court of appeals of maryland

Court of Appeals of Maryland

No .1.?.2....., SEPTEMBER TERM, 19?.?..

State Board of Public Welfare, et al

vs.

Robert Myers, Minor, etc.

DISPOSITION OF APPEAL IN COURT OF APPEALS:

Decree modified, and as modified, affirmed, costs to be paid by the appellants.

TRANSCRIPT RETURNED TO Cl®.rk„o? ..^

Court House, Baltimore, Maryland Date 3/9/61

B Y FIRST CLASS MAIL

REMARKS:

Ill No. I..W...CS. , SEPTEMBER TERM (LEAVE BLANK)

,19(4.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD (JUDGE CHARLES E. MOYLAN)

F R O M T H E

CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY

I N T H E C A S E O F

State Board of Public Welfare, et al,

V S .

Robert Myers, Minor, &c.

T O T H E

Appellant s

Appellee

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S O F M A R Y L A N D

C. rd i nand Sybert

Robert C. Murphy

.1^9^X.3.t..?.f^.^&..)/.. /-

Juanita Jackson Mitchell\/

'THu rg b bd MarsHall

Filed k a..U3.t--i.-A.l \ (LEAVE BLANK)

SOLRS. FOR APPELLANT S

, SOLRS. FOR APPELLEE

Which said appeal being by the Court here also granted, it is thereupon ordered by the Court

here, that a Transcript of the Record of Proceedings in the cause aforesaid be transmitted to the Court thereof

of Appeals of Maryland, under the rules / , and the same is transmitted accordingly.

Test:

3ltt ©FHtimnttQ, that the aforegoing is truly taken from the Record and Proceedings of the

Circuit Court of Baltimore City, in the therein entitled cause.

I hereunto set my hand and affix the Seal of the Circuit

Court of Baltimore City aforesaid, this ^ " day

of August A.D.,19 60.

COST?

PLAINTIFF'S COSTS STENOGRAPHER1S COSTS I96.9O

DEFENDANT'S COSTS 281.20

CD n mmm • n c mmm •

n o c

MM •

3 o (D n

C/5 o

V) O 3 c_

3

W O o . a-

CD

CD

CO o

Q O ^ S CD a. CD

3 rD -i S i b

o

o n o o 3 "S. 5*

P o

H - CD c+- ^ P

• as cd pS p O H -

erd CD .

V

• CO • • £E» CO Oi*» trJ

£=- a is» H h M H O

i—i Ja3 g W • o

• ctf p> o cd o tr1 S p

en K g - O

S 3 CD t~» 3 te

P r^tx)

cd ^

o y< ^ WW B C O CD g -

CD

I

O

i H-1

Date Clerk's Memorandum N o .

2/26/60 Bill of Complaint for Declaratory Decree , etc. / - 1 Subpoena A5 - /C 2

Subpoena (Balto. Co.) / 7 - J$ T . i t Subpoena (Wicomico Co.) ,9 4 n Subpoena (l cntg. Co.) 5

Subpoena (Fred. Co.) 33 o

H Subpoena (A. A. Co.) 7

II Subpoena (P. G. Co.) 3-1 o o II Subpoena. (Wash. Co.) ? II Subpoena (Dorch. Co.) 3c-2>J 10

II Subpoena (Caroline Co.) 11

II Subpoena (Carroll Co.) 3f -3s 12

3/8/60 Subpoena 13

3/10/60 Subpoena (A. A. Co.) 14

3/10/60 Subpoena (Balto. Co.) 15

3/19/60 Demurrer and Answer of State Board of 16

Public Welfare, et al. 4/22/60 Motion for Hearing 17

N Notice of Hearing ** 18

N Test,560th Rule 19

6/2/60 Summons for Witness sc 20

• Summons for Witness 21

6/V60 Summons for Witness 60S 22 Summons for Witness £c 23

7/6/60 Opinion of the Court s<+-77 24 Declaratory Decree 7g-7? 25

7/7/60 Defendants Order for Appeal ?0 26

o o

in o

o CO •-3 CD > K

P • O

O

T-1

T—I o tr-*

CO

•1

2: o

o o

so ON o

I

ft

Date Clerk's Memorandum No. 7/29/60 Petition of Defendants for extension of time 21- S3 27

to transmit Record to Court of Appeals and Order of Court extending said time

8/2/60 Testimony 28

8/V60 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 ft 29 « Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2-A ?S 30 N Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2-B 9(> - /03 31 • Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2-0 32 II Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2-D 33 • Plaintiff's Eahibit No. 3 34 II Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 //> 35

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 36 • Defendants Exhibit No. 1 for Identification 37

3/10/61 Mandate - Court of Appeals of Mi. 38

5 / 1 1 / 6 1 Modified Declaratory Decree 35

ROBERT MYERS, by Mae Coleman, etc. "

vs * STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT. OF

WELFARE, et al. BALTIMORE CITY MODIFIED DECLARATORY DECREE

Whereas, on the 6th day of July, I960, a Declaratory Decree was entered In this cause, Adjudging, Ordering, Declaring and Decreeing that the Defendants, and each of them, their agents and successors in office, be forever and permanently enjoined and restrained from denying to the Plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely on account of race and color, commitment, admission and transfer to any training school established, operated and maintained by the State of Maryland;

And, whereas, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, by its decision in this cause dated February 7> 1961, ordered modification of this Court's decree to apply only to the State Board of Public Welfare and to the Board of Managers of the Maryland Training School and, as so modified, affirmed the decree;

Wherefore, in conformity with the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, this Court's decree is accordingly so modified as follows:

It is t h i n Prh rlny M-y, •• by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and Decreed that the Maryland Training School for Boys is a part of the public education system of the State of Maryland;

And it is further Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and Decreed that Section 659 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Ed.) establishes the Maryland Training School for Boys as a racially segregated public training school of the State of Maryland;

And it is further Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and Decreed that that part of Section 659 of the said Article 27, which requires separation of the Negro and white races in the Marylan Training School, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the

\

Constitution of the United States and is, therefore, unconsti tut ional;

And it is further Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and Decreed that the Defendants, State Board of Public Welfare and Board of Managers of the Maryland Training School, and each of them, their agents and successors in office, be and they are hereby forever and permanently enjoined and restrained from denying to the Plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely on account of race and color, commitment, admission and transfer to the Maryland Training School for Boys;

Costs to be paid by the Defendants.

- 2 -

M A N D A T E Court of Appeals of Maryland

No. 162 , September Term, 1 9 60

State Board of Public Welfare, et al

v.

Robert Myers, Minor, etc.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. Filed: August 8, i960. December 14, i960: Petition by Maryland Petition Committee, Inc. to file brief amicus curiae granted. February 7, 1961. Decree modified, and as modified, affirmed, c°ststc$be paid by the appellants. Op. Henderscu.

STATEMENT OF COSTS:

Steno. costs $196.90

Filing Record on Appeal -.IX'SS Printing Brief for Appellant I09 . O 0

Reply Brief Portion of Record Extract — Appellant 340.00 Appearance Fee — Appellant 10.00

Printing Brief for Appellee 56.39 Portion of Record Extract — Appellee 340.07 Appearance Fee — Appellee

STATE OF MARYLAND, Set:

I do hereby certify that the foregoing is truly taken from the record and proceedings of the said

Court of Appeals.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand as Clerk and affixed

the seal of the Court of Appeals, this ninth day of March A . D . 19 6l

Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Costs shown on this Mandate are to be settled between counsel and NOT T H R O U G H THIS OFFICE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and next Friend,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE ^ r . Alvin Thalheimer, Chairman

American Building Baltimore 2, Md.

Mr. Calhoun Bond 341 N. Calvert Street

» Baltimore 2, Md. t Mis. Ralph 0. Dulany {/r^cr>l4^id * ^ Fruitland, Md. Mr. Sam Eig \ Eig Building > r * Silver Spring, Md.'v U>~ ^

' Gen. Henry C. Evans 6 S. Calvert Street Baltimore 2, Md.

Dr. Sanford V. Larkey I 1900 E. Monument Street / Baltimore 5, Md. r. Howard H. Murphy

628 N. Eutaw Street Baltimore 1, Md.

Mjr. Herbert R. 0'Conor, Jr. J 10 Light Street

Baltimore 2, Md. Mjrs. John L. Sanford

2729 N. Charles Street Baltimore 18, Md.

I ;

Board Members and

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC.

and Miss Anita R. Williams, Acting President

644 George Street Baltimore 1, Md.

Ts. Annie Spencer 1125 N. Caroline Street Baltimore 13, Md.

