?
A Well, it was common knowledge, Your Honor,
that the City of Richmond was going black.
Q When you talk about people, you are talking
about race?
A Yes. It was common knowledge they were going
black. The city realized this. We realized it. They
claimed they had to have people from Chesterfield to
offset the growing black race in the city. This was the
basis of their whole negotiations as far as I am
concerned.
THE COURT: Go ahead.! am sorry I interrupted
you. | wanted to get it straight in my own mind to
Start with.
BY MR. VENABLE: Continued
Q Did you attend any other meetings between [96]
these two meetings with Mr. Brent, in Mr. Brent’s home
in the year 1966? Did you attend any meetings
yourself?
A Not that I recall.
Q_ The year of 1967?
A Not that I recall.
Q When was your next meeting in reference to a
compromise and with whom was it?
297
A_ I had a series of meetings wth Mr. Kiepper, City
Manager.
Q Beginning when?
A Beginning on July 16, 1968. These meetings were
at the direction of the Court. I think Judge White, in
one of his pre-trial conferences suggested Mr. Kiepper
and I get together to seek some grounds with which we
might be able to compromise the*case.
Q Mr. Burneite, from July 16, 1968, back to your
last meeting at Mr. Brent’s home, were you aware of
any other meetings that were taking place between the
officials of the City of Richmond and the County of
Chesterfield seeking a compromise of the annexation
case?
A Yes. There were several meetings which I did not
attend. At one point a number, three members of the
Board of Supervisors, met with certain members of City
Council. There was a meeting in Farmville | believe
between certain officials of the county and the city.
{97] There may have been others.
Q. That is all you know about them?
A Yes.
Q In 1968, July 15, 1968, you began a series of
meetings with Alan Kiepper?
Yes, sir.
His position is what?
City Manager of Richmond.
Did you take notes at those meetings, sir?
I did.
Do you have them in Court with you?
I did not take notes at the meetings. | went back
to the office and immediately wrote down the jist of
the discussions in my own handwriting, and because |
r>OPrOrAO
298
was the only one at this meeting for the county, I
wanted to be very sure that I had a note on what
transpired.
MR. VENABLE: Your Honor, we are referring to
plaintiff's exhibit number 32.
THE COURT: I see the description.
Q The time thing is what I am interested in at the
moment, Mr. Burnette. How much time elapsed from
your meeting with Mr. Kiepper, the City Manager, and
the time in which you wrote those notes?
A Immediately upon my return to my office [98] |
wrote these notes.
Q Meeting by meeting? Where did you meet? What
was discussed on July 16?
A We met at Mr. Donut which is a coffee and
donut shop at Southside Plaza. This was on July 16.
Q What time did you meet?
A We met at 8:40. This was just a preliminary
meeting. We discussed how to proceed on_ the
negotiations and how we were to conduct ourselves,
who possibly to include in the meetings. It was decided
that just the two of us would meet, and we decided |
believe at that time that we would try to give each
other some tangible evidence of what grounds we might
meet on.
Q Did Mr. Kiepper indicate to you the city’s basic
negotiating position at that time? In other words, was it
people or was it land or was it tax?
A Mr. Kiepper said they had to balance the
population, that they needed land for industry and they
had to balance the population. This was in 1968 now,
and the whole aura of events taking place during this
time I think was colored by the forthcoming
299
annexation case, the Aldhizer amendment coming up,
and we were in a state of great transition we felt. He
just said they needed population, pure and simple.
Q Is it your testimony people were the [99] basis
of the negotiations?
A All people, paramount.
Q Was it indicated whether they were white or
black people?
A On many of these meetings with Mr. Kiepper |
discussed with him the composition of the people
around the city, that at least 95 percent of them were
black.
Q_ Black?
A Excuse me. Ninety five percent of them were
white, five percent were black, and that any percentage
of people he would get out of our county would be
ninety-five percent white. So that race was not
necessarily mentioned at every meeting, but we both
knew what we were talking about.
Q What conclusions were reached at this July 16
meeting?
A We decided to meet again. I guess that was the
biggest conclusion. We tried to set goals to see if we
could come back with a figure that each of us could get
approved by our counselling board and meet again.
Q This figure you are talking about — -
A The number of people.
Q Did Mr. Kiepper expressed to you at this first
meeting how much land the city wanted?
A No, I don’t think so.
Q [100] Did he express to you any question about
the utility situation?
A No.
300
Q Did he express to you anything about roads or
schools?
A No.
Q Did he express any interest in the tax base,
where the shopping centers, things of that nature were?
AI. of course advised him if he got anything he
would have to get Southside Plaza which had I think
about seventy percent of our sales tax.
Q Did he bring up the subject of the tax base?
A No, I don’t think so.
Q A fair statement would be Mr. Kiepper was
negotiating on the number of white people?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your next meeting with Mr. Kiepper?
A We met on July 29. No, on July 30. The meeting
was arranged for on July 29. We met at the Virginia
Inn. We had a very good meeting. We discussed the
situation considerably and I gave him a map that would
show the county would willingly settle for 8.5 square
miles [101] and about 18,500 people.
Q Did you break down in that information that
you gave to Mr. Keipper the racial composition on
those numbers of people?
A No. It was not necessary.
Q Continue.
AI suggested that he might seek a settlement along
these lines, that it would certainly help our situation if
he could get this thing out of Court. He said he
thought that the line suggested would not be sufficient
for him to settle on, but he did take the map and said
he would see what he could do with it.
Q Did he at any time indicate to you at this
meeting what amount of territory the city would be
301
interested in, geography, in starting at a negotiating
point with?
No.
Did he discuss with you tax base?
No.
Did he discuss with you schools?
No.
Did he discuss with you utilities or roads?
Not at that time.
Is it a fair statement that at this point [102] Mr.
Kiepper was still negotiating on how many white people
the city required?
A He always came back to a number of people
they had to have.
Q What was your next meeting with Mr. Kiepper,
sir? +
Before we get into that, did Mr. Kiepper make any
mention to you of his position with City Council, how
much support for these negotiations he was having from
City Council?
A In one meeting hie said that he had six members
of the Council, that he was dealing with, and that the
other three had not been told.
Q Did he ever identify who the other three were.
sir?
A No. he did not have to. It was pretty well
evident by the newspaper.
Q Would you explain that remark, sit.
A I think Mr. Marsh, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Carwile
were not corsulted with, and it was very eivdent by
acticis of the Council in the newspaper. I had no
doubt when he made the statement that he had only
negotiated with six members of Council.
Oro rO PO
302
Q Did he express to you the fact that he was
negotiating for the six members of Council, that this
[103] was their position?
A Well, he represented the six members of Council.
He had not consulted with the others. He let me know
the others had not been consulted by anybody on this
case.
Q So he was negotiating for those six members of
Council.
Al assume that he was, yes.
Q What was your next meeting with Mr. Kiepper?
A We next met on August 5, 1968, at my house,
and I gave him a map which showed about 18,871
people and showed him where industrial land was and
the area had about eighty-five to ninety-five percent of
the sales tax in that area, but only five percent of the
families were colored. He again said it was too small.
Q_ In what way was it too small? Geographicaly too
smali?
A No. It was only in the numbers again. He had
to have a certain number of people. At this meeting |
explained how nice it would be to settle this thing out
of Court. We would not have to fight a vicious
annexation suit. We would save a lot of money in
lawyers’ fees. We certainly could use the time to better
both the city and the county rather than sitting around
in Court. He agreed [104] with all of this of course
except we had not offered him enough people.
Q Had you been able to get the city to delineate a .
line on a map?
A No, sir. They never gave us a map until quite a
303
bit after this time.
Q What was your next meeting with Mr. Kiepper?
A We met again August 12. We met at my house
again. He gave me a map at this time showing 35.7
square miles, and it had 56,540 people. | told him that
it was no use to negotiate any further, that we were
too far apart, and it was not in the best interest of the
county, that we consider a thing of this kind. He
seemed to want to continue the negotiations, and he
stated the city perhaps could bring this down to 50,000
people.
I think at one time in the meetings that I said we
would be able to get up to about 25,000 or 30,000,
but this point in time we were still miles apart.
Q What was the city’s position at this point on
utilities? Did he discuss utilities with you at this
meeting;
A No. In one of these meetings I discussed with
him that we had to maintain enough of our school
system and our water system to be able to continue as
a [105] county, and enough of our school system to be
able to continue as a county.
Q Did he ever discuss with you the city’s need for
utilities, land, tax base or schools?
A He did discuss the city’s need for additional land
at several occasions, but it was always our negotiations
were in a framework of the number of people.
Q Did he present any facts or figures of how much
vacant land he needed?
A No.
Q It was a passing remark?
A Yes. It was one of the issues that he was
supposed to consider, but certainly it was not initially
304
as prominent as the number of people.
Q He was pretty specific about the number of
people?
A In every case.
Q What was the result of that meeting?
A He left at 10:30 that night. I told him if we
needed another meeting I would call him, that I did not
think that another meeting would be necessary, that we
were too far apart.
Q Did you in fact meet with him again?
A Yes. On August 19 I called him and we [106]
set a meeting for the 21st at 9:00 o'clock. We met
again at Mr. Donut Shop. Here again I stressed the need
perhaps that we should continue the negotiations as the
Court had requested.
Q May I stop you a moment so we can get the
time frame of this. Had you entered trial yet on
annexation at this point?
A August 19, I don’t think we had entered trial.
Q You went to trial twice?
A Right, several times, | think. Twice. First of all
under Judge Old and I believe 1966. Then under Judge
White in 1968. Again under Judge Abbott in 1969.
MR. VENABLE: For the Court’s benefit, as we go
through these meetings, Your Honor, defendant's
exhibit 24 and plaintiffs exhibit 7, they are one and
the same. They are a chronology that indicate the
progress of Chesterfield, Henrico, and other things.
For the purpose of this testimony, the Chesterfield
trial
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. VENABLE: It should be two or three pages.
305
Q [107] Back to the August 19 meeting what was
discussed at that meeting sir?
A Well, | think we stressed the need for continued
negotiations as the Court had requested, and | told him
that we had many problems on the county’s side. We
had a split Board. Some wanted me to continue to
negotiate: others did not want to prolong it at all. He
made something of that same statement as to City
Council and that he had agreed to give up to settle the
case for about 50,000 people and that | had agreed that
I probably could get the Board to agree on about
30,000, 35,000 people, that we were not too far apart
if we could just reach a common ground. He would
take this back to his Council to see if we could get
some agreement.
Q. Did you subsequently meet again, sir?
A. On August 26 Mr. Kiepper called, and he said
that the city would need people, industrial land and
vacant land, in that order, and the city would negotiate
further on a figure between 36,000 and 50,000.
Q Did he tell you at this particular juncture — He
has told you the number of people Did he tell you
how much land, how much industrial land or vacant
land? Did he give you any figures?
A No, just people.
Q [108] Continue, sir.
A. We met again on Friday, August 30. We
arranged that he would meet me at 6:00 o'clock, at a
place not too far from my home. He said at 7:00
o'clock, and then he said he had been delayed, and we
decided to meet again on the following day, en the
3ist. We met at Schraffp’s. We had lunch. | gave him a
map showing 21,358 people. He said we could possibly
306
add some 3300 people to that. He pointed out again we
bad a divided feeling, and that this was a real “hard
sell” in our eye. He said the city would never accept
that few people with the present Council and the
present lawyers. We had a very frank discussion of this,
and he did not think we could settle at that point.
