Case Name: The STATE of Florida ex rel. Virgil D. HAWKINS, Relator, v. BOARD OF CONTROL, a body corporate, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1957-03-08
Citations: 93 So. 2d 354
Docket Number: 
Parties: The STATE of Florida ex rel. Virgil D. HAWKINS, Relator, v. BOARD OF CONTROL, a body corporate, et al., Respondents.
Judges: THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., . concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 93
Pages: 354–368

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida ex rel. Virgil D. HAWKINS, Relator, v. BOARD OF CONTROL, a body corporate, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc.
March 8, 1957.
Horace E. Hill, Daytona Beach, and Robert L. Carter, New York City, for relator.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Ralph E. Odum, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John J. Blair, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, Justice.
This litigation is concerned with the rights of the relator, a Negro, to be admitted to the University of Florida Law School, provided he meets the entrance requirements applicable to all students. The history of the litigation is set forth in State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 20, our latest decision in the controversy, referred to hereafter as the "1955 decision."
Our 1955 decision was entered in response to the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, May 1954, 347 U.S. 971, 74 S.Ct. 783, 98 L.Ed. 1112, directing this court to reconsider its decision in State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 162 (the "1952 decision" hereafter), "in the light of the Segregation Cases decided May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. [347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 833] and conditions that now prevail." Since this court has held in a long line of decisions that it is bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court "construing the meaning and effect of acts of Congress and those provisions of the national Constitution which restrict the powers of the states," Miami Home Milk Producers Ass'n v. Milk Control Board, 1936, 124 Fla. 797, 169 So. 541, 544, we held in our 1955 decision, under the authority of Brown v. Board of Education, etc., supra, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, that the relator could not be denied admission to the University of Florida Law School solely because of his race. In the exercise of our discretion, however, we decided to withhold the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus in the cause, pending a subsequent determination of law and fact as to the time when the relator should be admitted to that institution; and the Honorable John A. H. Murphree, Resident Circuit Judge of the circuit in which the University is located, was appointed as the commissioner of this court to take testimony on behalf of the relator and the respondents, members of the Board of Control, relating to the factual issue. Our decision in this respect was based on two considerations, one a federal and the other a state ground: (1) the application to the controversy of the formula set out in the so-called "implementation decision," Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 295, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083; and (2) the exercise of our traditional power as a state court to decline to issue the extraordinary writ of mandamus if to do so would tend to work a serious public mischief. City of Safety Harbor v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 636, 187 So. 173, State ex rel. Carson v. Bateman, 131 Fla. 625, 180 So. 22; State ex rel. Gibson v. City of Lakeland, 126 Fla. 342, 171 So. 227; State ex rel. Bottome v. City of St. Petersburg, 126 Fla. 233, 170 So. 730.
The relator then filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court to review our 1955 decision on the ground that the decision in the Brown case, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, did not apply to "State junior colleges, colleges, graduate and professional schools." The court disposed of this petition by a short but not entirely unambiguous opinion, dated March 12, 1956, 350 U.S. 413, 76 S.Ct. 464, 100 L.Ed. 486, reading as follows:
Per Curiam.
"The petition for certiorari is denied.
"On May 24, 1954, we issued a mandate in this case to the Suprema Court of Florida. 347 U.S. 971, 74 S.Ct. 783, 98 L.Ed. 1112. We directed that the case be reconsidered in light of our decision in the Segregation Cases decided May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. In doing so, we did not imply that decrees involving graduate study present the problems of public elementary and secondary schools. We had theretofore, in three cases, ordered the admission of Negro applicants to graduate schools without discrimination because of color. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. 848, 94 L.Ed. 1114; Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 299, 92 L.Ed. 247; cf. McLattrin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149. Thus, our second decision in the Brown case, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, which implemented the earlier one, had no application to a case involving a Negro applying for admission to a state law school. Accordingly, the mandate of May 24, 1954, is recalled and is vacated. In lieu thereof, the following order is entered:
"Per Curiam: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded on the authority of the Segregation Cases decided May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. As this case involves the admission of a Negro to a graduate professional school, there is no reason for delay. He is entitled to prompt admission under the rules and regulations applicable to other qualified candidates. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. 848, 94 L.Ed. 1114; Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 299, 92 L.Ed. 247; cf. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149."
The cause is now before this court on the relator's motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to admit him to the University of Florida Law School, his contention being that the above-quoted opinion entitles him to immediate admission, provided he is otherwise qualified, without regard to the outcome of the factual study which was in progress at the time of the filing of his motion and which has now been concluded.