\

U. G. Bourne, Jr. All Saints and Ice Street , Frederick, Md. ^ J.^A*X (£4 ~^

Nbrs. Bertha Winston |y 1500 Madison Avenue

Baltimore, Md. Rev. F, J. Frye V 1700 Moreland Avenue

Baltimore 17, Md, Mrs. Bernard Harris / 1207 N. Caroline Street

J. Baltimore 13, Md, Mr. Theodore W. Kess / 1109 Grain Highway, N.E. _

v Glen Burnie, Md. <Z CL LJ - / Mrs. Lillian A. Lottier J 2433 Calverton Heights Ave.

Baltimore 16, Md. Mrs. Charlotte Mebane J 2321 Harlem Avenue

Baltimore, Md. Board Members

and THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOYS1 VILLAGE, INC Dp. William R. Henry, Jr., President 4 c/o State Teachers College,

Bowie, Md. <£aL*v - $ Leonard W, Curlin

J 47 W. Bethel Street <~ Hagerstown, Md. '

Mrs. Violet Hill White J 625 N. Carrollton Avenue Baltimore 17, Md.

Mir. Charles E. Cornish 106 Pine Street / , n Cambridge, Md. AH*.**** •> " 1 u

Dr. Robert G. McGuire J 304 Douglas Avenue ^ Highland Beach 0 _

Annapolis, Md. ^ Carles Mosl< Ridgely, Md

Jojseph H. Neal \ 613 Baker Street Baltimore 17, Md.

Garrett D. Rawlings 4 919 Harlem Avenue Baltimore 17, Md.

j Ar W./ Carles Mosley , /

J Ridaelv. Md. C <J ~ 1 1

Clarence Anthony I 908-60th Avenue f'A.^Jt 4 , A Fairmount Heights, M d . ' ^ * ^

Board Members and

- 2 -3>

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL, INC.

1 alph L. Thomas, President

803 St. George's Road Baltimore 10 , Md.

Mrs. Dorothy Falconer 106 Witherspoon Road Baltimore 12 , Md.

Raul E. Tignor J 3222 Overland Avenue

Baltimore 14 , Md. Dij. Earle T. Hawkins, President J State Teachers College^

Towson, Md. f?>+-L^g~*' 5 James J. Lacy, Jr. j 5412 Springlake Way

Baltimore 12 , Md. Drj. J. Morris Reese

J Medical Arts Building Baltimore 2 , Md.

Mr. Lawrason Riggs of J. j 129 E. Redwood Street ^ Baltimore 2 , Md. Leister S. Levy

/ 2 Blade Avenue flf~r~&o " -3 >» Pikesville 8 , Md. ' 0 x X A

Stuart Berger J 2213 Reisterstown Road

Baltimore 17, Md. Board Members

and THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC.

V 1 and

allace Reidt, President 506 Park Avenue Baltimore 1 , Md.

Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Jr. 4 Charles & Madison Streets

Baltimore, Md.

Ts. Harold Donnell 505 Overbrook Road Baltimore 12 , Md.

Mrs. James H. Ferguson 4 4002 St. Paul Street Baltimore 18 , Md.

Dr. James Earp Western Maryland College * /)

* Westminster, Md. (L^*l,V<r&L, ^ Mis. Frank A. Kaufman -~ >J Cloverly Road ^ ^ ^ T * * ^ '

Pikesville, Md. Mors. Lewis H. Rumford, II \ 4401 Greenway

Baltimore 1 8 , Md. Mrs. Herman Moser

J 3700 N. Charles Street Baltimore, Md,

Board Members Defendants.

3 . ' 3

BILL OF COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes Robert Myers, by Mae Coleman, his mother and next

1 friend, plaintiff herein, on behalf of himself and others i

similarly situated but too numerous to be named herein, by his attorneys, Tucker R. Dearing, Juanita Jackson Mitchell, Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg for his cause of action against the following:

State Board of Public Welfare, defendant, and Dr. Alvin Thalheimer, Chairman, Calhoun Bond, Ralph O. Dulany, Sam Eig, Gen. Henry C. Evans, Sanford V. Larkey, Howard H. Murphy, Herbert R. O'Connor, Mrs. John L. Sanford, defendant members of the State Board of Public Welfare; ;

The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls, Incor- j

porated, defendant, and Miss Anita R. Williams, Acting President, Mrs. Annie Spencer, Dr. U. G. Bourne, Mrs. Bertha Winston, Rev. F. J. Frey, Mrs. Bernard Harris, Theodore W. Kess, Mrs. Lillian A,, Lottier, Mrs. Charlotte Mebans, defendant members of the Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated;

The Board of Managers of Boy's Village, Incorporated, defendant, and Dr. William E. Henry, Jr., President, Leonard W. Curtis, Mrs. Violet Hill Whyte, Charles E. Cornish, Dr. Robert G. McGuire, W. Carles Mosley, Joseph H. Neal, Garrett D. Rawlings, Clarence Anthony, defendant Board Members of Boy's Village, Incorporated;

The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, Incorporated, defendant, and Ralph L. Thomas, President, Mrs. Dorothy Falconer, Paul E. Tignor, Dr. Earl T. Hawkins, James J. Lacy, Jr., Dr. J. Morris Reese, Lawrason Riggs, Lester B. Levy, Stuart Berger, defendant Members of the Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, Incorporated;

- 4 -

The Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, defendant, and Wallace Reidt, President, Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Jr., Harold Donnell, Mrs. Frank A. Kaufman, Mrs. Lewis H. Runford, and Mrs. Herman Moser, defendant, Members of the Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, respectfully states to this Honorable Court as follows:

1. This action is brought to redress the deprivation under color of law, statute, regulation, custom and usage of the State of Maryland of the rights, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States providing for the equal rights of the citizens of the United States and of all

I persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. [ 2, Plaintiff shows unto Your Honor that this is an action for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief for the purpose of determining a question in actual controversy between the parties, to wit:

.(a) Whether the policy, custom, usage, and practice of defendants in systematically sending plaintiff Robert Myers, minor, and other Negro males and females similarly situated exclusively to Boys' Village and Barrett School is denying, solely on account of race and color, to plaintiff Myers and other Negroes similarly situated, rights and privileges to rehabilitation training, without being racially segregated in the use of said Training Schools and school facilities which are furnished by the State of Maryland for the rehabilitation of delinquent male and female minors in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

(b) Whether the facilities furnished plaintiff and the class he represents at Boys* Village, Incorporated, and Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, afford plaintiff and the class he represents the equal protection of the law where the facilities set apart for the plaintiff and the members of the

- 5 -S

class he represents are physically inferior and psychologically stigmatize plaintiff and the members of the class he represents

i /

inya manner which makes it impossible t> obtain rehabilitation training equal to that afforded white youths at Maryland Training School, Incorporated, and Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated.

3. All parties to this action are citizens of the. United States and are domiciliaries of the State of Maryland.

4. Plaintiff alleges' that this is a class action,/ and that the rights here involved are of common and general interest to the members of the class represented by the plaintiff, riamely Negro citizens and residents of the State of Maryland and of the United States who have been segregated in the use of Rehabilitation Training facilities in the Training Schools of Maryland and have been denied the use of training school facilities equal to those offered to white youths by the State of Maryland. Plaintiff avers that the members of the class are so numerous as to make it impractical to bring them all before the Court, and for this reason, plaintiff prosecutes this action in and on behalf of the class which he represents without specifically making all members thereof plaintiffs.

5. Plaintiff Mae Coleman is a citizen of the United States and a resident and domiciliary of the State of Maryland. Plaintiff Mae Coleman is over the age of 21 and is a taxpayer of the State of Maryland and of the United States. Minor plaintiff Robert Myers is a citizen of the United States and resident and domiciliary of the State of Maryland; this action is brought in his behalf by his parent and next friend, Mae Coleman. Plaintiff is classified as a Negro under the laws of the State of Maryland.

6. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, Members of the State Board of Public Welfare, Dr. Alvin Thalheimer, Calhoun Bond, Mrs. Ralph 0. Dulany, Sam Eig, Gen. Henry C. Evans, Dr. Sanford V. Larkey, Howard Murphy, Herbert R. O'Connor, Jr., and Mrs. John L. Sanford are empowered under Article 88A, Sections

- 6 -la

33 to 38 inclusive, of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended, to exercise supervision, direction and control over the corporate functions of all the other corporate defendants; that said defendants, State Board of Public Welfare and, Members of said Board, through their rule making power, promulgate rules and regulations establishing standards of care,

i

policies, rules of admission, conduct management, rules of transfer, and discharge for the aforenamed Training Schools, and that said defendant Board of Public Welfare is charged with the responsibility of developing a program within each training

i

school, including provision for aftercare supervision. Defendant Thomas J. S. Waxter is Director of the Department of Public Welfare and is Secretary of defendant Board of Public Welfare; he is appointed pursuant to the provisions of Article 88A, Section 1 of the Annotated Code of Maryland by defendant Board of Public Welfare and devotes his whole time to directing the activities of the State Department of Public Welfare.