Q What was the subject of that frank discussion
you had?
A Well, the majority of Council believed they had
most of the case won, that they would get all that they
asked for and that they had some questions as to
whether they could pay a bill with only six members of
« uncil and there were other considerations stated at
this time.
Q At this time did Mr. Kiepper present you with
any figures on what he needed in vacant land?
A No, sir.
Q [109] What about with reference to industrial
jand?
A No, sir.
Q Did he discuss with you feelings as to the tax
base, schools, roads?
A No.
Q So again the only thing he is speaking of ts the
number of people.
A The number of people.
Q Mr. Burnette, did Mr. Kiepper ever tell you when
you were going to get to talk about land and schools
and the rest of this stuff?
A No. | had the idea from my figures if we could
ever agree on the number of people everything else
would fall in place.
307
Q What was your next meeting with Mr. Kiepper?
A We met on September |2. He gave us a map at
that time. I believe. No. He said he would bring it by.
He came late that afternoon and presented his need and
stated we should still try to negotiate. His line had
about 45,000 people in it. 1 told him I did not think
our Board would accept this, and we did talk for about
twenty minutes or so and he left. That was the last
meeting we had.
Q [110] His line shows 45,000. people? How much
vacant land did it show?
I don’t have that copy.
Did he discuss land?
No, people.
Schools, roads, utilities?
No.
Assessable?
No.
Industrial land? :
He mentioned the fact that they needed land for
industrial expansion.
Q Did he say how much”
A No. sir. On this particular time it was only
people.
Q Did you have anymore meetings with Mr. Alan
Kiepper?
A Not alone.
Q *d¢ you ever discuss the councilmatic election of
1970 with Mr. Kiepper?
A Yes. | think that during our discussions we
pointed out that the Council would have an election in
1970. that it would be nice to settle this case before
January, 1970. so that would go into the city, which
rPO?POPFPO KOS
308
would help the city out in its coming election. This was
very [111] important with the city at that time.
Everybody knew that in 1968 the elections were right
close. We expected they would be much closer in 1970,
and | think that was the basis for all the negotiations,
was to get more people in so they could keep the
Council of the City of Richmond white.
Q You broke off your meetings in September, and
you went to trial. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you next meet with officials of the
city?
A 1 believe it was in Williamsburg and on the
Aldhizer amendment.
Q That was the next time?
A The next time I had any meetings with the city,
yes.
Q When did Judge White disqualify himself in the
annexation case? Do you remember?
AI think it was January, 1969.
Q Did you have any proceedings prior to that?
A Not as far as I can remember.
Q You mentioned the Aldhizer amendment, the
Aldhizer Commission as opposed to the amendment.
Was the Aldhizer Commission meeting during the Fall
of 1968?
A [112] Yes. The Aldhizer amendment was in the
Fall of 1968. It was passed by the General Assembly in
1969. It had to be reaffirmed in the Fall of 1968, yes.
Q When was the first time you were requested to
attend meetings with members of the Aldhizer
Commission, before or after Judge David Meade White's
disqualifying himself?
309
A lam not sure.
Q Where was your first meeting with members of
the Commission?
A In Williamsburg, | believe the first meeting was
held. and | believe one is in the Hotel Richmond. It
could have been vice versa.
Q What was the purpose of the Aldhizer Commis:
sion meeting?
A The boundary expansion — Richmond has been
telling the General Assembly for years the problems
that it was having with its boundary expansion, and its
frustrations. It did not seem to want to annex Henrico.
The case in Chesterfield had been thrown out of Court.
It was somewhat frustrated and | think this Commission
was set up to take care of the problems ot the City of
Richmond, again the capital of the Commonwealth.
Q This meeting you had in Williamsburg with the
members of the Aldhizer Commission, who was there
[113] representing the City of Richmond?
A 1 don’t think that I can recount them all, but |
think Phil Bagley was there.
Q What was his position on Council at that time?
A He was Mayor at the time.
Q Who else was there?
A 1 think Conrad Mattox was there. | think Mr.
Crowe. Mr. Wheat was there, to the best of my
knowledge. I am not certain about Mr. Crowe.
Q Did these gentlemen who represented the City of
Richmcnd attempt to persuade you to merge voluntar-
ily with the city and Henrico at this meeting in
Williamsburg?
A Yes, this was a great part of the thrust of the
meeting. The Aldhizer Commission thought that if we
310
could get some cooperation between the two counties,
to cooperatively give to the city a part of each cost
then the city would not have any problems witht its
racial buildup.
Much was discussed concerning the portion of the
county that would be given to the city. Actually, a map
was drawn.
Q Mr. Burnette. what reasons did Mr. Bagley. Mr.
Mattox. Mr. Wheat. other members of the Richmond
delegation [114] to_ the Commission meeting in
Williamsburg give you to try to persuade you to
voluntarily cooperate with some form of merger?
MR. CROSLEY: | ask that the question be limited
to one individual at a time.
THE COURT: I think he may explain. The
objection is overruled. Go ahead, sir.
A Would you repeat your question.
Q What statements did these individuals represen-
ting the city. Mr. Bagley. Conard Mattox. Mr. Wheat
and any other member of the delegation which you
may remember, what reasons did they give you as
representatives of Chestertield County for trying to
persuade you to voluntarily merge?
MR. CROSLEY: | object to the question. It ts
leading.
THE COURT: Fine.
Q To voluntarily merge with the county, with
Henrico and the city.
A Well
THE COURT: Try to be specific as to who said
what. if you can, if anything.
A Judge. this happened several years ago.
311
THE COURT: I understand.
A | can only recall the jist of the conversation.
(115] Who said exactly what I don’t know.
THE COURT: Can you tell me who was present at
the conversation?
A I have already mentioned the city’s side. For the
county, Mr. Horner and Mr. Dietsch and myself and |
believe Mr. Dunn and several others from Henrico plus
all of the members or most of the members of the
Aldhizer Commission.
BY THE COURT:
Q I take it you are about to tell me the jist of the
conversation. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you tell me whether it emanated, the jist,
came from the delegation from the City of Richmond
or from the other gentlemen?
A The City of Richmond emphasized to the
Aldhizer Commission that they were in trouble, that
the black population was growing, and they had to get
some more white people from either one or both of the
counties. This was the reason they wanted to get, or
the reason they wanted to expand their boundaries.
* * *
Q {118] At what point did Mr. Horner and Mayor
Bagley reach an agreement and compromise?
A I think this was signed on May 15, 1969.
Q You are talking about the line?
A Yes.
Q [119] The Horner-Bagley line?
A Yes. The money was not decided for quite a bit
312
Q Do you remember when the city actually agreed
to all the terms of the compromise?
A Mr. Horner testified I believe on June 16 and we
met again about the 19th and again on the 24th of
June.
Q What were the conditions of the compromise,
sir?
A We had certain conditions. The county could
build schools apparently faster than the city. We were
to build three schools for the city. We were to educate
some of the children that lived in the annexed area
because they did not have enough school room space.
Q Would you go back to that last agreement. How
many children did you have to educate for the city
because there were not school room spaces?
A_ I believe there were about 3500 or 3600.
Q They were not enough to take care of that many
children? When was that period of time?
A Quite a while after the line was drawn. It was
one more reason, there would be no right of appeal by
the city, because if we signed the compromise it would
not be any right for the county to appeal. It might
upset [120] the ruling and prolong it further in the
courts. | think of the night of the 19th they had
mentioned rather pointedly that if we did appeal that
the people in the annexed territory would not come
into the city on January |. This was absolutely
necessary in order that they could vote in the election
of June, 1970. °
Q | want to break your line of thought for a
moment to come back to the night the line was agreed
upon. Did you receive a telephone call that evening?
. 313
A Yes. | was in my office. It was at night, as |
recall. | was in the office and Mr. Horner was with
Mayor Bagley at that time. He read me the line and
asked me to figure up the exact number of people in
that line to ascertain if 44,000 people were in that line.
Q Did he state that the terms of a compromise
were substantially worked out and that Mr. Horner
took the stand and testified — How much time was left
in the annexation trial itself?
A About three or four days, perhaps three days |
would say.
Q This compromise agreement that you entered
into, was it adopted by the Court?
A Yes, it was.
Q Verbatim?
A Yes, sir.
* * *
Q {121] On the night that you looked at the
population information on the Horner-Bagley line did
Mr. Horner require any other information from you
other than population?
A He asked me about the number of school
children in the area. I gave it to him, | don’t know
whether he told Mr. Bagley that or not.
Q_ Did he ask you about assessables?
A No, sir.
Q_ Did he ask you about vacant land?
A No, sir.
Q About roads?
A No, sir.
Q Utilities?
A [122] No, just people.
314
Q_ School children?
AI think that was for his own benefit.
* * *
Q [124] Mr. Burnette, you testified in answer to
Mr. Venable’s question that during the course of
discussions with you and Mr. Kiepper that the basic
topic, the principal topic was negotiation of the number
of white people. It that true?
A_ No. I said people. | did say, however, that it was
understood that by people we meant 95 percent white
people.
* * *
CROSS EXAMINATION
[126] Isn’t it true, Mr. Burnette, that Mr. Kiepper
indicated to you that what he meant by balance of
population was an economic and social balance of the
population?
A No, sir.
Q What did he indicate to you? What did he say?
What statements did he make?
A He must balance the colored and white popula-
tion for the coming election.
Q_ He used those terms — colored —
A Colored, black and white, maybe, but we
understood the city was having an election in June,
1970.
4. Testimony of Grady W. Dalton.
* * *
Q [139] For the record would you state your
name, age and address.
315
A My full name is Grady William Dalton, age
sixty-three, Richlands, Virginia.
Q Mr. Dalton, do you hold any elective office in
the State of Virginia?
A I am a member of the General Assembly
representing Tazewell County.
Q Mr. Dalton, | would like to take your attention
back to the special session of the General Assembly in
1969. Do you remember a commission and amendment
that came before the House and the Sneate to vote
upon calied the Aldhizer amendment?
A Yes, I do.
Q What was the puipose of the Aldhizer amend-
ment? What was it going to do? Give the state power to
do what?
A As I recall, the Aldhizer amendment, it merely
provided or was to provide in the State Constitution
that the General Assembly would have the power or be
[140] authorized to determine the boundaries of the
capital city each ten years.
* * *
Q [142] Did the people identify themselves as
being from the City of Richmond?
A They did.
Q_ What was their problem?
* * *
Q Did ‘they identify themselves as representatives of
the City of Richmond as opposed to representatives of
Chesterfield County?
A [143] From what they said to me it would be
no question about their identity as representing the
City of Richmond.
316
THE COURT: Were they members of the House?
A Members of the General Assembly, yes.
Q_ What was their problem?
A You know, I am classed as a country boy, being
from back in Tazewell County. The proposal was in this
manner, well, you have no problen out in the far
southwest, but we have an intolerable situation in
Richmond. You have no race problem out there
because you have very few colored people, but this city
is becoming about fifty percent colored. We have a
problem, We want the help of the country boys. That is
the jist of the language that was used, of the
conversation, as | remember it. Again, | cannot put my
finger on any particular person that said that to me,
but I am sure they were of the Richmond de! *gation.
