Statement, Hernandez v. Corpus Christi,
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Brief, December 18, 1956

View Image

 

First grade would hold back the Latin child.  To place him in a Anglo second grade would hold back the Anglo child (Tr. 402-404).  Thus the reasoning of the Defendants appears to be that the slow Latin student would retard the more able Anglo students; the more able Latin students would be retarded by the slower Anglo students (Tr. 59-60, 403-406), but neither the quick nor slow students will be hampered by each other if they are of the same national origin.  Thus it appears that in Driscoll, contrary to the remainder of the United States, non are equal; some are better, some are worse, but none are equal (Tr. 407-410).

Defendants cite the following cases as authority for their position that the separation of the Plaintiffs in this case is a matter solely within their discretion and should not be disturbed by the Courts: Trustees of Pleasant Grove vs. Bagsby, 237 S. W. 2d 750, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 21; Foley vs. Benedict, 55 S.W. 2d 805; Clarence C. Walker Civic League vs. Board of Public Instruction, 154 F. 2d 726; Independent School District vs. Salvatierra, 33 S. W. 2d 790, cert. denied, 284 U.S. 58.

None of these cases sustain the proposition.

The Bagsby case contains this statement at page 775 of the opinion:

“Appellees do not insist in their brief nor point out any evidence in the record that the action of which they complain proceeded from prejudice against them or the Negro children in-volved nor that the agreement to furnish them school facilities in the Wheatley and Lincoln schools was made for the purpose and without any intention of discrimination against them or their

-3-

 

.