Plaintiff avers that defendants Wallace Reidt, Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Mrs. Harold Donnell, Mrs. James H. Ferguson, Dr. James Earp, Mrs. Frank A. Kaufman, Mrs. Lewis H. Rumford, and Mrs. Herman Moser are members and constitute the Board of Managers of the Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated; that defendant Board of Managers of Montrose School is appointed by the governor pursuant to Article 88A and Section 34 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as amended, and exercises its (control and supervision of the said Montrose School pursuant to the provisions of Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as amended.

Plaintiff avers that defendants Dr. William E. Henry, Jr., Leonard W. Curlin, Mrs. Violet Hill Whyte, Charles E. Cornish, Dr. Robert G. McGuire, "W. Carles Mosley, Joseph H. Neal, Garrett JD. Rawlings and Clarence Anthony, constitute the Board of Managers

of Boys' Village, Incorporated. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Board is appointed by the Governor pursuant to Article 88A, Section 34 of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition, as amended and exercises its control and supervision of the said Boys' Village School pursuant to the provisions of Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the 1957 Edition of the Annotated Code of Maryland as amended.

Plaintiff avers that defendants Ralph L. Thomas, Mrs. Dorothy Falconer, Paul E. Tignor, Dr. Earle T. Hawkins, James L. Lacy, Dr. J. Morris Reese, Lawrason Riggs, Lester B. Levy and Stuart Berger,,constitute the Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, Incorporated. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Board is appointed by the Governor pursuant to Article 88A, Section 34 of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended and exercises its supervision and control of the said Maryland Training School pursuant to the provision of Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended.

Plaintiff alleges that Miss Anita R. Williams, Mrs. Annie Spencer, Dr. U. G. Bourne, Mrs. Bertha Winston, Rev. F. J. Frey, Mrs. Bernard Harris, Theodore W. Kess, Mrs. Lillian A. Lottier and Mrs. Charlotte Mebane, constitute the Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls Incorporated; plaintiff alleges that defendant Board is appointed by the Governor pursuant to Article 88A, Section 34 of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition, as amended and exercises its control and supervision of the said Barrett School pursuant to the provisions of Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as amended; plaintiff alleges that the immediate control and operation of the facilities, subject to this suit, is in the hands of the defendants.

- 8 -

2

7. Plaintiff alleges that all defendants are being sued in their representative and official capacities.

8. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, and members of said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 27, Section 660 and Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive, of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition, as amended, have established and are maintaining and operating Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, exclusively for the care and reformation of white girls. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant Board of Managers of Boys' Village, Incorporated, and members of said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 27, Section 657, and Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended, have established and are maintaining and operating Boys' Village, Incorporated, exclur-sively for the care and reformation of Negro Boys. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, Incorporated, and members of said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 27, Section 659 and Article 88A, Sections33 to 36 both inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition have established and are maintaining and operating said Maryland Training School exclusively for the care and reformation of white boys. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, and members of said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 27, Section 661 and Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended, have established and are maintaining and operating said Barrett School for Girls exclusively for the care and reformation of Negro girls. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant State Board of Public Welfare, the members of said Board, and the defendant Thomas J. S. Waxter, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 88A, Section 1 and Sections 33 to

- 9 -9

36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as amended, have established and are maintaining and operating reformation facilities for delinquent minors at Barrett School for Negro girls exclusively, Boys1 Village for Negro boys, exclusively, Montrose School for Girls for white girls exclusively and Maryland Training School for white boys exclusively, through the supervision, direction and control of the other defendants.

9. The defendants herein are charged with the duty of maintaining, operating and supervising Boys' Village for Boys, Maryland Training School, Incorporated, Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, and said Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, as a part of their supervisory control and authority. These defendants have the exclusive power to promulgate and enforce rules and regulation with respect to the use, availability and admission of minors to each of these Training Schools through their respective Boards.

10. Plaintiff further alleges that on or about April 10, 1959, one of his attorneys, Tucker R. Bearing, filed a petition with the State Board of Public Welfare on behalf of a number of citizens and tax payers demanding that defendants cease and desist the practice of racial segregation in the Training School of Maryland. That on August 13, 1959, the said attorney was heard before the State Board of Public Welfare at 301 W. Preston Street in the City of Baltimore; that on or about September 22, 1959, the defendant, Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director of the State Department of Public Welfare and Secretary of said Board, advised that the requested racial desegregation was denied and referred petitioners to the Legislature or to the Court for any change in the racial segregation policy enforced at the training schools.

- 10 -

11. Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 29, 1959, he was found to be a delinquent in the Circuit Court of

• Baltimore City Division for Juvenile Causes and that The Honorable Charles E. Moylan, Judge of said Court, stated that he would commit your plaintiff to a training school; that your minor plaintiff and adult plaintiff, through their attorney, Tucker R. Dearing, interposed a motion that your minor plaintiff be not sent to Boys' Village but that he be sent to Maryland Training School which is reserved exclusively for white males; that said Judge Moylan held said Motion Subcuria and detained your minor plaintiff at Boys1 Village and that the said attorney took exception to your Orator being retained at Boys' Village, Incorporated, a racially segregated school.

12. That Boys' Village, Incorporated, is a racially segregated Training School by reason of which it cannot provide your complainant with rehabilitation and training equal to that provided at Maryland Training School for white males, because Boys' Village, Incorporated, is racially segregated.

13. That Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition, as amended, Section 659 requiring white male youths to be sent exclusively to the Maryland Training School, Incorporated Section 660 requiring white female youths to be sent exclusively to Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, Section 657 requiring Negro male youths to be exclusively sent to Boys' Village Incorporated, and Section 661 requiring Negro female minors to be sent exclusively to Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, are all unconstitutional insofar as said statutes deny to your plaintiff and other members of the class which he represents their right to enjoy non-racially segregated training school facilities as required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

- 11 -Jl

14. That the defendants and each of them in concert have systematically racially segregated them and other youths in the training schools of Maryland.

15. Plaintiff alleges that the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, and the Circuit Courts in each County having jurisdiction for juvenile causes, have automatically followed the racial pattern of segregation set forth in aforesaid Sections of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended; that no white youth in the history of the State of Maryland has ever been committed to either of the training schools reserved exclusively for Negro youths; it is further alleged that never in the history of the State of Maryland has any Negro youth ever been committed to either of the training schools reserved exclusively for white youths.

16. Plaintiff alleges that the Order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, which detains him at Boys' Village, Incorporated, a racially segregated training school while awaiting a determination of this controversy has deprived and will continue to deprive him of his Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

17. That the Courts of Maryland having jurisdiction in Juvenile Causes and the defendants by systematically racially segregating him and other youths who are members of the class represented by the plaintiff, namely, youths who have been detained or committed to the training schools of Maryland, have denied to him and other youths, members of the class represented by the plaintiff, due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

18. Plaintiff alleges that these separate training and reformation schools constitute an inequality, in that colored

- 12 -

persons are completely excluded from Maryland Training School and Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, and that Boys' Village and Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, are located in different localities, thus constituting physical and psychological inequality under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; that the policy, custom and usage of defendants, and each of them, of providing, maintaining and operating out of public funds said training schools on a racially segregated basis, and failing to admit Negro youth to all training facilities, wholly and solely on account of their race and color, is unlawful and constitutes a denial of their rights to the equal protection of the laws and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

19. That plaintiff and those similarly situated and affected, on whose behalf this suit is brought are suffering and will suffer continuing irreparable injury, by reason of the acts herein complained of; plaintiff avers that he has no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts herein complained of other than this suit for a declaration of rights and injunction; that, any other remedy to which plaintiff and those similarly situated could be remitted would be attended by such uncertainties as to deny substantial relief, would involve multiciplicity of suit s, cause further irreparable injury and occasion damage, vexation and inconvenience, not only to plaintiff and those similarly situated, but to the defendants as governmental agencies.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 1. That proper process issue and that this cause be

advanced upon the Docket. 2. That the Court adjudge, decree and declare the

rights and legal relations of the parties to the subject matter

- 13 -

13

0

here in controversy in order that such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final order or decree.