Q Mr. Dalton, did you vote for the amendment?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why did you vote for the amendment?
A Not because anyone convinced me. It was my
own convictions. | thought we owed something to the
[144] State of Virginia in determining the boundaries
of our capital city.
MR. VENABLE: No further q estions.
MR. DAVENPORT: No questions.
WITNESS STOOD ASIDE
(Having been excused).
317
5. Testimony of Irvin G. Horner.
[145] IRVIN G. HORNER, called on behalf of the
plaintiff, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. VENABLE:
Q For the record, Mr. Horner, would you state
your name, age and address, please, sir.
A Irvin G. Horner, age fifty-one. My address is
Mosely, Virginia.
Q Is that within Chesterfield County?
A The Post Office is Powhatan. My residence is in
Chesterfield.
Q What business are you in, Mr. Horner?
A I am in general business, a home builder,
insurance, motel, general merchandise store, and so on,
Q You hold an elective office, sir?
A Yes, sir.
Q_ What is that?
A Board of Supervisors, Chesterfield County,
presently serving as Chairman of this Board.
Q How long have you been on the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County?
A Twenty-three and a fraction years, be twenty-
four years the end of this year.
Q_ I presume, sir, you are aware the county was
involved in an annexation beginning in 1961 and ending
[146] in January, 1970.
A Yes, sir. | was there at the start and there at the
finish.
Q Have you heard the expression “Horner-Bagley
line’?
318
A Very many times.
Q Mr. Horner, what part did you play in the
compromise of that annexation suit of the City of
Richmond against Chesterfield County?
A Ask it again. You mean in toto, initially or
what?
Q You negotiated the compromise, did you not, sir,
for the county on behalf of the county?
A I attended many wineetings in behalf of the
county relative to an effort to reach agreement, to save
whatever would be saved from a fought contest in
Court.
Q What was the first contact you had with officials
from the City of Richmond in which the subject of
compromising the annexation suit was discussed?
A The best of my recollection, the first contacts
were had immediately following the city’s decision to
not accept the Henrico County award. This I believe
was in 1965, late Spring, early Summer.
* * *
Q [148] Did you have a subsequent meeting to the
Jack Brent meeting in 1965?
A Yes. There were two such meetings and possibly,
and I believe a third meeting at which two other
supervisors, namely Dr. Martin and Mr. Raymond
Britton were there. The city people there at the time, |
am not [149] totally confident of the exact persons
other than Bagley was there at this meeting and a
Councilman, and | am confident Mr. Edwards was
there. Also I believe Mr. Crowe was also there. As |
recall, | believe there were three meetings. Two of them
Burnette and | and Mayor Crowe and Mr. Edwards, and
the other was a Supervisor.
319
It really represented a committee from our Board
of the areas contiguous to the city. They were entitled
to be informed of what was going on.
Q Did ‘ou get down to the nitty gritty of drawing
lines, presenting maps, talking about land and all the
rest of that stuff?
A_ A lot of talk went on. | cannot recall any lines
being put on the maps. We talked the maximum we
thought we could give up. | don’t believe the city
talked of anything they would definitely accept.
Q The city did not present any proposals to you?
A No, sir.
+ * +
Q [150] Where did you meet, sir?
A We met in Farmville.
Q_ Where in Farmville? Do you remember, sir?
A We met in the home of Mr. Wheat’s wife's
parents.
Q_ What did you discuss at that meeting?
A At that meeting — There again, it was an
exploratory situation. We talked; they talked. They
talked about land. They talked about people and just
general discussions in that direction.
Q Did you go down with a proposal in mind?
A We did not go to this meeting with any definite
proposal.
Q Would they put a line on the map at this
meeting?
A They did not.
Q What was the basis for their negotiating point at
this meeting?
320
A At this meeting it was relayed to us, on pressing
by me, we were there for a purpose to find out what
the least the city would consider was in the event there
was a possibility of getting together and eliminating
[151] the trial and Court suit.
Q What was the least they would consider?
A This‘was stated by Mr. Wheat to my recollection,
that we needed 44,000 leadership type of white
affluent people.
Q Did Mr. Wheat tell you how much land they
needed?
A No, and any discussion, | am confident, was they
needed land for expansion, but how much was never
talked about.
Q. Did they tell you how much roads or schools or
utilities —
A Those items to my knowledge were not discus-
sed.
Q Were you down there prepared to discuss them?
A We were down there to listen and discuss
anything that was pertinent to what we believed our
case to be. We did not get an opportunity to discuss:
we did not have anything to discuss.
Q Did you attempt to discuss land and schools and
roads and utilities and assessables?
A It was our belief if we were to get, the least they
would accept, these would be the things we would have
talked about,
Q [152] What did they talk about”
A They talked about people.
Q. Did they talk about votes?
A | am sure in this discussion votes were talked
about.
321
They asked us in the fifty-one square mile area
approximately how many black citizens were in this
area. | had no definite census, but it was estimated
about five percent of the area of fifty-one square miles
were black and about ninety-five percent were white.
Q When they discussed people, were they discussing
a need for 44,000 white people or 44,000 black
people?
A Well, in that area, they had to be talking about
the ratio I just mentioned.
Q You specifically remember Mr. Wheat’s saying
leadership type white people?
A Yes, sir.
Q_ White people?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did Mr. Wheat also discuss and use the word
“voter”?
A In the discussion, as to. the context. I don't
know, but I am confident the word “voter was used.
Q Did Mr. Davenport or Mr. Wheat draw a [153]
line on the map for you?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Did you attempt then to get them to talk
geography? Where a line would go?
A We were there to find out. We were not in
position to push anything beyond what they were
willing to talk about. We did not push.
Q Were they willing to talk about anything but
white affluent people?
A This was the principal jist of their discussion.
Q What was the next meeting that you attended in
reference to compromise, Mr. Horner?
322
A The next meeting to my knowledge that !
attended was in the late Summer of 1968. It was two or
perhaps three years after the Farmville meeting. In the
interim we realized our case went to Court, was thrown
out, taken to appeal, appeal turned down by the State
Supreme Court and then after that was turned down we
were obviously coming back into Court. So with this
background we met, I and Mr. Dietsch, the Supervisor
from Manchester District, the most contiguous district
to the City of Richmond, met with Mayor Bagley who
was Mayor at this time, having been elected I believe in
1968, and Mr. Jim Wheat.
We met in a conference room of the [154]
Chesterfield County School Board. At this time the
engineering firm that we had employed in_ the
annexation case had prepared an easel type of map cut
into districts, a magnetic type, which these study areas
were numbered, etc., and they were on the map. They
were separateable, to move them around, divide them,
and this was at this meeting. We arranged to have this
at this meeting so we could discuss geography if it
became necessary to do so.
Q Did you in fact discuss geography at this
meeting?
A_ No, to the best of my knowledge geography was
not discussed. We had the map there available to be
used. To my knowledge it was not used.
Q Let us talk about this map. It is a jigsaw puzzle
map — How was it broken down?
A It was a map broken down by study area. It was
a separate piece to be fitted into another piece.
Q_ Was anything written?
A Numbers.
323
Q Numbers of what?
A Just the numbers, 1, 2, 3 and 4. This represented
on a tabulation, the square miles, people and other
items.
Q Were you successful in getting Mayor Bagley and
Councilman Wheat to show you where in the [155]
fifty-one square miles they were requesting to draw a
line for compromise?
A We were naturally concerned if they wanted
44,000 people, and ! might add here that I had no
sympathy or indication or belief, that the governing
body I represented thought this amount of people was
anywhere close to being reasonable. However, we were
willing all along to talk and discuss, hoping that an
agreoment could be gotten together on. We went to this
meeting in this frame of mind, trying to find out from
the city, if you want 44,000 people, do you have in
mind anywhere they should come from.
Q Did they have in mind where they should come
from at this first meeting?
A If they had it in mind they did not reveal it to
us.
Q Did they reveal to you how much vacant land
they wanted?
No, sir.
Did they reveal how many schools they wanted?
No, sir.
Or how many utility facilities they wanted?
No.
[156] Or how many assessables they needed?
No, sir.
What percentage of industrial land they needed?
No, sir.
rPOPFPA FO POS
324
Q_ The whole basis was people?
A We pressed them for where the people should
come from. They apparently were not prepared to
answer it.
Q When was the next meeting that you had?
A The meeting you just asked me of, and |
reiterated — it became exposed to the press just prior
to that day. Those led me to feel the trial was going to
open in a few days, September 8, I believe, to be exact.
We did not feel we should meet anymore in this
atmosphere. We thought it would be improper and
unethical. So it was determined at the end of this
meeting we would meet again after the start of the trial
if it proved all parties were interested.
Q Mr. Horner, at this first School Board meeting —
THE COURT: School Board meeting?
Q_ This meeting at the School Board, excuse me, sir.
The conference room.
A On the premises of the School Board. [157]
They had a much better facility than we did.
Q A better conference room?
A The new building and it is bigger and nicer and is
air conditioned.
Q They discussed 44,000 white people or 44,000
black people at this meeting?
A_ I would not like to say at this meeting. It had
already been stated in other meetings and I knew what
they were talking about. I could not say white or black
people came up at this meeting.
Q You knew what you were talking about?
A | knew what they were talking about. They
knew. We all knew what they were talking about.
325
Q The trial began. Did you have a subsequent
meeting pursuant to agreement after trial began?
A We did. We came back, similar circumstances,
same people, practically a carbon copy, same discus-
sions. It was not any accomplishment to my knowledge
when we parted.
Q At this second meeting did they discuss what
they needed in the way of utilities?
No, sir.
Schools?
No, sir.
Roads?
[i 58] No, sir.
Taxes?
No, sir.
Assessables? Vacant land?
No, sir.
Industrial land?
No, sir.
Did you have any further meetings in 1968 after
this second abortive meeting at the School Board?
A Yes, sir, we did, sir. As you recall or may not
recall, but it did develop that the case went to trial.
Judge White who was Chief Judge at this time became
sick, I believe in October, and had to excuse himself
from the bench. The trial stopped while he was
hospitalized, and in December or just prior to
Christmas, since the trial was in recess, had not gone
too far, it was believed by those in the city and us that
this would be an appropriate opportunity to talk again,
to see if there was any meeting of the mind to be
helpful to both.
OFA KFA FO FH PHS
326
Q. Did you meet?
A In Mr. Burnette’s family room of his home. At
that meeting it was Mr. Burnette, I, and I believe the
same Supervisor, Mr. Dietsch, from Manchester, and
from the city’s side, one of the parties could not come.
[159] Anyway, I believe Mayor Bagley was there and
Mr. Crowe. As I recall Mr. Crowe had an engagement
and could not get to the meeting.
Q Mayor Crowe?
A It was my understanding Mayor Crowe could not
get to the meeting. I was more interested in my people
that were going to be there. Bagley was the Mayor, of
course. It was my belief Mr. Crowe did not make it. I
was under the impression Mr. Crowe is the one that
came and Bagley did not, but it is my belief after
further consideration that Mr. Bagley was there and
Crowe was not.
