# Appendix — Richmond v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0174%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 422 U.S. 358 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0174%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.