3. That the Court enter a Declaratory Judgment and , declare that any rule, policy, custom, practice and usage pursuant to which said defendants or any of them, their lessees, agents and successors in office deny to plaintiff and the members of the class he represents, commitment, admission or transfer to any of the schools of reformation operated and maintained by the defendants on account of race and color contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

4. That Sections 657, 659, 660 and 661 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as amended, are unconstitutional in that the State of Maryland is without authority to promulgate the statute because it enforces a classification based upon race and color which is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

5. That this Court issue a permanent injunction forever restraining the defendants and each of them, their lessees, agents and successors in office from denying to the plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely on account of race and color, commitment, admission and transfer to any training school established, operated and maintained by the State of Maryland.

/earing 8. Toadvine 627 Aisquith Street Baltimore 2, Maryland PEabody 2-6651

Juanita Jackson Mitchell /1239 Druid Hill Avenue Baltimore 17, Maryland

i-1142

/ £>0>

I a u J ^ o urgocroy mar sha 11 ack Greenberg 10 Columbus Circle Suite 1790 New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs - 14 - .J

w 0

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Dr. Avlin Thalheimer, Chairrra»—\

H

American Building Baltimore 2, Mi. J M

Mr^Calhoun Bond ' Q/314 N. Calvert Street

Baltimore 2, 15?. Gen. Ilenry C. Evens ^ 2 ^ * ^ p

6 S. Calvert Stre? Baltimor0 0 M A

<\ Dr. Sanfor* V. Larkey SO v3-*.Z^^/r\l900 E, Monument Street

-^Baltimore b', W ' H . iurphy Qb) y^&S N. Eutaw §tre%)l/ffl£)

irbert R. 0'Conor, Jr., ) Li-bt St. i \(,oJ: iltimore 2, LP. 3/1 ( rohn L. Sanford ^"'v TOO IF M 1 OJ X ' I

Baltimore 1, IH, Tir. Herbert R. 0'Conor, Jr.

10 Ba

Mrs, John L. Sanford 2729 M.;Charles Street ^ <^(* Baltimore 18, Md. 3

Board lumbers and

THE BOARD OF IMAGERS OF BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC.

and

THE BOARD OF IMAGERS OF MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL, INC.

Ralnh L. Thomas, President};' 1

"803 St. George's Road. Baltimore 10, Md.

Mrs, Dorothy Falconer A j 106 Witherspoon Roafl— Baltimore 12, IB.

Paul E. Tignor fCg\ 3222 Overland Avenue-—^ Baltimore 14, ffi.

James J, Lacy, Jr. (21) 5412 Springlake W a y ^ Baltimore 12, Md..

/pjDr. J. Morris Reese ^ J Medical Arts Building Baltimore 2, IK.. .

Mrf. Lawrason Riggs of J. a M / * , 129 S. Redwood Street Baltimore 2% HI. ^

Stuart Berger I—

2213 Reisterstown Road £ 0 Baltimore 17, Md. Board Members

and.

I # | " j s s Anita R. Williams, Acting President 644 George Street ^7.-60//^ ^Wallace Reidt,

^ Baltimore 1, Md. ^ ^ Park A

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC.

and President

Avenue 3 (Q Mrs. Annie Spencer , _ J. Baltimore 1, ffl.

1 1 2 5 N. Caroline Street^5 *-<-e{ZS /fvPfy* Ifertxn J. lelsh, Jr. Baltimore 13, Jftfo^*' bertha Winston

1500 Madison" Avenue / ./77\ Baltimore, Mi.

Rev, F. J. Frye X \ iL 1700 Moreland Avenue,.*, f0

f If Baltimore 17, » . °

y Mrs. Bernard. Harris S'h^^tv J

1207 N. Caroline Street Baltimore 13, Jfl. ^

Mrs. Lillian A. Lottier £ /3 2433. Calverton Heights Ave.^"r

Baltimore 16, Ifl. *lfl Mrs. Charlotte T'ebane

' 1 2321. Harlem Avenue ^ ' W Baltimore, W.,

Board Members and

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOY'S VILLAGE, INC.

Charles h M?^ison Streets Baltimore, Mi.

Mrs. Harold Donne 11 -^oMtirfie^X* 505 Overbrook Road / Baltimore 12 , Mi.

Mrs. James H. Ferguson /OV 4002 St. Paul Street*^ Baltimore l8 , Mi. _^

Mrs. Lewis H. Rumford, II ( j j ) —" 4401 Gfeenway Baltimore -18, W, >^v

Mrs. Herman Moser $-*{• '0° (2£/ 3700 N. Charles Street Baltimore, Md,

Board Members

Mrs. Violet Hill White \JX 625-Carrolltcn Ave. J 1 Baltimore 17, M l * Joseph H. Heal

1 / 613 Baker Street ftL.*'l*u* I L p Baltimore 17, Md.

Garrett D. Rawlings Cif J^) ^ 919. Harlem Avenue S~ '

Baltimore 17, Md.

EQUITY SUBPOENA

The State of Maryland

of Baltimore City, Greeting: WE COMMAND A N D ENJOIN YOU, That all excuses set aside, you do within the time limited

by law, beginning on the first Monday of March next,

cause an appearance to be entered for you and your answer to be filed to the complaint of

Robert Myers, Minor by Mae Coleman, his mother and next friend

against you exhibited in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

HEREOF fail not, as you will answer the contrary at your peril.

WITNESS, the Honorable EMORY H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the 4th day of January , 19 60 Issued the

26th day of February , i n the year 19 60

MEMORANDUM: You are required to file your answer or other defertre in the Clerk's Office, room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days^itef return/day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief demanded.

(General Equity Rule 11) A-40055 (2)

~ 0

Isl tcJ.

j t

Co

Summoned Dr. Avlin Thalheimer, Chariman, State Board of Public Welfare and Herbert R. 0'Conor Jr., Board Member, State Board of Public Welfare, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with each defendant or the 1st day of March I 9 6 0 . Also summoned General Henry C. Evans, Board Member, State Board of Public Welfare, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the End day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of Henry Spielman. Also summoned Calhoun Borid, Board Member, State Board of Public Welfare, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the 1st day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of William Fowler. Also suirmoned Dr. SanfordV. Larkey, Board Member, State Board of Public Welfare, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the B m cf Complaint left with the defendant on the 1st day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of John Dekowski. Also summoned Howard H. Murphy, Board Member, State Board of Public Wejfare, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the 2nd day of March 1 9 6 0 in the presence of Clement Melder. Also summoned Mrs. John L. Sanford, Beard Member, State Board of Public Welfare, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the 5th day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of Herman Arbaugh. Also summoned Miss Anita R. Williams, Acting President, The Bosrd of Managers of Barrett Schcol for Girls Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the defendant. Also summoned Mrs. Bertha Winston, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the, defendant ca the 2nd day of March 1V60 in the presence of Clement Melder. Also summoned Mrs. Annie Spencer, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Barret School for Girls Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the 2nd day of March I960. Also summoned Mrs. Bernard Harris, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the defendant on the 1st day of March I960 in the presence of Joseph Kalinowski. Also summoned Reverend F.J. Frye, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls Incorporated and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the defendant on the 1st day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of Clarence Simon. Also summoned Mrs. Lilliae A. Lottier Board Member, The Board ©f Managers ef Barrett Schoel for Birls Incorporated and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant en the 2nd day ef March I 9 6 0 . Also summoned Mrs. Charlotte Mebane, Board ^ember, The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the defendant on the 1st day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of Emory Bedford. Also summoned Mrs. Violet Hill White and Garrett D. Rawlings, Board Members, The Board of Managers of Boy's Village Incorporated, and a Cepy ofthe Precess with a Copy of the Bill ef Complaint left with each Defendant on the 2nd day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence ef Emery Bedford. Also summoned Ralph L. Themas, President, The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School Incorporated, and a Copy ef the Precess with a Copy of the Bill ef Cemplaint left with the Defendant on the 29th day of February I 9 6 0 in the presence of Herman Arbaugh. Also summoned Lawrasen Riggs of J. Board Member, The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the 2nd day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of Henry Spielman. Also summoned Stuart Berger, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School Incorporated, and a Copy ef the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the Defendant on the 1st day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence of Russell Burgess. Also summoned Mrs. Herman Moser, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Montrese School for Girls Incorporated, and a Copy of the Process with a Copy of the Bill of Complaint left with M, Peter Moser, the Defendants' Attorney on the 4th day of March I 9 6 0 in the presence ef Herman

—- Arbaugh. Non Sunt as to The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls Incorporated, The Board of Managers of Boy's Village Incorporated, Joseph H. Neal, Board Member, The Board of Managers of Boy's Village Incerporated, The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School Incorporated, Mrs. Dorothy Falconer, Paul E. Tignor, James J. Lacy Jr. and Dr. J. Morris Reese, Board Members, The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School Incorporated., The Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls Incorporated, Wallace Reidt, President, The Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls Incorporated, and Mrs. JM Martin J. Welsh Jr., Mrs. Harold Donnell, Mrs. James H. Ferguson, Mrs. Lewis H. Rumford 11, Board Members, The Board of Managers of Montrose ScaeolT-rfor Girls Incorporated^.^^ qq

" 7 S - ^ ? f ^ ^ c S ^ T ^ S h e r i f f

EQUITY SUBPOENA

The State of Maryland Co Dr. Earle T. Hawkins,

President State Teachers College Towson, Mi.