Q_ Who was there from the county?
A Mr. Burnette, myself, Mr. Fritz Dietsch.
Q You discussed the compromise. What was the
city’s position in reference to compromise? What was
their bargaining point at this meeting?
A You have got to keep in mind we had had
several meetings. We knew what the basis of maximum
or minimum was they would accept. We knew this. This
is all we knew. We were of course anxious to know
geography as to what they were interested in, and of
course as I said we thought their request was
unreasonable. We were hoping and wishing they would
immediately withdraw what we considered unreasonable
demands and that it would eventually come to
something reasonable.
327
Q [160] What were the unreasonable demands?
A 44,000 people.
Q Did they have any unreasonable demands about
how much land they wanted?
A_ No, sir.
Q Or how much schools they wanted? How many
roads?
A They did not discuss them.
Q Utilities? Assessables? The tax base?
A Those items were not discussed except other
than to the degree the city people at times, at some of
the meetings, indicated they needed land for expansion.
The amount or the quantity was not brought up.
Q Were you successful in getting the city to put a
line on the map?
A_ No, sir.
* * *
Q [163] Mr. Horner, did the Aldhizer Commission
attempt to get Chesterfield County and Henrico County
to voluntarily merge a portion of their counties with
the city at this meeting?
A The Aldhizer Commission was interested in
accomplishing the task they were set up to do, to
explore ways to accomplish the expansion of the
boundary areas of the capital city.
Q Did they ever agree on a line?
A We did call a break in this session at lunch time I
believe, and they asked us to sit down, asked Henrico
and asked us to do it, and have the city do it, to
determine what the best was we would do from our
governmental standpoint to bring about boundary
expansion of the City of Richmond.
328
Q [164] Did they indicate if you did not they
would —
A The friction was very strong there.
Q Did you enter into conversations with Conard
Mattox, Mayor Bagley and other members from the
Richmond City delegation to this meeting in Williams-
burg? Did you enter into conversations with them
about why you should give up part of the county to
the City of Richmond?
A This meeting in Williamsburg, it was a round
table, a lot of people. The city had their chance to talk,
and we and the county were the commissioners there
and their legal representatives.
QI will rephrase that. What was the reason the city
officials gave to this group for needing more support,
expansion of the boundary area?
A The people from the city that talked, the city
must gain more property or very shortly it will be an
all black city.
Q_ An all black city? Did they lay any stress on
economic or vacant land? Did they dwell on it, talk
about it a lot?
A To my knowledge they did not talk about it
enough to make an impression on me.
Q. Did they talk about blacks and the blacks taking
over the city a lot?
A [165] It was talk about the city people at this
meeting, if the city was not allowed to expand its
boundaries the government control would be taken over
by the black population.
* * *
329
A [169] Yes, yes. About May | we met at my
office on Hull Street. He had a map with him that day.
1 [170] had a map that day.
Q Did he take a line on that map?
A No. He had no line on it, but words to the effect
— 1 don’t know what the number of people, to but |
would like them in this direction — I believe he
indicated a figure different at this time that my people
now say, take about 55,000 to solve the problems. My
answer was I could never have gotten 44,000 through
my boys. We were heading in the wrong direction.
Q When he traced out the area he would consider
on the map, did he also trace out for you how much
vacant land it was out there?
Not to my knowledge.
Did you get to talking about schools?
No.
Utilities?
No.
What were you talking about?
We were talking about where an area would be
or possibly be, to encompass the number of people
fhey said they needed to accomplish their desires and
for [171] settlement, for a compromise agreement.
* * *
rFOPrPAHN FO FO POS
v2)
°
ie
a.
2
A [173] So we set up an appointment for that
evening I believe which was May 15. I went to his
office. That is in the Mayor’s office on Broad Street.
330
Q At that meeting did the two of you arrive upon
a line that would be acceptable to the city?
A At that meeting we of course met and had a map
and talked. I related to the Mayor in my phone
conversation I did not have any idea that my Board
would agree on this volume of people.
Q_ Which was the volume of people?
A 44,000 people or thereabouts. He mentioned a
higher figure at another meeting. So I relayed to Mayor
Bagley at the time we had been meeting an awful lot
relative to this matter, and I have nothing to show for
it [174] as to what the city will do. I said, I don’t
know what our Board will do, but I have no idea they
will meet the number of people you are asking for.
Q_ Did the Mayor indicate to you that his Council
would go along with what he agreed on?
A The Mayor said that he had been in touch with
Council, with the majority of Council, and knew what
was on their mind. He knew about what they thought
they would agree on. I said — and he indicated this was
approximately 44,000 people. I said, well, I had
nothing. J have not had anything to tell my boys
concretely what you will do. Mayor Bagley had pointed
to a map, and said we could go out this area or this
area. I said, let me dictate a line to you of an area that
will encompass this many people. You write it down. If
you would, as | dictate it to you write it down.
Q. Did you dictate a line?
A I did dictate a line.
Q_ Did he write it down?
A He wrote it down and after concluding the
writing down of the line, I said, Mayor, I have not got
331
anything to show for it. Will you sign this to the effect
the City Council will agree to such line so I will at least
have something concrete to take back to my people.
Q Is the line substantially the line that [175]
encompasses the area that was finally annexed?
A It is the line except for a couple minor changes
made at our request and one at the city’s request.
Q How did you verify at that time the number of
people within that line?
A After I dictated the line, and it was written
down, I called Mel Burnette, our Executive Secretary,
who has been following the contents of the study areas,
through all the discussions and proceedings. | told him
the study areas *hat were involved, that encompassed
the line. I reiterated to him that according to the 1968
census taken prior to the beginning of the first trial
that this area encompassed at that time 43,000 and
some odd people.
I asked him at that time for my benefit how many
school children this included.
@ Did Mayor Bagley want to know about school
children?
A The Mayor did not ask for this information.
Q. Did he want to know how much vacant land was
in that area?
A He only asked me to verify how many people
were in the area of the line that we drew. This | did,
and at the bottom of this letter at my suggestion |
[176] wanted something to go on, or words to the
effect if settlement can be agreed upon | feel confident
the City Council will agree to this line.
Q Did the Mayor request for you to tell him
anything about utilities in that area?
A No.
Q_ Roads?
A No, only the number of people that were in this
line.
He asked me to verify this which I did.
* * *
A [177] We met with him, John Thornton and
myself met with Mayor Bagley and John Davenport on
the evening of the 11th in the Mayor's office.
Q Did you discuss the agreement? Correct?
A We discussed the agreement.
Q Did they give you any conditions that [178]
went along with this line and a dollar amount, any
conditions to the agreement?
A They gave the condition — Our purpose of going
there was to find out if they meant business and what
they said, if they meant it, and if they were willing to
stand behind it. They stipulated the condition they
would go along with the agreement provided that no
appeal was made by the county, and the annexation
should take effect January 1, 1970, and the people in
this area would be citizens from that date on and
would be eligible voters in the Councilmatic election of
1970.
Q Who said that? Mayor Bagley or Mr. Davenport?
Do you remember?
A No. The four of us were in this meeting when it
was discussed. Whether Mayor Bagley or Mr. Davenport
said it, | am not sure. They may both have said it, but
it was said. Which one said it, categorically said it, |
just could not say.
Q They were both in the conversation?
333
A Both in the conversation. There were four of us
present. All four of us were in the conversation.
Q Did they ask you to eliminate the intervenors?
A It was suggested to us it would be [179]
appreciated if we do everything we could to discourage
the intervenors from appealing. Our lawyers reply was
we had no control over them. Don’t expect any
assistance from us in this matter.
Q Mr. Horner, the agreement, the compromise
agreement you formalized that night, was this agree-
ment adopted by the annexation Court, the line and
the money and all the other matters?
A This is the agreement that was ultimately
adopted by the Court.
Q Verbatim?
A To my knowledge it was verbatim. Another
exhibit was entered in by the county, number 108 that
spelled out some details, but the line and the money
was verbatim as to what the Judges handed down.
. * *
6. Testimony of Donald G. Pendleton.
[208] BY MR. VENABLE:
Q Mr. Pendleton, for the record would you state
your name, your address and age.
A Donald G. Pendleton, Amherst, Virginia. | am
thirty-nine years old.
Q What do you do for a living, sir?
A I am a practicing attorney in the town of
Amherst and also the County of Amherst, Nelson
County, Lynchburg and Campbell County.
334
Q_ Do you hold any elective office, sir?
A Iam a member of the House of Delegates.
Q_ Representing what?
A_ I presently represent the City of Lynchburg and
the County of Amherst.
Q When did you first vecome elected to the House
of Delegates?
A_ I was elected in 1965, the Fall election of 1965,
and to the seat in the House of Delegates in 1966,
January.
Q Mr. Pendleton, are you familiar with a piece of
legislation in the 1966 Assembly introduced by Senator
Willey, to form a study commission to study the [209]
expansion of boundaries of the City of Richmond?
A Not in 1966.
Q_ What year was it, sir?
A_ It has got to have been 1968.
Q_ Are you familiar with the commission that was
set up?
A Yes.
Q_ It is referred to as the what commission?
A The Aldhizer Commission.
Q_ Who was the Chairman of that Commission?
A Senator George Aldhizer from Rockingham or
Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Q Who appointed you to that Commission, sir?
A The Speaker of the House of Delegates.
Q_ Did you hold a position on that Commission?
A At the organizational meeting in July, !968, |
was elected the Vice Chairman of the Commission.
Q This Commission was formed by legislation in
the 1968 Assembly. Is that correct, sir?
335
A It had to have been, yes.
Q Who introduced that legislation?
A If I recall correctly it was Senator Ed Willey of
Richmond, Virginia.
Q [210] He represented the City of Richmond?
A At that time I believe he did.
Q When was your first meeting with the Commis-
sion, sir?
A In July, 1968.
Q Who attended that meeting?
A Well. it was of course the members of the
Commission minus Delegate Edgar Baker from Lee
County. He did not attend the meeting until after we
had gone into special session, the special constitutional
session in February, 1969.
Q Did any _ representatives from the City of
Richmond. officials from the City of Richmond and the
counties of Henrico and Chesterfield attend that
meeting?
A Senator Ed Willey was there. He represents the
City of Richmond in the State Senate, I believe Conard
Mattox also of the City Attorney's office was there. We
went into Executive session.
Q Was there anybody from the county there, sir?
A 1 don't recall people at the county at that
particular meeting. They could have been, but I don't
recall.
Q What was discussed at that meeting, sir? What
was the topic?
A [211] The purpose of the Commission and what
we were trying to achieve, the fact we operated with no
state funds, that we had no staff other than one
member of the Statutory Research and Drafting, and it
336
was decided we would not ask funds from anybody,
particularly the City of Richmond or the counties of
the state. We did this at our own expense. The Aldhizer
Commission was at the individual’s’ own expense.
Q You mentioned the purposes of the Cominission.
I assume that you and other members of the
Commission itself had ample time to sit gown and
discuss just what it was you were trying to do, did you
not?
A That is correct.
Q_ What were you trying to do?
A Well, it was brought to the attention of the
Commission that at the July meeting if certain elements
in the City of Richmond were to take over the city
government they would tear down all the monuments
on Monument Avenue and further about the fact
fifty-four percent of the school age — I think fifty-four
percent or fifty-eight percent of the population was
black at the time; that sixty percent was in the schools.