There can be no doubt that, by revising its May 1954 mandate directed to our 1952 decision in the manner above noted, the Supreme Court of the United States neatly, albeit laconically, cut off the federal prop that supported, in part, our 1955 decision. But it will have been noted that the opinion stated that "[t]he petition for certiorari is denied", presumably referring to our 1955 decision; and, this being so, our 1955 decision still stands, nonetheless firmly, on the state ground mentioned therein and referred to above.
Indeed, it is unthinkable that the Supreme Court of the United States would attempt to convert into a writ of right that which has for centuries at common law and in this state been considered a discretionary writ; nor can we conceive that that court would hold that the highest court of a sovereign state does not have the right to control the effective date of its own discretionary process. Yet, this would be the effect of the court's order, under the interpretation contended for by the relator. We will not assume that the court intended such a result.
In what appears to be a progressive disappearance of State sovereignty, it is interesting to read certain decisions (among others) which the United States Supreme Court has handed down in recent months. See: Railway Employees Dept. v. Hanson, 1956, 351 U.S. 225, 76 S.Ct. 714, 100 L.Ed. 1112, holding that a union shop agreement negotiated between certain railroads and certain organizations of employees of such railroads which had been authorized by an act of the Congress superseded the right-to-work provisions of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska and the state statutes enacted pursuant thereto; Rea v. United States of America, 1956, 350 U.S. 214, 76 S.Ct. 292, 100 L.Ed. 233, holding that it was within the power of the federal courts to enjoin an officer of the executive department of the federal government from testifying in a state court in a case involving a violation of a criminal statute of that state; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 1956, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S.Ct. 477, 100 L.Ed. 640, outlawing antisedition laws in 42 states, Alaska and Hawaii; Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 1956, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, requiring the states to finance appeals by penniless persons convicted of crimes; Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, 1956, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692, limiting the power of states and cities to discharge public employees when they plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in duly authorized inquiries affecting the general welfare; Browder v. Gayle, D.C.M.D.Ala.1956, 142 F.Supp. 707, affirmed by the Supreme Court, 352 U.S. 903, 77 S.Ct. 145, 1 L.Ed.2d 114, holding invalid statutes and ordinances requiring the segregation of the white and colored races in motor buses operating in the City of Montgomery, Alabama.
It is a "consummation devoutly to be wished" that the concept of "states' rights" will not come to be of interest only to writers and students of history. Such com cept is vital to the preservation of human liberties now. And whatever one's ideology may be — whether one is a strong defender of state sovereignty or an equally fervent advocate of centralized government — we think the great majority of persons would agree that if the death knell of this fundamental principle of Jeffersonian democracy is to be tolled, the bell should be rung by the people themselves as the Constittition contemplates. President Lincoln's words of warning are just as true today as they were almost a century ago, when he said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861:
"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by 'decisions of the Supreme Court the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
And we do not feel it is amiss to refer to the following remarks made by George Washington in his "Farewell Address":
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
But we repeat that, despite these recent decisions, we cannot attribute to the Supreme Court an intention to abrogate the rule which denies to federal courts the right to regulate or control long-established rules of practice and procedure adopted by state courts for the administration of justice therein. Cf. Naim v. Naim, 1956, 197 Va. 734, 90 S.E.2d 849, 850, in which the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia declined to remand a cause to a lower court, as directed by mandate of the United States Supreme Court, because to do so "would be contrary to [the] fixed rules of practice and procedure" of the Virginia courts, as well as the statute law of that state. A motion to recall the mandate and to set the case down for oral argument upon the merits, or in the alternative, to recall and amend the mandate was denied by the United States Supreme Court for the reason that the decision above referred to, 90 S.E. 2d 849, "leaves the case devoid of a properly presented federal question." Ham Say Naim v. Naim, 1956, 350 U.S. 985, 76 S.Ct. 472, 100 L.Ed. 852. A fortiori, we cannot assume that the Supreme Court intended to deprive the highest court of an independent sovereign state of one of its traditional powers, that is, the right to exercise a sound judicial discretion as to the date of the issuance of its process in order to prevent a serious public mischief. As recently as June 4, 1956, in United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 351 U.S. 266, 76 S.Ct. 794, 799, 100 L.Ed. 1162, the Supreme Court recognized the "dominant interest" of a state in preventing violence. It there said: "The States are the natural guardians of the public against violence. It is the local communities that suffer most from the fear and loss occasioned by coercion and destruction. We would not interpret an act of Congress to leave them powerless to avert such emergencies without compelling directions to that effect." We are cognizant of our duty to compel relator's admission to the University of Florida Law School "without delay", if it is feasible to do so at this time; but we have an equally compelling duty to perform in respect to the public peace and a long-established state judicial procedure by which to perform it. We point out, additionally, that the relator, having a choice between a federal and a state court, selected this court as the forum in which to try his cause; he thereby selected the rules of practice and procedure long established in this jurisdiction. We have no doubt that the Supreme Court intended that we should adhere to such procedure in the instant controversy. The relator's contention in this respect cannot, therefore, be sustained.