Lester S. Levy y //J /? /? - 2 Blade Avenue j d * ? ^ L*t**^ Pikesville 8, Mi.

Mrs. Frank A. Kaufman s*H*h- Cloverly Road

Pikesville,

O F Baltimore C O U N T Y , G R E E T I N G :

W E C O M M A N D A N D E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be

fore the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, at the Courthouse in said City, on the first Monday

of M§£.9.k 19...§9..., to answer the complaint of

Robert Myers, Minor by Mae Coleman, his Mother and next friend,

against you in said Court exhibited.

H E R E O F fail not, as you will answer the contrary at your peril.

WITNESS, the Honorable E M O R Y H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Bal

timore City, the i^1. day of Jan^ry , 19.. .§0

Issued the 26th day of f**™**!. in the year of 19..$?..

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer OK,jjiher defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief D .manded.

(General Equitv Rule 11) . , A-40055 (3)

n

^XIRCWT COURT

A-142 r 19 Docket No

60

ROBERT MYERS, &C.

vs.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE,

S U B P O E N A T O A N S W E R B I L L O F C O M P L A I N T

N ° * A-40055

(3) Filed /.(P...'. day oj%fo&*^., 19.6..Q

D3ar.ing..&..Toad¥ine Juanita Jackson Mitchel3?K«for. s Thurgood Marshall Jack.. Gr eenberg

Address.

. fortltwith delivered U Receped:^i4~19.^ai SfJl.M. forthwith delivered to Sheriff of Baltimore County

H alter J. Rasmussen, Cle/ />

EQUITY SUBPOENA


Of Wicomico C O U N T Y , G R E E T I N G :

W E C O M M A N D A.ND EN J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of . £9.?. , 19 §9., to answer the complaint of

Robert Myers, Minor by Mae Coleman, his Mother and next friend




timore City, the .4.^. day of January > 1 9 60

Issued the day of/ y.....?.^.™S in the year of 19..£9.

7 yiM^4.3.. 4sL lerk

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer or other/defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief C ,manded.

(General Equitv Rule 11) A-40055 (4)

J9

Mrs. Ralph 0. Dulany

Fruitland, Md.

CIRCUIT COURT

A-142 19 60 Docket No.

vs.

ET AL


N ° * A-40055.

( 4 ) On Filed ^ 1 day of7?/£±Z*r., 19£?.

..Hearing..A...T.oad.vine Juanita Jackson MitcfteM^s Thurgood Marshall . Jack. Greenberg

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA


O F Montgomery C o u n t y , G R E E T I N G :

W E C O M M A N D A N D E N J O I N Y O U , t h a t a l l e x c u s e s s e t a s i d e , y o u b e i n y o u r p e r s o n b e

f o r e t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f B a l t i m o r e C i t y , a t t h e C o u r t h o u s e i n s a i d C i t y , o n t h e f i r s t M o n d a y

of M^rch 19...6Q.., t o a n s w e r t h e c o m p l a i n t o f

Robert Myers, Minor, by Mae Coleman, his mother and next friend,

a g a i n s t y o u i n s a i d C o u r t e x h i b i t e d .

H E R E O F f a i l n o t , a s y o u w i l l a n s w e r t h e c o n t r a r y a t y o u r p e r i l .

W I T N E S S , t h e H o n o r a b l e E M O R Y H . N I L E S , C h i e f J u d g e o f t h e S u p r e m e B e n c h o f B a l

t i m o r e C i t y , t h e 41»b d a y o f January ( 19...6O

I s s u e d t h e 26th

M E M O R A N D U M : Y o u a r e r e q u i r e d t o file y o u r a n s w e r o r o t h e r d e f e n s e i n t h e C l e r k ' s Office, "Koom 4 1 0 , i n t h e C o u r t H o u s e , B a l t i m o r e C i t y , y i t h h y T i f t e e n d a y s a f t e r r e t u r n d a y , n a m e d i n t h e a b o v e s u b p o e n a . P e r s o n a l a t t e n d a n c e i n C o u r t o n t h e d a y n a m e d i s n o t n e c e s s a r y , b u t u n l e s s y o u a n s w e r o r m a k e o t h e r d e f e n s e w i t h i n t h e t i m e n a m e d , c o m p l a i n a n t ( s ) m a y o b t a i n a d e c r e e p r o c o n f e s s o a g a i n s t y o u , w h i c h u p o n p r o p e r p r o o f m a y b e c o n v e r t e d i n t o a final d e c r e e f o r t h e r e l i e f r1 . m a n d e d .

( G e n e r a l E q u i t v R u l e 1 1 ) A-40055 (5)

Mr. Sam Eig

Eig Building

Silver Spring, Md.

CIRCUIT COURT

Served the within Srbpoena * ^tn<r to and leaving copy ot reading to, A U U * j

Baffle, together mlIh a copy the Bill of Complaint with

A-142 19 Docket No.

60

ROBERT MYERS, MINOR, &C.

vs.



Filed

Dearing..&.ToMn.n9. Juanita Jackson Mitch^i'c^or. s

Thnrgood Marshall Jack Greenberg

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA


Of Frederick C O U N T Y , G R E E T I N G :

W E C O M M A N D A N D ENJOIN YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of March 19...$?.., to answer the complaint of




WITNESS, the Honorable E M O R Y H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the 4th d a y o f January > 19....6Q....

issued the day^.^y/.. ?®.l?ruary i n t h e y e a r o f 1 9 60

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer or other defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief r1 .manded.

(General Equitv Rule 11)

Dr. U. G. Bourne, Jr.

All Saints and Ice Street

Frederick, Mi*

3 L 2. A-40055 (6)

CIRCUIT COURT

A-142 19 Docket N o

60 Received and forthwith delivered to the Sheriff cf IROBERT MYERS,MINOR, &G. Frederick Countjr. Test:" - •Mm^



" ^ A-40055 £? ^ ^ 3? / 77 (6)

T ^ C ^? Filed ...It. day o^M^:, 19 A.9 5T $ .S? nj

^ ...D.eairing...&..T.Qad.vi-nfi Juanita Jackson Mitc$$Mor-s Thurgood Marshall Jack G-re enb erg

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA


Mr. Theodore W. Kess

1109 Crain Highway, N.E.

Glen Burnie, Md.

Dr. Robert G. McGuire

304 Douglas Avenue

Highland Beach

Annapolis, Md.

O F _ Anne Arundel C O U N T Y , G R E E T I N G :

W E C O M M A N D A N D E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of March 19.. 6Q..., to answer the complaint of

Robert Myers, Minor by Mae Coleman, his mother and next friend,



W I T N E S S , the Honorable E M O R Y H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Bal

timore City, the 4.tfe day of .January. , 19...60.

Issued the

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer or other defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within Iteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief r1 .manded.


1 1 0 E I V E D •ruffs office-arm a^mi c» ,W

/ CIRCUIT COURT . MAR 1 - 1 9 6 0

LM fM.

& H j L S / « £ a Docket N o Mr. Taeodore W, K/ss 60 1109 Oraln Hwy., N.E. Glen 3urnie. Md.

ROBERT MYERS f MINOR^ &C . Dr. Robert G. McGuire 30I4- Douglas Avenue Highland Beach Annapolis, Maryland

P a , . &U<J> • - ET AL


Filed

N o . A-40055 /y^J

M l U,«1ttta&l9tSL

D F I I W : I N G . . & . . . T f l i a J l y . i n 9 . Juanita Jackson MitctaSpEfcifo*"- s Thurgood Marshall Jack Greenherg

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA

The State of Maryland Ho

The Board of Managers of Boy's Village, Inc. Dr. William R. Henry, Jr., President

c/o State Teachers College, Bowie, Mi.