In fact, the tax assessables were down and they had
large welfare rolls in the city and that they were
continuing to grow.
Q What was the purpose of the Commission? [212]
What were you trying to do?
A The purpose of the Commission was to effect a
merger with Henrico and Chesterfield Counties.
Q What was that supposed to serve?
A I think it certainly would have served to broaden
the power base in the City of Richmond.
* * ”
Q [216] Did you have an occasion to comment on
the fact these three individuals were not there?
337
A Well, yes. | commented about that.
Q. Did you comment to a city official?
A If 1 recall correctly, I think | talked with Mr.
Conard Mattox, the City Attorney for the City of
Richmond.
Q In reference to the fact that Carwile, Marsh and
Carpenter were not there?
A Yes.
Q What was his response? | |
A 1 do not know whether it was his particular
response. The impression that I had was that the reason
the individuals were not asked is that they were
troublemakers and would have been opposed to
whatever was [217] going on.
Q Let us go back to the Williamsburg meeting. Can
you enumerate who from the city in your memory was
there?
A Mr. Conard Mattox, City Attorney, Mr. James
Wheat who was a member of City Council at that time;
Mayor Crowe was there. I believe Mr. Bagley was
present. That is all | remember from the city.
Q_ From the county, sir?
A From the County of Henrico, Mr. Earl Dunn was
present. I believe Mr. Beck is the County Attorney and
the County Manager, that he was present from Henrico.
From Chesterfield it was Mr. Horner. He is Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Dietsch, who is a member
of the Board of Supervisors, and he was in that affected
area that later was annexed. Their County Attorney |
believe was present.
Q. Was Mr. Burnette there?
A Mr. Burnette was present, yes.
338
Q What was the Commission trying to accomplish
in this meeting?
A In effect, a shotgun marriage.
Q What do you mean by shotgun marriage?
A They came down and all parties were present. We
had a good round table discussion. Senator [218]
Aldhizer and | informed them at the luncheon break to
go out and draw up certain plans and let us have a
compromise on what was coming to the City of
Richmond. After lunch they came back with the
compromise agreement.
Q Did you tell them what you would do if they
did not?
A We would do it through legislation in the General
Assembly.
Q Were you seeking to institute a long term
program, or were you trying for something immediate,
sir:
A Basically the Aldhizer Commission was interested
in a long term arrangement. We wanted to have all of
Henrico, possibly all of Chesterfield perform as one
single unit of government in the Richmond Metropoli-
tan area. This we thought would solve the problems for
many years to come.
Q What was the problem, sir?
A The problem of the city, in the fact it was going
black. The power structure and, you had large numbers
of people on the welfare rolls and the question of taxes
* * *
Q [219] When you say who controls, what do you-
mean? What political party controls or what? White or
339
black? Is that what you are saying, Mr. Pendleton? Who
controls, the white or the black?
A _I think this is the issue really.
Q What do you mean by boil it all down to [220]
the essentials when you talk about welfare and tax?
A Well, power is something that any particular
governmental community — You boil it all down, and
that is the one controlling issue, who is going to elect
and run the city or the county. Here the question is
whether the blacks are going to have a hand in running
the city or whether the present power structure in the
City of Richmond is going to run it.
Q Would it be a fair statement that boundary
expansion was going to prevent the blacks from taking
control or having a hand —
MR. CROSLEY: I object to that question on the
ground it is a leading question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A Repeat your question.
Q Would it be a fair statement —
MR CROSLEY: I object on the ground it is an
opinion and it is the issue at stake.
THE COURT: I think he can give his impression as
to what the meeting was about. Overruled. Go ahead.
They have got my attention, Mr. Crosley. Go
ahead.
Q Would it be a fair statement to say when you are
talking about power that the intent to expand the
[221] boundaries of the City of Richmond was to
prevent the blacks from having a hand in governmental
control or controlling at all?
A I say to have a majority control. That was the
issue.
340
Q They stressed the 1970 Councilmatic, the
upcoming Councilmatic election?
A_ Yes, sir, this was an issue, too.
Q What were they afraid of in the 1970 Council-
matic election as expressed by them?
THE COURT: If expressed.
A That a majority of the City Council of the City
of Richmond would be bi?-k.
Q Mr. Pendleton, once the Commission had had its
meetings and presented legislation to the General
Assembly, did you take an active part in that
legislation?
A Yes, I did.
Q_ What was that part?
A It was my Constitutional amendment which I
introduced on the House side. It was my Constitutional
amendment which I introduced, out of the Committee
on Counties, Cities and Towns, passed the floor of the
House, sent to the Senate and later was adopted by the
Senate and was an amendment approved in the first
stages of Constitutional passage in the State of Virginia.
Q [222] Were you the floorleader?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were officials of the City of Richmond at the
legislative Assembly in 1969 lobbying for the Aldhizer
amendment bill to pass?
Yes, sir.
Was Mr. Forb there?
Yes, sir.
Was Mr. Bliley there?
Yes, sir.
Was Mr. Bagley?
Yes, sir.
>OPrO rr?
341
Q Was Mr. Crowe there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was Mr. Wheat there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was Mr. Conard Mattox there?
A Yes, sir.
Q With whom did you have the closest contact in
seeking the passage of this bill?
A Conard Mattox.
Q Did Mr. Mattox tell you why that bill had to
pass.
A Yes.
Q Why?
A [223] That if it did not pass the 1970 election
was right around the corner and the Constitutional
amendment possibly could be put into effect prior to
that.
7. Testimony of James G. Carpenter
[225] JAMES GLENN CARPENTER, called on
behalf of the plaintiff, adversely, first being sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. VENABLE:
Q For the record, Mr. Carpenter, would you state
your name, age and address, please.
A James Glenn Carpenter, 3319 Haynes Avenue.
I am forty-four.
Q What do you do for a living, sir?
Al am a Minister of the Gospel and Pastor of All
Souls Presbyterian Church.
342
Q In the City of Richmond?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you hold any elective office, Mr. Carpenter?
Al do.
Q [226] What is that?
A I am a member of the City Council of the City of
Richmond.
Q When were you first elected, sir?
A 1968.
Q Were you recommended or endorsed by any or-
ganization in the City of Richmond?
A I was endorsed by several groups after I announced.
Q Did the Crusade for Voters endorse you, sir?
A Yes, they did.
© Did the Crusade endorse you in the last election of
1970?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Carpenter, when was the first time you learned
that there were private meetings being held between
members of the City of Richmond, officials of the City
of Richmond, and the Aldhizer Commission?
A I read it in the newspaper.
Q No one had ever told you prior to that there were
meetings to be held?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know what the Aldhizer Commission was?
A [227] Yes, sir.
Q What was it?
A As I understand, it was a Commission appointed
by the General Assembly that had the specific task
with reference te che expansion of the city.
Q When was the first time you learned that officials
of the City of Richmond were meeting with officials
343
of the County of Chesterfield in an effort to com-
promise the annexation case in 1968-1969?
Al don’t know if I really heard of that until the
case was in the Court.
Q How did you first learn of it?
A Again, through the newspaper.
Q In the newspaper?
A Yes, sir.
Q No member of the city government ever told you
these meetings were going on?
A No, sir.
* * *
{228] I would have liked to have been a party
to any meeting where Council was supposed to have
been represented. I resent at least the statements that
came from the press that the Williamsburg meeting,
that there were persons from Council and the City
Attorney who were representing Council. The problem
I had with that is how could they represent Council
when Council had taken no action? They did not
represent me. I was on the Council.
* * *
Q [230] Has Mr. Bagley ever involved you in a
conversation with him dealing with the purposes of
annexation?
A He never had until this last weekend.
Q Where was that, sir?
A It was September 12, Sunday, at Virginia Beach,
the Virginia Municipal League.
Q The Virginia Municipal League down there?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did Mr. Bagley tell you?
344
A He drew me aside and was giving me a sum-
mary of the speech he gave before some group in the
city wherein he was expressing the feeling the city
ought to go to Councilmatic elections, ought to go
to parties, Democratic or Republican Party. And he
was sharing a condensation of that speech, I assume.
He indicated to me, he said, | had to do what I had
to do concerning annexation, that I just did not
believe the Niggers were qualified to run the city,
and then he added, I just don’t believe that Negroes
are qualified to do that and ought not to be in that
position.
Q Did he use the word “‘Niggers’’?
A Yes, sir.
Q [231] The second word was “‘Neggra’’?
A Yes. That was my understanding.
8. Testimony of B. Earl Dunn
[235] B. EARL DUNN, called on behalf of the
plaintiff, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. VENABLE:
Q Mr. Dunn, for the record please state your name,
your address and age, please, sir.
A My name is Bernard Earl Dunn, 7608 South
Pinehill Drive, Richmond, Virginia, and my age is
fifty-four.
Q Is that in the County of Henrico, sir?
A Yes, sir.
Q What business are you in, Mr. Dunn?
A President of Dunn Tire Service.
345
Q Do you hold any elective office?
A Yes, sir. | am a member of the Virginia Gen-
eral Assembly, House of Delegates.
Q Did you hold any elective office prior to being
elected to the General Assembly of Virginia?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that?
A I was a member of the County Board of Super-
visors from January |, 1960, until December 31, 1969.
Q Did you hold any position within the Board?
A Yes, sir. During an eighteen-month period I served
as Chairman of the Board.
* * *
Q [236] Referring to the discussions you had with
the members of City Council at this time, 1960-
1961, what were their reasons as expressed to you
for merging the County of Henrico with the city?
A Principally, the reasons given to us were that the
city was becoming a city that was kind of run down
{237] and becoming a city of the old people, the
poor people, the black people.
Q Old, poor and the black?
A Right.
Q What did they stress, old, poor or black?
A | remember very generally that they stressed the
aspect of the whole thing, but I think the emphasis was
possibly placed on the black society.
* * *
A [239] The Aldhizer Commission, as | first came
in contact with it, and with the members of the
Commission, as | recall, was in Williamsburg, Virginia.
That was in I think March, 1969, as I recall.
346
Q Who was at that meeting, sir ~
A [240] There were representatives from the state,
as members of the Aldhizer Commission, from the City
of Richmond and the County of Chesterfield and
representatives from the County of Henrico.
Q Who was there from the City that you
remember?
A Mayor Bagley, Mr. Crowe, Mr. Wheat.
Q Did Mayor Bagley or Mr. Crowe or Mr. Wheat
make any comments which you remember in which
they discussed the racial problems of the City of
Richmond?
A Yes, sir. Here again the same old statement
cropped up about the city becoming the city of the
very old, the very poor and the black. That came up
time and time again. | mean, we should have made a
record of the thing and just played it back I suppose to
ourselves.
Q Did they go into deep statistics and information
and involve you in deep conversations about the old
and the poor?
A_ No, sir.
Q What was most of their conversation about?
A At this particular time the conversations that I
had mostly with them dealt on the ratio, the
white-black ratio of the voting strength within the city.
I tried to recall the figures as nearly as | could and to
try to point out I did not believe that the figures were
very [241] close really.
A You say the figures were not very close?
A The voting ratio between the whites and the
blacks in the City of Richmond.