We come now to the question of whether the facts, as developed under the guidance of this court's commissioner, require the immediate admission of the relator to the University of Florida Law School, provided he meets the entrance requirements. It might be noted that the relator had due notice and an opportunity to be heard at the hearings scheduled by the commissioner. He did not appear nor did he present any testimony in support of his right to immediate admission. Moreover, the history of this controversy leads us to believe that the relator does not, in fact, have a genuine interest in obtaining a legal education. He was given an opportunity to secure a legal education outside this state under the Regional Education Plan, but declined; he was given an opportunity to attend the University of Florida Law School, temporarily, if law facilities were not available at the Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University, but declined; he was then given an opportunity to attend the law school at the Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University, but declined. And, as noted, he was given an opportunity to appear before the court's commissioner and offer evidence in support of his right to immediate admission to the University of Florida Law School, but declined.
It should be noted that the Law School at the University of Florida is an integral part of that institution. A law student is not in a class separate and apart from all other University students — he is a University student just as much as those entering the engineering school or the educational school or the architectural school, and entitled to participate in all campus activities.
Against this background, we have considered the evidence adduced by the respondents which, in the state of the record here, must constitute the basis for the exercise of our discretion in the matter. The factual material on file in this court reflects a prodigious amount of work by the commissioner and the respondents or those acting in their behalf. It is not contended— nor could it be — that there was even a modicum of bias on the part of any person involved in the work of assembling the data here presented nor in the formulation of the questionnaries which were the basic media by which much of the information was obtained. The survey is completely objective and as accurate and comprehensive as the time available for the study would permit. The testimony of the witnesses shows no bias and reflects only a sincere desire to do whatever is best for all concerned.
The survey conducted under the guidance of the court's commissioner shows, among others, that a substantial number of students and a substantial number of the parents of students state that they expect to take action — which apparently is positive action— to persuade Negro students to leave the University or make it so unpleasant for them that they will move out of a dormitory room or out of a class or out of a cafeteria or otherwise stop using the facilities of the University of Florida, should integration occur. It was also shown that 41 percent of the parents of students now in our white universities would cause them to drop out of those schools or transfer to another school; and that 62 percent of the parents of white 1956 high school graduates would send their children elsewhere than to our white state institutions, if we have enforced integration. There would be loss of revenue to our white institutions from grants, from activities on the part of the alumni of those institutions in support of their financial affairs, and from students moving out of dormitories (many of which are being paid for out of revenue certificates), if we have integration. Those institutions would lose the support of 52 percent of their alumni, if integration occurs, which would seriously impair the financial support to be expected from our state legislature. Integration would unquestionably result in the abandonment of substantially all of the graduate work now being offered at the Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University because it would be an unnecessary duplication of the same courses offered at the University of Florida or at Flordia State University.
Our study of the results of the survey material to the question here, and other material evidence, leads inevitably to the conclusion that violence in university communities and a critical disruption of the university system would occur if Negro students are permitted to enter the state white universities at this time, including the Law School of the University of Florida,, of which it is an integral part. This court has an opportunity to prevent the incidents of violence which are, even now, occurring in various parts of this country as a result of the states' efforts to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown case. We quote with approval that part of the language of Mr. Justice HOBSON in his special concurring opinion in which he said "the testimony which was taken at the direction of this court by the Honorable John A. H. Murphree, and which is now before us for consideration, was not in the record when the Supreme Court of the United States said 'there is no reason for delay'. This testimony, as well as the revealing incidents (of which we may take judicial notice) which have occurred since the repudiation of the 'separate but equal' doctrine, convinces me that the immediate admission of relator to the University of Florida College of Law would result in great public mischief." The homely expression, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," is especially applicable to the situation here — involving, as it does, the public welfare of all our people.
In the exercise of what we sincerely believe to be sound judicial discretion, we have decided that the relator's motion for a peremptory writ should be denied, but without prejudice to the right of relator to renew his motion when he is prepared to present testimony showing that his admission can be accomplished without doing great public mischief. For the reasons stated, the entry of a final judgment is deferred until further order of the court.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., . concur.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur specially.
THOMAS and DREW, JJ., dissent.