Clarence Anthony 908-60th Avenue Faimiount Heights, Mi.

3 <g 6 *

O F Prince George's C o u n t y , G r e e t i n g :

W E C O M M A N D A.ND E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be

fore the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, at the Courthouse in said City, on the first Monday - March 1 Q60 . . . . .

of , 19 , to answer the complaint of




W I T N E S S , the Honorable E M O R Y H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Bal

timore City, the 4** day of 1**&**XJ>. , 19.JS6L. Summoned Clarence Anthony and left copy of subpoena and bill of complaint with him this 5th day of March I960. J

SummonedBoard of Managers of Boys 1 Village, Inc, by service on Dr. William R. Henry, Jr. President and left copy of subpoena an*6+h , Febmarv fiO bill of Issuea the „.„.„" day of I t J K S H in the year of 19....?T complaint with them this 5th day of March I960. / / j (3 //

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer or opier defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief r1 .manded.


CIRCUIT COURT

A - 1 4 2 19 Docket No.

60 ,


V8.

• ' - J T A T E . B O m . . Q F . . P m i i Q . . I S L I ^ , ET AL


N°« A - 4 0 0 5 5

(8) Filed day of^M^L, 19

P^.^ing. A .?o^v ine Juanita Jackson Mitfl'laiect&r. s Thurgood Marshall Jack dreenberg;

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA


Leonard W. Curlin

47 W. Bethel Street

Hagerstown, Md,

Of Washington C O U N T Y , G R E E T I N G :

W E C O M M A N D A.ND E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of }^ch 19...6Q..., to answer the complaint of





timore City, the day of Jaj™££y. ( 1 9 gQ

Issued the 26th day of J ™ ™ " ! .

MEMORANDUM: You are required to file your answer or other^defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief d .manded.

(General Equity Rule 11) A-40055 (9)

AS

J

CIRCUIT COURT

A-142 19 Docket N o

60


vs.



Received ftAR 1 i960 tad forthwith delivered to th* Sheriff of Washington^ County.

Test.. .

A-40055

(9) Filed * 1 d * y o i 9 * * ^ , i 9 £ e

Qe.aring..&...TQ.ady.ine Juanita Jackson MitcheQ?^07*-s Thurgood Marshall Jack Greenberg

Address.

r-i H •H CQ

•c 3 m o

m O

ft O O

C o

CO

T BOrdd-3 S 3 1 H V H 0

o^S:9 WO I - HUH 036i

EQUITY SUBPOENA


O F _ Dorchester County, Greeting: W E C O M M A N D A.ND E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of .!^rcjl ( 19....§9... to answer the complaint of

Robert Myers, Minor by Mae Coleman, his mother and ne±t friend



W I T N E S S , the Honorable E M O R Y H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the 4th d a y o f January > 1 9 60

Issued the day of .,.J?}™*J.. in the year of 19.6°

,^/Clerk

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer or other—defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief r1 ,manded.

(General Equity Rule 11) ( 1 Q )

Mr. Charles E. Cornish

106 Pine Street

Cambridge, Md.

30

CIRCUIT COURT

V8.



N ° * A-40055.

( 1 0 )

Filed #.Z day of<M^t 19 A?

Dearing & Toadvine "JuanTia''Jack's6n^^ Thurgood Marshall Jack G-reenberg

Summoned & Gope Of Subpoena And Bill Of^Complaint Left With Charles E.Cornish. 106 Pine' St.~Cambridge Md. This 3/2/60

Sheriff Qfl Dorchester

,Maryland

Address.

A - 1 4 2 19 Docket No

60


EQUITY SUBPOENA


Of Caroline County, Greeting: W E C O M M A N D A.ND E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of March 19...6Q..., to answer the complaint of




WITNESS, the Honorable E M O R Y H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the 4th d a y o f J^ary 1 9 60

26th a February . A1_ m ,„ 60 Issued the day of ....^...T^..../. in the vear of 19

Clerk

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer or other-^defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief c5 .manded.

(General Equity Rule 11) A-40055 (11) 3 >

(To W. Charles Mosley

Ridgely, Md.

CIRCUIT COURT

A-142 19 Docket No. 60


vs.

ET AL


A-40055

(11) Filed day offy&4Ab, 19}

Dearing...&...T.Qad.vina Juanita Jackson Mitch<Mciior- s Thurgood Marshall Jac k. Gr e e nb erg

Address.

H W T I V E D AND FORTHWITH D » L I W « D

T » the TBTFLFTOF CAR»LIH« C»unty, 3| /1 ^

Twt.

I hereby certify thatJ/ I served the within upon W. Carlos Mosley, andcopy of process and Bill left with him, March 1st, I960.

EQUITY SUBPOENA


O F G a r r o 1 1 County, Greeting: W E C O M M A N D A.ND E N J O I N YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of M ^ ? . ™ 1 9 . . t o answer the complaint of

Robert Myers, Minor, by Mae Coleman, his mother and next friSnd




timore City, the 4th d a y o f January ( 1 9 60

issued the 26th d a y o f / February e y e a r o f w gp

A r y c,erk

M E M O R A N D U M : You are required to file your answer o^aftier defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief d .manded.


3 * A-40055 (12)

Dr. James Earp

Western Maryland College

Westminster, Md.

CIRCUIT COURT

A-142 19 Docket No. 60


vs.



No.

Filed day o

.P.e.?;0. .&..ToMy.ine Juanita Jackson MtctfbM&ior. s Thursood Marshall Jack Greenberg

\ V

— 1

r

\ \ \

V

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA

^ Wallace Reidt, President V/¥^£o-(/0, •506 Park Avenue- Baltimore 1, Md.

-0

James J. Lacy, Jr.. 7-yj 5412 ^pringlake Way J

rJ*t b

0 Baltimore 12, Md. CiP

Dr. J. Morris Reese (0 Medical Arts Building

Baltimore 2, Md. yn- lo-(7j)>

Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Jr. 3- *o-6oÛU Charles & Madison Sts. - Baltimore, Md,

Mrs, James H. Ferguson ?>-l2.-^c-@) 01 4002 St. Paul St. - Baltimore 18, Md.

Mrs, Lewis H. Rumford, II j*>~/2-6><> 4401 Greenway - Baltimore 18, Md. ^TT)

of Baltimore City, Greeting: WE COMMAND A N D ENJOIN YOU, That all excuses set aside, you do within the time limited

by law, beginning on the first Monday of April next,

cause an appearance to be entered for you and your answer to be filed to the complaint of


against you exhibited in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.


WITNESS, the Honorable EMORY H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the 7th day of March , 19 60 Issued the 8th d a y Q f March j m t h e year 19 60

L

MEMORANDUM: You are required to file your ansêj" or other defense in the Clerk's Office, room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore/City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief demanded.

(General Equity Rule 11)

A-40055 (13)

The State of Maryland u . d i ^ wJ° THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BARRETT ' tJt*j*Jst y / ^ ~ £ 6

SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC. L

//THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOY'S VILLAGE, INC. H £ 3- t^Lo -4 i \C

^Joseph H. Neal Up 3 . ^ . Uo # , U T 613 Baker Street « ^" ^ .

yfi THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MARYLAND TRAINING / | < ^ R P ^ ' ^ ^ D < 3

SCHOOL, INC.

Mrs, Dorothy Falconer 3-72 '0 T H E 0 F I ANAGERS OF 3-/V~ô-^) 106 Witherspoon Road 7^ /MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC.

r* Baltimore 12, "Md.

Paul E. Tignor 3222 Overland Avenue Baltimore 14, Md.