* * *
347
9. Testu..ony of George W. Jones
Q_ [247] Mr. Jones, for the record would you state
your name, age and address, please, sir.
A George W. Jones, age forty-four, 65 Goodward
Road, Chesterfield County.
Q Mr. Jones, what do you do for a living?
A I am a life underwriter and sales representative,
and also the House of Deiegates.
Q You are in the House of Delegates?
A Yes.
Q When were you first elected to the House of
Delegates?
A In the special election in 1969, January, 1969, I
was elected to the House of Delegates.
Q [248] Are you familiar with an amendment,
proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution
referred to as the Aldhizer amendment?
A Yes, | am.
Q_ Were you for or against it?
A I was opposed to it.
* * *
Q What was your basis of opposition, sir?
A The primary basis for my opposition to it was
that it was unconstitutional in my opinion and the
main thrust and purpose of it was to dilute the black
vote [249] of the City of Richmond.
Q_ Did you so publicly state that?
A Yes, | did. | stated it on the floor of the House
in my maiden speech.
Q Mr. Jones, did members of the legislature with
whom you spoke concerning the Aldhizer amendment
348
express to you the basis of their support or nonsupport
for the amendment?
A Well, yes. Originally | talked to several legisla-
tures that I can recall right off that originally indicated
they would support me in my opposition to the
Aldhizer amendment but later came back to me and
stated they could not oppose the Aldhizer amendment
because they did not want to see the City of Richmond
go all black and become another Washington, D.C.
* * *
Q [250] Those members of the House of Delegates
were of whom ycu spoke. What was the primary basis
of their support for the amendment as expressed to
you? a
THE COURT: Are you talking about members of
the Howse who represented the city?
MR. VENABLE: No, sir. Members of the House
first, Your Honor.
MR. DAVENPORT: I object, Your Honor. | don’t
think it is relevant to the issue here.
THE COURT: Overruled, Mr. Davenport. | am not
quite sure.
A This main concern was manifested in the fact
they had been apparently told this was their capital
city, and they could not let it go black.
* * *
Q [253] Has your opinion been changed at all
since the 1969 Assembly? |
A It has been borne out in my opinion that my
original feelings and beliefs, as a matter of fact, that
this has been proven to me, to my satisfaction, through
different occasions since then.
349
Q What are those occasions?
A One would be a meeting that was held at Willow
Oaks Country Club in which certain city officials were
in attendance. Another private meeting.
Q What was this Willow Oaks meeting? When was
that?
A Willow Oaks meeting was ‘icli sometime in
February, 1970.
* * *
Q [255] What did these officials of the City of
Richmond and these other individuals you have
mentioned, tell you that, as you say, bore out this
opinion of why annexation or the Aldhizer amendment
was undertaken?
A Well. Mr. Henry Valentine at the beginning of
the meeting stated that the purpose of annexation was
to keep the city from going all black, and since this had
been accomplished he knew there were ill feelings but
he thought we all ought to heal our wounds and get
together.
Q Did he say why you ought to get together?
A There was further discussion around the table,
and I believe it was Mr. Nathan Forb that brought up
that we should get together to keep the City Council
from going black.
* «x *
A [256] The second occasion was either in
November. December or the very first part of January,
prior to this last immediate session of the General
Assembly in which I had a luncheon engagement with
Mr. Bill Deniel. He [257] was acting as legislative
representative for the City Council.
350
Q_ Is he on Council?
A Yes. He is on City Council. We met at his office
in the Fidelity Building, where the Metropolitan Bank is
located. We went upstairs for lunch and initially
discussed the financial situation of the City of
Richmond where they were trying to get through an
additional one percent local option of a sales tax.
During the course of our luncheon engagement we
got to discussing the City of Richmond as it currently
stands. He pointed out to me that Richmond was not
interested in the rest of Chesterfield County, but they
felt they had to have all of Henrico to prevent it from
growing all black, becoming like Washington, D.C.
MR. VENABLE: No further questions.
10. Testimony of Roger C. Griffin
Q [266] Mr. Griffin, for the record will you state
your name, age and address, sir.
A My name is Roger C. Griffin, Jr. | am fifty years
old. I am a resident of 9601 North Ridge Court in
Richmond.
Q Within the City of Richmond, sir?
A The present city boundaries, in the annexed area.
Q What do you do for a living, sir?
A 1am employed by Reynolds Metals Company. I
am a professional chemist and author and | am in the
capacity at Reynolds Metals Company as Manager of
their Paint and Films Laboratory in the Packaging and
Research Division.
Q Mr. Griffin, in February, 1970 did you have an
occasion to go to a meeting with city officials at Willow
Oaks Country Club?
A Yes.
35!
* x *
Q [273] Would you indicate where on your notes
the statements are and who made them.
A The place lettered with a capital B. To the right
of that the designation is capital letter B. There are the
initials H.B., an arrow and then some abbreviated
language.
Q What is the H.B.?
A That was my note for Henry Valentine. |
misinterpreted the name. | thought it was Balentine.
H.B. instead of H.V. The shorthand notes, for
clarification, R.F., Richmond Forward and then to the
right of the doodle, keep city F.R., from, turning and
the letters B.L. for black.
Q Do your notes indicate any other statements of
the officials of the City of Richmond?
A If you go a little beyond halfway down the page
where there is a circled capital letter C, Councilman
[274] Forb, don’t want Richmond become another
Washington, D.C.
Q Does that refresh your memory as to what he
meant by Washington, D.C.? Did he designate what he
meant by that?
A I can’t give you exactly his words but the intent
of what he said was, we do not want Richmond
becoming controlled by the black citizens the way
Washington, D.C., has become.
Q Do your notes indicate any other statements that
were made?
A Under the letter E, the lower left—I have tried to
remember. I don’t recall who in the room made this
statement, but it was made by either one of the city
officials present or by one of the other people of the
352
Richmond Forward group, but I jotted this down. The
issue is. how to stop government by the have nots
rather than the haves.
Q Did anybody explain that? Did they identify —
A It was not specifically stated who they are but it
was generally agreed within the room I think without
stating who, who they were referring to.
Q Who was it?
A They were referring to the poor people [275] of
Richmond and specifically to the black citizens of
Richmond.
11. Testimony of George K. Talcott
Q [306] Would you please state your name and
age, please, sir.
A George Russell Talcott, age fifty-three.
Q Mr. Talcott, you are presently employed by the
City of Richmond?
A That is correct.
QO In what capacity?
A 1am an assistant to the City Manager.
Q When were you first employed by the city?
| was first employed by the City of Richmond in
A
6
Q_ In what capacity was that?
A At that time the job title was Boundary
Expansion Coordinator.
Q In that position was it your function to work,
prepare exhibits, coordinate efforts for the two
annexation suits under way against Chesterfield and
Henrico County?
A That is correct. That is a correct summary.
* * *
353
Q [319] It is true, is it not, Mr. Talcott, that from
October, 1968, up to the time that you were called
upon to develop information on the Horner-Batley line,
no one other than the attorneys made any request of
you for information. Isn’t that true?
A To the best of my recollection it could have
been a casual question about this, how the case is going
on, from most anyone.
Q But you were not called upon? You had no
recollection of being called upon by anyone with the
request, such as, let me have some information with
respect to the annexation matter?
A I have no recollection of the development of any
special information from a request, as you have
described.
Q Do you have any recollection of Mr. Bagley’s
coming to you and asking for development of such
[320] information?
A Yes, he did.
Q. When was this?
A The exact date of the memorandum I believe is
June 9, 1969. This was probably the day before that.
Q It is true, is it not, Mr. Talcott, when Mr. Bagley
yoade his requests upon you he was asking your office
for information with respect to a line that had already
been drawn?
A Yes. That is correct.
Q This was what is now known as the Horner-
Bagley line. Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Did you furnish any information to the attorneys
on a possible compromise prior to being called upon by
Mr. Bagley for information on the specific line?
354
A | provided information of a financial nature,
several weeks before the request from Mr. Bagley.
Q This too, sir, was in connection with the line
itself, was it not, from trying to work out the figures, a
formula, a price tag, to pay for the property?
A Yes. The major part of an annexation case is the
financial terms and conditions.
Q Other than that, did you furnish any information
to the attorneys dealing with the compromise?
A [321] A great deal of information was provided,
yes.
© Prior to being asked to provide information
dealing with the Horner-Bagley compromise, were you
called upon at any time by the attorneys to furnish you
information on a compromise area?
A Not on any other compromise area, no.
12. Testimony of Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Q [330] Mr. Bliley, may I call you Mr. Bliley—
A Fine with me.
Q Would you state your name and your age for the
record.
A Thomas Jerome Bliley, Jr. Thirty-nine.
Q Mr. Bliley, you were first elected to City Council
in 1968, and you were Vice Mayor, reelected in 1970,
and you are now Mayor of the City of Richmond?
A That is correct.
* *x *
Q {334] Mr. Bliley, are you familiar with some
reports received from John Ritchie of Richmond
Forward which analyzed the 1966 and 1968 Council-
matic elections, precinct by precinct, and gave a pretty
detailed analysis?
A lam not familiar with the 1966, but certainly I
have received a report in 1968.
ums
355
Q_ It broke the precincts down pretty well and told
you how each had voted and how everyone had fared
and had a considerable emphasis on the race, whether
the precinct was all black, whether it was mixed,
whether it was white.
A That is right.
Q Do you know who instructed Mr. Ritchie to
prepare such a report?
A No.
Q Do you know if this report was made available
to all members of Richmond Forward who were elected
to the Council in 1968?
A No. I don’t know for a fact whether it was. I
assume it was since it came from their office and was
mimeographed.
* * *
Q_ [338] How about the opposition on Council to
the Aldhizer amendment?
A What do you mean?
Q_ Two opposed it on City Council.
A | believe the vote was six to three, Messrs.
Carpenter, Carwile and Marsh opposing the motion.
Q The three members elected by the Crusade for
Voters, supported by the Crusade for Voters, opposed
the Aldhizer amendment?
A that is right.
Q Why?
A You would have to ask them.
Q What did they tell you?
A [339] They said in the discussions, I believe they
said the purpose of the Aldhizer amendment was to
dilute the black vote.
356
Q In the discussions they told you this was their
feeling.
A That was their feeling which they are entitled to.
* * *x
Q [340] The question, Mr. Bliley, was at least at
that point in 1968, surely you and every other member
of City Council were well aware of the position taken
by these three Crusade supported Councilmen, namely
they opposed the Aldhizer amendment on the basis it
diluted the black vote.
A In their opinion.
Q Isn’t that correct? That was the basis for their
opposition?
A That in their opinion, that it diluted the black
vote, ves.
* * *
A [347] I never had any discussions with Jim
Wheat about anything until I announced for Council.
Q When did you announce for Council?
A Sometime in late March or early April of 1968.
Q_ It was after that that you had occasion to discuss
at length with Mr. Wheat annexation?
A I did not ever have any lengthy discussion with
him other than from time to time, but I| believe the
city had to expand and | told him so. He knew it. He
felt similarly.
Q Specifically, was it not yours and Mr. Wheat’s
concern—He is a member of Richmond Forward, is he
not, incidentally?
A Yes, sir. He was a member of Richmond
Forward.
Q And he had been elected to the Council several
times as a candidate by Richmond Forward?