'OH All" niivg

03. m & 01 urn fl

1

6-3 i-3 GO J J KB CP O f- CD

S \ CD I P

£ :CD

O

n o K

O

BP

o

a, S, - I

CO CO

CO

2 O

I O Cn CJ)

Subpoen a To A

ns wpr Bill

1—»-» Compla

L J CO 1-3

O

O

TR1

O

<5

Co

L-J I

ft-O

a O o n as O o

Summoned The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, a corporation, by service on Miss Anita R. Williams, Acting President, and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Complaint left with said Acting President, on the 14th day of March I960, in the presence of Clement H. Malder. Also summoned The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, Incorporated, a corporation, by service on Ralph L. Thomas, President, and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Complaint left said President, on the 12th day of March I960, in the presence of Herman Arbaugh. Also summoned Mrs. Dorothy Falconer, James J. Lacy, Jr., Mrs. James H. Ferguson, ancl^^ Mrs. Lewis H. Rumford, II, and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Complaint l e f ^ R t h each of the defendants on the 12th day of March I960, in the presence of Charles Reed. Also summoned The Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, a corporation, by service on Wallace Reidt, President, and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Complaint left with said President, on the L4th day of March I960. Also summoned Wallace Reidt, and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Comulaint left with the defendant on the L4th day of March I960 in the presence of Clement H. Melder. Also summoned Dr. J. Morris Reese, and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the defendant on the L4th day of March I960 in the presence of Clement H. Melder. Also summoned Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Jr., and a copy of the Process with a copy of the Bill of Complaint left with the defendant on the 30th day of 30th day of March I960 in the presence of Clement H. Melder. Also notice of said summons left at the principal office of said corporations. Non Sunt as to The Board of Managers of Boy's Village, Incorporated, Joseph H. Neal, and Paul E. Tignor. ^

V / Sheriff (f

3 7

EQUITY SUBPOENA

The State of Maryland j£0 Dr. Robert McGuire

304 Douglas Avenue

Highland Beach

Annapolis,

Of Anne Arundel County, Greeting: WE COMMAND AND ENJOIN YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of ^.ET.^."!". , 19 §.9, to answer the complaint of

Robert Myers, i»iinor by Mae Coleman, his mother and next friend,



WITNESS, the Honorable EMORY H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Bal

timore City, the 7.$* day of !fef?jk , 19. 60

Issued the day of ...,..^yf. March y e a r o f 19--^--

MEMORANDUM: You are required to file your answer or othc^r defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, wi£nin fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief r1 .manded.


3 * ^-40055 (14)

CIRCUIT COURT

-142 19 Docket No.

60

ROBERT MYERS, MINOR, &G.

vs.

ET AL


No. A-40055 (14)

Filed 1.3.'.:.

J)iaariDg...&..T.QSfiLviflft _ Juanita Jackson MitcbSskl^-s Thurgood Marshall Jack Greenberjg

Address.

EQUITY SUBPOENA

The State of Maryland (Eo Lester S. Levy

2 Blade Avenue Pikesville 8 , Md.

Mrs. Frank h . Kaufman Gloverly Road Pikesville, Md.

Mrs. Harold Donnell 505 Overbrook Road

Of B a l t i m o r e County, Greeting: WE COMMAND AND ENJOIN YOU, that all excuses set aside, you be in your person be


of AH".!! , 1 9 . . . § 9 . . . , to answer the complaint of




WITNESS, the Honorable EMORY H. NILES, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Bal-7 th

timore City, the ..„. day of March ., 19. 60

Issued the 10 th

MEMORANDUM: You are required to file your answer or other/ defense in the Clerk's Office, Room 410, in the Court House, Baltimore City, within fifteen days after return day, named in the above subpoena. Personal attendance in Court on the day named is not necessary, but unless you answer or make other defense within the time named, complainant (s) may obtain a decree pro confesso against you, which upon proper proof may be converted into a final decree for the relief d .manded.

(General Equity Rule 11)

A-40055 (15)

forthwith delivered rRec&ed,-^-L^^> °* flWlLI. forthwith delivered to Sheriff of Baltimore County

Walter J. Eas?nusssn, Cleric

CIRCUIT! COURT

A-142 19 Docket No.

60

ROBERT MYERS, &C.

vs.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE.


N Q > A-40055

(15)\|\l \ \ X .7.1 day O } L ! M L U 4 \ . , is! 0

.J).eaxing...&...TQad.v.ine. Juanita Jackson MitcrM# o r- s Thurgood Marshall Jack ...Greenberg; I

Address.


Plaintiff v.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, |t al., -

Defendants

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

Docket A-142 File No. A-40055

DEMURRER and ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

The Defendants, State Board of Public Welfare, et al., by C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, and Robert C. Murphy, Special Assistant Attorney General, demur and answer to the Bill of Complaint filed against them in the above entitled cause, and for grounds of demurrer respectfully say:

1 . That the Bill of Complaint is bad in substance and insufficient as a matter of law to state a cause of action in that Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Ed.), setting forth the legislative policy of conducting racially segregated correctional training institutions for the care and reformation of delinquent minors committed thereto under the laws of Maryland is a valid exercise of the polls power of the State and, as such, does not deprive the Plaintiff of any rights, privileges or immunities secured, protected or guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the State of Maryland;

AND, answering said Bill of Complaint, Defendants respectfully represent:

1 . That they deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of said Bill of Complaint.

2. That they are not required to answer the allegation^ and matters contained in paragraph 2 of said Bill.

3 . That they admit the allegations in paragraph 3 of said Bill.

4. T-h t they are without knowledge 4nd therefore unabl^

either to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 4 of said Biljl. 5. That they admit the allegations contained in para

graph 5 of said Bill. 6. Answering paragraph 6 of said Bill, they admit thatj

pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33-38, Article 88A, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Ed.), the State Department of Public Welfare is empowered to exercise supervision, direction and controp. over the State correctional training in&itutions for delinquent minors, namely: Maryland Training School for Boys, Boys' Village, Montrose School for Girls and Barrett School for Girls; that each ofkthese institutions is a public agency of the State of Maryland but are not otherwise incorporated; that the State Department of Public Welfare is vested with power and authority to promulgate rules and regulations establishing standards of care, policies of admission, transfer and discharge, and are further empowered to order such changes in the policies, conduct or management of said correctional training institutions as to it may seem desirable; that said Department is empowered to develop a program within eachj of the aforesaid correctional training institutions, including provision for after-care supervision.

Further answering, they admit that the defendant Boards! of Managers of the aforesaid correctional institutions are appointJ

ed by the Governor, and each is authorized and is responsible for the general management of such institutions, subject, however, as aforesaid, to the supervision, direction and control of the State | Department of Public Welfare.

7. That they admit the allegations in paragraph 7 of said Bill.

8. Answering paragraph 8 of said Bill of Complaint, they admit that each of the aforesaid correctional training insti-| tutions is operated and maintained on a racially segregated basis for the care and reformation of delinquent minors, but deny the implication implicit in said paragraph that the respective Boards of Managers of such institutions or the State Department, of Public] Welfare initiated the establishment thereof, the establishment of.

( 2 ) ¥3

such institutions being solely pursuant to statutory requirement and direction.

Further answering, they say that such schools being correctional institutions of reformation, they are primarily intended as places to separate erring minors from the corrupting influences of improper circumstances and associates

9. Answering paragraph 9 of said Bill of Complaint, they admit that they are charged in combination with responsibility for the management phases of the said correctional training institutions, but deny that they have any power, either individually or in combination, to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations at variance with the statutory policy of the State of Maryland requiring the conduct and operation of such correctional training institutions on a racially segregated basis.

10. That they admit the allegations in paragraph 10 of said Bill of Complaint.

1 1 . That they are without knowledge and therefore are unable either to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 11 of said Bill.

12. Answering paragraph 12 of said Bill of Complaint, they admit that Boys1 Village is a racially segregated correction-al institution for delinquent minors, but deny all other allegations contained in said paragraph.

13.That they are not required to answer paragraph 13

of said Bill as the allegations therein contained present no new matters of fact, but are confined solely to drawing conclusions of law from the facts alleged.

14. That they deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of said Bill of Complaint and, further answering, say that operation of the State's correctional training institutions on a racially segregated basis is pursuant to statutory requirement, as aforesaid.

(3)

15. That they are without knowledge and therefore unable either to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragrap: 15 of said Bill of Complaint.

16. That they are not required to answer the allegations and matters in paragraphs 16 and 17 of said Bill of Complainj; since the same set:.forth conclusions of law.

17. Answering paragraph 18 of said Bill of Complaint, they admit that said correctional training institutions are conducted and operated on a racially segregated basis pursuant to statutory requirement, but deny all other allegations contained in said paragraph.

18. That they are not required to answer the allegations in paragraph 19 of said Bill of Complaint.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered said Bill of Complaintf the Defendants pray that the same be dismissed with costs.

6. Ferdinand Sybeitft Attorney General

Robert C. Mi Spec. Asst. AtWrAey General 1201 Mathieson Bldg. Baltimore 2, Md. Lexington 9-5413 Attorneys for Defendants

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of March, i960,

a copy of the within Demurrer and Answer was mailed to Dearing and Toadvine, 627 Aisquith St., Baltimore 2,'Md., Juanita Jackson Mitchell, 1239 Druid Hill Ave., Baltimore 17, Md., and Thurgood Marshall, 10 Columbus Circle, Suite 1790, New York 19, New York, attorneys for Plaintiff.