357
A That is right.
Q It is true, is it not, that after you had announced
for an election in 1968 that you and Mr. Wheat had
occasion to express your mutual feeling that if
Richmond Forward did not gain control of Council in
the election of 1968 that the annexation suit against
Chesterfield [348] would be dropped?
A Yes.
Q You talked about that?
A Yes, sir, publicly, on a platform.
Q The only voter group opposing Richmond
Forward of any significance is the Crusade for Voters,
is it not?
A That is right.
Q Then your concern was that the Crusade for
Voters may elect a majority to Council in 1968 and
may simply vote to drop the annexation suit?
A That is correct.
Q That concern existed in 1968 and it was even
more aggravated as one approached the 1970 Council-
matic election unless you had annexation? Isn’t that
true?
A It might be. Yes. I would say that it would be a
terrific concern, yes.
* * *
Q [349] Mr. Bagley told you about it?
A Yes. He told me that he was meeting with [350]
Mr. Horner from time to time.
Q Did you know for a fact he was not telling the
three members of the Council supported by the
Crusade?
A I never heard him say it, but I would say that
would be a valid assumption.
358
* * *
Q. So he had the approval of those six? | mean, Mr.
Bagley was not out there negotiating as a guy. He was
negotiating on behaif of the City of Richmond?
A I don’t know that—Yes. I would say he was out
there representing the six. I don’t think he was
negotiating. He was going out there, hearing what he
had to say and coming back.
* * *
Q [356] This information that you wanted was not
available at this meeting, was it? It had to be gotten
later?
A Mr. Talcott said he would get the information.
Some of it he had, but of course obviously he had to
get soriie of it.
Q Isn't it true that about the only definite fact you
knew at this meeting was that you could see the line
and you knew the number of people. That is a true
statement, isn’t it?
A That is right.
Q Mr. Bliley, with respect to the Willow Oaks
meeting about which you have heard some testimony
today, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the
joining of forces of Richmond Forward, or some group
camposed of Richmond Forward with people from the
annexéd area known as T.O.P.?
A Yes, sir.
© {357] Is it fair that within that purpose the
primary purpose was to prevent a takeover of the
Richmond City Council by the Crusade for Voters?
A The primary purpose was to win the election and
elect a majority to Council.
359
Q Do you recall that discussion ensued to the
effect that if the annexed people did not join with you
the Crusade would takeover Council?
A I specifically remember discussing the point that
they had three options. One, they could go it alone.
Two, they could join forces with the Crusade or three,
they could join forces with us.
Q_ The answer?
A The question?
Q Do you remember any discussion to the effect
that if you, the people of the annexed area, don’t join
with us, there is the chance the Crusade or the black
vote could gain a majority of City Council?
A That the Crusade elect a majority of the Council,
yes. I think that was discussed.
13. Testimony of Phil J. Bagley, Jr.
Q [385] Would you state your name and age for
the record, please.
A Phil J. Bagley, Jr. | am sixty-seven years old.
Q Mr. Bagley, how many years, total years, have
you served on the City Council of the City or
Richmond?
A_ I served sixteen years on the Council. iwe years
I was off, but a total of sixteen years.
Q Between 1960 and 1962 you were off?
A 1961 I was off.
Q Other than that, the years have been consecu-
tive?
A Continuous, yes, sir.
Q You did not seek reelection in the 1970
Councilmatic election?
A That is correct, sir.
360
Q Mr. Bagley, were you ever Mayor of the City of
Richmond?
A Yes, sir. I was Mayor and I was Vice [386]
Mayor for two years and Mayor for one term. I served
on the Planning Commission and various other
committees during the course of the sixteen years.
Q You are pretty familiar with city government, is
it fair to say?
A_ I would like to think so.
* * *
Q [394] That particular election, there were no
overlapping endorsements. The Crusade did not support
any of the six Richmond Forward candidates elected,
and Richmond Forward did not support any of the
three candidates elected by the Crusade. Is that your
recollection?
AI think that is a matter of record, yes.
Q_ So at least from this exhibit we find there are
three candidates on City Council, Messrs. Carpenter,
Carwile and Marsh, elected by the Crusade for Voters.
A Yes, sir, that is right.
Q We can establish, can we not, the Crusade is
predominately a black voter organization. Do you agree
with that statement?
A Out of the three they supported two were white
candidates.
QI think my question was, though, it is primarily a
black voter organization, that there is testimony in the
record to that effect. Of course, you are not bound by
it. Would you refute the fact that the Crusade for
[395] Voters is a black voter organization?
A I think it is a major black vote organization.
361
Q Despite the fact they have from time to time
endorsed white candidates?
A That is right.
* * *
A [423] I reported back to those interested in our
boundary expansion.
Q_ The question is, you did not tell Messrs. Carwile,
Marsh, Carpenter?
A No. They did not show any interest.
Q They were not entitled to participate in this
decision?
A They were entitled to participate if they wanted
to. They could work against it.
Q How could they participate when they did aot
know what was going on?
A They could work against boundary expansion
with the Supervisors if they wanted to. I was working
for it. It was two different approaches.
Q They did not even know what was going on
between you and Mr. Horner.
A They could not know that. They could go and
see the Supervisors like we did and talk against any
expansion of boundaries.
Q Weren't they entitled to participate in this
decision making process, Mr. Bagley?
A It was not a question of whether they were
entitled. They were entitled to do anything they
wanted. I was entitled to do anything | wanted, that I
thought was for [424] the betterment of Richmond. I
did it.
Q You were an elected representative, and in that
capacity you were talking with Mr. Horner who was a
representative of Chesterfield County.
362,
A That is right.
Q You were trying to reach an agreement on a
compromise. Correct?
A That is right.
Q In this connection, when you saw the views of
members of City Council, you deliberately excluded
Messrs. Carpenter, Carwile and Marsh from develop-
ments, didn’t you?
A That is what you said. I exciuded them. I would
say rather that I included in the discussion those who
were interested in boundary expansion. I was having
enough trouble with Mr. Horner. It was not any use in
bringing in those opposed.
Q They were sort of excluded by not being invited?
A That is your way of putting it.
Q What is your way?
A That I included those who were interested in
boundary expansion.
14. Testimony of A. Howe Todd
Q [476] Mr. Todd, would you state your name.
A A. Howell Todd.
Q Where do you live?
A 1600 Wilmington Avenue, the City of Richmond.
Q What is your background as far as academic
training in leading up to your specialty in City
Planning?
THE COURT: Mr. Edwards, Mr. Todd is already
qualified in this Court as an expert. Counsel may
examine him on the voir dire.
MR. ALLEN: We will accept that.
MR. EDWARDS: May we say for the purpose of
the record, just substitute his school, whatnot,
am
363
without asking the question? That is, so the record
would have it.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, sir.
Q What positions have you held in the Richmond
Metropolitan community since finishing college?
A I have been the Executive Director of the
Richmond Regional Planning Commission and am now
the Director.
Q [477] When did you serve on that?
A 1958 to 1960.
Q_ Go ahead.
A I am now the Director of Planning and
Community Development for the city.
Q Were you with the city at the time the question
came up as to whether it should undertake to expand
its corporate boundaries?
A Yes, sir.
Q_ What part did you play in that?
A As the Director of Planning at that time I gave
advice to the city administration. I was in favor of
annexation and recommended it.
Q What were your reasons on the advice that you
gave and why did you favor the annexation?
A I felt that the City of Richmond was in great
need of expanding its boundaries.
Would you like me to develop that point?
QI wish you would.
A All right, sir. Well, for over two centuries the
City of Richmond has grown through annexations of
one kind or another. The needs for the continued
expansion of the city existed in 1960 and recent
decades, and in the nineteen hundreds, I would say
364
there has been some change in the emphasis of the need
but maybe an increasing need for [478] the city itself
as well as just solving the problems of the area sought.
But with the city hidebound by the corporate line that
had been established seventeen years prior to this time
with a considerable spill over of urbanization beyond
the corporate line the city faced a seizure of stagnation
and deterioration.
There were serious problems the city faced if
annexation did not occur. The most physical, obvious,
tangible, reason for annexation is the urgent need for
additional vacant land. There is a serious shortage in the
City of Richmond for vacant land. It is needed for
housing. There should be a choice of housing types as
well as a choice of sites on which to build housing.
Land was needed to allow expansion of commer-
cial and industrial development. Land was needed if
redevelopment and renewal were to in fact occur. Land
was needed if there was going to be a growing tax base
of the City of Richmond. Smoke stacks, industries,
businesses are needed. They are very important and
without the land available on which this development
could occur the city is somewhat ham strung.
* + *
Q [487] Do you know whether any businesses
were moving out, failing to expand within the city?
A Yes, sir, not only was there no new land for
growth but in fact some of the industries because they
were in old three story or loft buildings, they were
looking for and moving to sites usually in the county
areas where they could have modern plants, use of the
fork lift and more space for parking, etc. | can
365
remember that I wrote a letter to the City Manager in
1968 listing a whole list of some twenty-four to thirty
industries that have left the city because of this reason.
* * *
Q [491] Were there any other considerations other
than vacant land that prompted you to make the
recommendation [492] and was used in your judgment
in fashioning the area to be taken other than vacant
land?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was one of those?
A Another need for annexation was to recapture
the spill over that had occurred across the corporate
line. In fact, the City of Richmond was in the old
corporate limits no longer included the real city. The
automobile, for one thing, had caused this suburban
expansion and there was a great deal of urbanization
that had occurred since the last annexation. In the land
immediately adjacent to the city but in both counties.
Quite frankly, I think the city expected that the
slower this urbanization occurred the more urban it
became and maybe the easier annexation might be
when it was requested. The city had expected and
anticipated annexation as it had done through the years
as its form of growth.
If I can now turn to the next chart, please.
Q This will be D 34.
~A D-34 is entitled, Richmond Metropolitan Popula-
tion Trend. It shows the population growth of the
Richmond Metropolitan area. This black line includes
Richmond, Henrico and Chesterfield. It also shows in
yellow the population growth through the decades from
366
1920 to 1970 [493] of the City of Richmond. I had
mentioned the effect of the automobile. Right after
World War Il, especially when mortgage money was
cheap and the G.I. bills, etc., were available, this being
1942, and the World War II in this area, you can see
the very rapid explosion in the suburbs and the
counties grow and the city in fact in the 1950s, from
the 1950s on, begins to lose population.
These statistics are very significant, I think, in
representing what took place. From 1900 until 1942
annexations were able to keep up with the suburban
development. One hundred and twenty-nine thousand
out of one hundred thirty-two thousand population
growth in the Metropolitan area occurred in the city
with only two percent of the growth from 1900 to
1942 occurring in the counties. But, from 1942 to
1968 just the opposite happened. When out of an
additional two hundred twenty-two thousand people,
population expansion, only two thousand occurred in
the city. The remainder, the two hundred twenty
thousand being reflected by the difference in these two
lines in the latter decades of the draft.
All of this growth, we analyzed with our
population spot maps and subdivision plat and found
that in fact it was occurring adjacent to the city. We
called it spill over by common termanology. From 1942
to 1968, the time of the Chesterfield annexation case,
eighteen thousand [494] four hundred seventy-five
residential lots were created within the five mile limit
of the city. You will recall the five mile limit as the
area within which the city has joint subdivision control.
While only three thousand two hundred ten residential
lots had been created within the city. Eighteen
367
thousand against three thousand. In the last eight years
from the time of the annexation ordinances to the time
of the case, only one hundred sixty-three lots were
created within the city. In the last year, 1967, only
twenty-seven lots. While in the county five thousand
residential lots were established. This shows the
swinging of the pendulum at this point with the
mushrooming of the suburban area adjacent to the city
and the falling off of the population growth within the
city.
This is a very serious situation to a planner. It is
serious because the city should in fact represent the
true city, not just a portion, a part tha! is not
representative. If I could have the next chart—
Incidentally, from 1961 to 1968 while these lots were
being created population was added to the annexed area
equivalent to the size of the City of Charlottesville to
show the rapidity and the speed of the urbanization
taking place.
* * *
[502] Mr. Edwards, the other reason if you would
like—
Q_ Go ahead.
AI have two or three other very brief statements.
We are speaking to the needs and reasons for
annexation, and I feel one of the reasons would be to
correct the inequity and unfairness that does in fact
exist. This is one social and one economic entity. | am
not speaking to the city’s limits but to the spread city
affected by the automobile.
Because someone moves to our community and
finds the home of his liking maybe two or three blocks
368
beyond an annexation line of some previous annexation
Court, to me that does not say at all that he has no
responsibility [503] for the welfare or the housing, the
construction of public housing or the airport or the
main library or many of the other central city expenses
that show in fact be borne by the total community.
Conversely, there are problems in the county that I
think city residents equally should share in finding the
solution to. I think there are people living in the
counties that are interested in helping to make political
decisions as to what should or should not happen in
this community. They are involved and yet under the
fractionated government can have no say.
Q Do you know the number of people in Henrico
that make their living in Richmond or have their job in
Richmond?
A The number of people, I don’t know.
Q The percentage of those who have their jobs in
the city? Do you recall?
A It was sixty-five percent if I recall.
Q_ Do you recall as to Chesterfield?
A_ No, sir.
15. Testimony of Alan F. Kiepper
Q [530] Mr. Kiepper, would you give us your
name, please.
Alan Frederick Kiepper.
Where do you live?
409 Henri Road.
In the City of Richmond?
Yes, sir.
> OPO &
369
Q What is your present position with the city?
A Iam the City Manager.
* * *
Q [531] Will you piease tell us why Richmond
needed to expand its boundaries with reference to this
annexation case in Chesterfield.
A Yes, sir. I think there are three.
Q. Did you testify in that case?
A Twice, both trials.
I think there are three principal reasons why
Richmond needed to expand its boundaries: The first
of these dealt with the population imbalance that was
occurring in the City of Richmond to which Mr. Todd
has testified. The city was becoming a place of the very
old and the very poor. It was losing its young affluent,
what I called the leadership group. The reasons as | see
them why this was so are those pointed out by Mr.
Todd, housing, cheap land was in the suburbs. It was
not available in the city and the automobile contributed
to this.
This was resulting in a very serious population
imbalance in the city. It is illustrated, for example, by
the medium family income figures from the 1960
[532] census which showed the medium family income
in Henrico and Chesterfield was $6200.00 whereas in
Richmond it was only $5200.00 or twenty percent
higher in the suburbs.
As has been pointed out by exhibit D 44,
seventy-six percent of the families in the city, of the
families in the Metropolitan area, with incomes of less
than $3,000.00 were living in the city. Only twenty-
four percent lived outside the city limits. This was
370
resulting in a number of things happening in the city.
One of which was an increase in the cost of
government, a very dramatic increase because the older
and poorer families that were being left in the city were
demanding more from the city government in a number
of ways.
We were also losing a very key element in any
community, what I would characterize as the leadership
group, the owners of businesses, the young executives,
those that normally play very, very vital roles in the life
of a community. Much of our business was becoming
absentee owned, but did not have a residence here.
That is a bad situation in my judgment.
So this population imbalance with the poorer,
those people requiring governmental services in the city,
those more affluent contributing type citizens moving
outside the city, this was causing several problems with
potentially even more severe problems for the city.
[533] The second major factor to which Mr. Todd
has also testified was the need for vacant developable
land. He has pointed out that it had declined to six
point four percent by 1968.
Some reference was made to the fact that firms
were moving outside the city. I did ask Mr. Todd in
1968 to get me a list of firms, businesses, industries,
that had formerly operated in the city that had moved
out to surrounding counties. He provided me with a list
of twenty-four such companies that he documented had
in fact moved. He contacted a number of them and
found that absence of land was certainly a major item.
* * *
[537] The third reason which | have alluded to
previously on which I would like to elaborate. It has to
371
do with the increasing cost of government. This relates
directly to the changing character of the population. We
find expenditures for public health, public welfare,
police, recreation, education, all have expanded and to
a large extent these increases are directly related to the
growth of low income population. I would like to refer
to exhibit D 46 which is here on the easel which shows
the increase in general fund expenditures from 1950 to
1970. Then on exhibit [538] 47 which refers to the
increased cost of education. Also chart 46, the
increased cost of police protection. Also in particular
chart 49, the increased cost in public welfare
expenditures. These have shown a very dramatic
increase. In fact I would like to point these figures out
to the Court on city exhibit D 45 which is in the blue
binder which shows that during the period from
1960-1961 through 1969-1970 that the cost of public
welfare in Richmond went from five point six million
to seventeen million.
MR. VENABLE: Your Honor, not to interrupt the
witness but there are no headings on this six columns
of figures. I don’t know exactly where he is.
THE COURT: Can you find that?
A I believe that was corrected and the columns
were added. Mr. Talcott will give you a ccpy.
NOTE: Mr. Venable is presented with a certain
paper writing.
A I am referring to the column on the right, Mr.
Venable, which refers to public welfare expenditures.
Another factor in annexation or in the need for
annexation involves examining what is happening to
other central cities which are not able to expand. The
facts [539] regarding land, such as Newark, Cleveland
372
and Boston are well known to people in the field of
local government and those who have an interest. These
cities are having great difficulty in financing govern-
ment, retaining business. By looking at t em, and from
our experience, and for a longer period of time, I think
we can reasonably see what is likely to happen in our
own city. So in view of these facts it seems to me that
there certainly was ample justification and motivation
to move toward annexation.
As a matter of fact, had the city not done so in
light of the experience of other cities, in my judgment,
the officials could have been judged irresponsible.
* * *
Q [542] What effect did the increasing and the low
income minorities in the aged population have on the
city, and one thing further, and the decreasing of the
middle class and the young white population?
A As I pointed out, there have been—The increase
in the cost of government which is associated with the
kind of problems that are found among low income
population. I see this as not so much a matter of the
particular color of the individual as it is what the
specific characteristics that the low income population
have. In other parts of the country the same conditions
occur among low income Puerto Ricans in New York,
low income Mexicans in Los Angeles, so that it is a
problem associated with a low socio-economic level and
not necessarily with the color of the _ individual
involved. There is an important distinction to be made
here, I believe. A very important distinction is to be
made. What we are dealing with is the manifestation of
the low income person in terms of governmental
373
services and not in terms of [543] color, for color’s
sake.
Q What would be the effect on the city if action
were not taken to attempt to remedy these problems as
you have related them?
A It is perfectly obvious that if the trends toward
an increase in low income, dependent people, continues,
and the more affluent continue to move out of the
city, that the costs of government in the city and the
resources available in the city to pay these costs are
going to result or could conceivably result in fiscal
bankruptcy.
I can illustrate with the City of Newark which
now has thirty percent of its population receiving
public welfare assistance. It is currently facing a
$70,000,000.00 budget deficit in the current fiscal year.
Newark is a city which is approaching social and
economic bankruptcy. It is a city which has been land
locked and has lost the overwhelming majority of its
affluent middle class citizens. So that we must we
conscious of the trends in other cities and apply these
trends to our own situation in Richmond and react in
an intelligent and forward way.
* * *
Q [573] But you had had occasion to talk with
most of the other six members of Council, had you
not, Mr. Klepper?
A My dealings at that point were almost exclusively
with the Mayor in terms of providing him with factual
information which he requested.
Q At that meeting only?
A No, no, not that meeting. | am talking about
during the latter stages of the, Horner-Bagley negotia-
. oo”
374
tions. | was asked, please supply factual information
about this particular area. This was done. So | do not
know the extent of the communication between the
Mayor and the majory of Council with the three
minority members. I cannot say whether they were or
were not involved as of that stage.
Q Is your testimony that prior to the Horner-
Bagley line being finalized you were giving information
to Mr. Babley?
A By finalize, I did not get into the negotiations
until a line had been agreed upon.
Q But is that what you said in your prior answer?
Wasn’t your prior answer that you had been giving Mr.
Bagley information all along?
A No, it was not. My prior testimony was that
once the area had been determined—
QI see.
A [574] I was asked, please supply information
about this. There was a period between the time the
line was determined and the time that it was made
public. It was during that period of time that we were
supplying factual information.
Q. Right.
A But I was not a party to the determination as to
where the line should be.
Q You did not give Mr. Bagley any information,
any you do not have any recollection of anybody on
your staff giving Mr. Bagley any information prior to
that line being determined, do you, Mr. Kiepper?
A Not in detail about that particular area. Our
principal participation was after the line was deter-
mined.
375
Q [586] And to me, that is saying that unless we
get annexation our city could go bankrupt. I may not
know much about economics but correct me, isn’t that
economics? Isn't that saying—
A Mr. Allen, that is not the only thing | said. My
first point was, and the major point | tried to make,
was be concerned for population imbalance.
Q | don’t mean to say that it was your personal
opinion, Mr. Kiepper. | am saying that you emphasized
in this Courtroom yesterday that the paramount
problem was economics. Isn't that a fair statement of
your yesterday’s testimony?
AI have tried to explain, Mr. Allen, the problem of
population imbalance and economics are just inexorably
entwined. You cannot completely separate them. This is
not a matter of taking each problem and putting it
[587] in a little box and tying it up and saying this is
all by itself. Economics is tied to people because people
earn income. People pay taxes. People depend on
municipal services. So the two are related.
A city is composed of people, not just economic
forces in some sort of limbo, interaction of people, and
their income, and the way they consume public
services, the total service is the impact on the
community and the impact on city government.
16. Testimony of Nathan J. Forb
[707] BY MR. DAVENPORT:
Q Will you state your name and address, please. Mr.
Forb.
A Nathan Joseph Forb, 402 Harland Circle, Rich-
mond, Virginia.
376
Q What is your business?
A I am Chairman of the Board of the Republic
Lumber and Building Supply Corporation.
Q_ In Richmond?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you a member of the Richmond City
Council?
A Yes, sir.
* * *
Q [717] Would white resources and the white
material have anything to do with that?
People.
People. White people?
To expand the city boundaries, sir.
But white people?
Absolutely.
> OF 0D
17. Testimony of James C. Wheat, Jr.
Q [34] And you were against compromise, weren't
you, Mr. Wheat?
A Yes, sir.
Q Against the compromise because it didn’t give
the City enough vacant land?
A That is correct.
Q Did you make your views known at this
meeting?
A 1 do not
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.