Robert C. Murj Spec. Asst. AtMior/fey Generdl

ROBERT MYERS, Minor . by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and next Friend,

Plaintiff v.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al.,

Defendants


FOR BALTIMORE CITY,

MARYLAND Docket A-142 File No. A-40055

REQUEST FOR HEARING ON DEMURRER

The Defendants respectfully request a hearing on the demurrer in the above entitled case.

C. Ferdinand Sybert Attorney General

Robert C. Murphy' Spec. Asst. Attorney (federal Attorneys for Defendants

MOTION FOR HEARING

Solicitor, applies to have the above entitled cause placed on the Trial

in conformity with the First Equity Rule.

NOTICE OF HEARING

Fd. 22" A p r . , i960

ROBERT MYERS, ETC.

vs.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT

STATE BOfiSD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, ETAL - -

—OF—

BALTIMORE CITY

A 142/1960

Upon application made by the Solicitor for the , P l a i n t i f f

(Tucker R. Dear ing , S o l i c i t o r )

the above entitled cause has been placed upon the Trial Calendar in accordance with the

provisions of the First Equity Rule, and the same will stand for hearing on Demurrer

when reached in due course on the said calendar.

HENRY J. RIPPERGER,

Clerk Circuit Court

A-40055 (18)

To the Honorable the Judge of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City:

The plaintiff in this case respectfully shows unto your Honor: THAT he desires to examine orally, in open Court and in the presence of your Honor,

certain witnesses who can testify to the facts and matters relevant to the allegations in the Bill of Complaint filed in this case.

Your petitioner therefore prays your Honor to pass an order, according to the Statutes for such case made and provided.

And as in duty bound will ever pray.

Solicitor for Plaintiff.

Upon the foregoing Petition and Application it is this ... £ 2 1 day of teZb a . d . vk9.... ., Ordered that the petitioner have leave to take testi

mony as prayed and that the testimony to be offered be taken as required by the 560th Rule of this Court. And it is further Ordered that a copy of this petition and order be served on the

fl. fooss {jo.

3 M S-BO 3 2 1 3 4 ®

I 0 J -i* fL i t r Circuit Court of Baltimore City n.*fjc&sfe.. ^.^pf^t^.xr^^* FLOOR f, ROOM tt* COURT HOUSE

' /^K&^f... Term, 19.<a.fc

YOM arejhfreby summonedfo attend this Court, on t^}^..^y^tv^if>r^^.....the Cff. day of

.19&Qat 10:00 o'clock A.M., to testify for j&^A«£«&&STt&!!>^^

VS.

in the abwe named case, and to attend said Court daily until duly discharged. By order of the Court,

. J / * JOSEPH C. DEEGAN, Sheriff of Baltimore City Issued ousjLSts. (Bring this summons with you.) mWBe punctual in attendance or you will be attached. Deputy No

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and Next Friend

Plaintiff

v. STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al

Defendants

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY MARYLAND

File No. A-40055 Docket A-142 Assignment No. 1140-A

SUBPOENA MR. CLERK:

Please issue subpoenas commanding the following witnesses to appear before the Honorable Charles J. Moylan in Room 1 3 4 ,

Court House, on Monday, June 6 , i 9 6 0 , at 10 A. M. to testify on behalf of the Defendants:

1. Mr. Raymond L. Manella, Chief Division of Training Schools

C> State Department of Public Welfare State Office Building Baltimore 1, Maryland

2. Dr. Alvin Thalheimer, Chairman State Board of Public Welfare American Building Baltimore 2, Maryland

3 . AJfrA JLbrtft ifi F^tc/ir/jS i.ryiarjd Training c;choo\,

Marly anid

to oert C. Murphy Spec. Asst. Attorney general Attorney for Defendants

S U M M O N S F O R W I T N E S S

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore City — ^ 7 9 G o

The Sheriff will please summon the following witnesses,

r e t u r n a b l e^^lt^X^^ )^U^ ^ C > / /f(rO at 10 A.M.

RECEIVED SHERIFF fS OFPICE

JIM 2 3 so PH '60" BALTIMORE CITY, MD.

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and Next Friend

Plaintiff

v. STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al

Defendants

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY MARYLAND

File No. A-40055 Docket A-142 Assignment No. 1140-A

SUBPOENA MR. CLERKj

Please issue subpoenas commanding the following witnes to appear before the Honorable Charles J. Moylan in Room 134, Court House, on Monday, June 6, i960, at 10 A. M. to testify on behalf of the Defendants:

1. Mri. Raymond L. Manella, CliJLef Division of Training Schools/ State Department of Public Welfare State Office Building \T v Baltimore 1, Maryland

ILA 2. Dr. Alvln Thalhelmer, Chairman

State Board of Public Welfare American Building j V Baltimore 2, Maryland

3. Mr. Elbert L, Fletcher, Superintendent Maryland Training .ichool for Boys Cub Hill, Maryland

K o o e r t ; 0 . Murphy" - -

Spec. Asst. Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

S l I M M O W S F O R W I T N E S S -/4*f

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore City^


returnable L / 9 < » o at 10 A.M.

Jtecfived. ^LZ ~ 19.f£?at \ ^JL~Cm. forthwith delivered tq Sheriff of Baltimore County W alter J. Has tuns sen, Clerk

G I L B E R T G.. M-HrMfe

SUMMONS FOR WITNESS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY

Docket A-142

F i l e No.A-400 55

The S h e r i f f w i l l p l e a s e summon the

f o l l o w i n g w i t n e s s e s , r e t u r n a b l e Monday June 6 B I960 Room 134

a t 10 A.M.

1 . Raymond Mane11a Chief D i v i s i o n of T r a i n i n g S c h o o l s * * * S t a t e Department of P u b l i c Welfare / >01 W. P r e s t o n S t r e e t / B a l t i m o r e , Maryland /

\ I 2 . MR, DAVID L . CURRANZ

Greenridge Forres try ' Camp f o r Boys F i n s t o h e . Md. 301 W\ Pres ton Street Balt imore 1 , Maryland

3 . J . MARTIN POLAND) Superintendent Maryland C h i l d r e n ' s Center 3J1 .V. Pres ton S t r e e t 5200 W. Bland B l v d . Balt imore 1 , Maryland

FL4TCH_, R

mt Mary lane

4« MR . iu . L . Superintendent Tra in ing Schc^ol 301 W. Preston S t r e e t Balt imore 1/ Maryland

5. MR. ANDREW MftSON SupervisDr/ of S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n / * * * S t a t e Dept . of Educat/ion 301 W. Pyres ton S t r e e t Bal t imore 1, Maryland

6« MR. jflUAARD MURVliY Afro-American Newspapers B a l t i / n o r e , Maryland

7 . PR7. SANFORD V. L , , Chairman Advisor Committee o f / j u v e n i l e Delique^ncy Welsh Library***Johns Hopkins H o s p i t a l \ L900 E . Monument

i l t i m o r e , Maryland V

I IA H) 0 GL 111'i A N j 713 N. Eden S t r e e t \> Balt imore 5> Maryland-'

9 . DR. PcTKS LEGION C/0 Dept. of S o c i o l o g y Univeriity of Md. 7009 Wake F o r r e s t Drive C o l l e g e Park, Md*

to testify for plaintiff in the case of R O B E R T M Y E R S , Minor by MME C O L E M A N , his Mother and next Friend A-142 VS

S T A T E BOARD O F P U B L I C . .EL-FARE et al. .

Clerk of Circuit Court of Baltimore, City

S U M M O N S F O R W I T N E S S

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore City /?(»o


returnable at 10 A.M.

. •

: RECEIVED

CIRCUIT tOURT FOR ^PTONCK GEORGE'S COUNTY, Mft)


Plaintiff

V.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al.,

Def endents

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT '

FOR BALTIMORE CITY

MARYLAND

Docket A-142

File No. A-40055

SUBPOENA 3ZCUS TECUM

Mr, Clark:

Please issue a Subpoena Decus Tecum to Dr. Alvin Thalheiner Chairman of the State Board of Public Walfare, American Oil Building, directing him to produce all-minutes of the Board of the Department of Public Welfare, -.11 plans and proposals for integrating the Training Schools of Maryland, and especially the Ten-year Plan which he has in his possession or reasonable power to acquire, and bring said records to 134 Court-house to Judge Charles E Maylan at 10:00 A.M. on Monday June 6, I960,

TUUKEK tt. D U R I N G 627 Aisquith Street PEabody 2-6651

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Circuit Court of Baltimore City FLOOR f, ROQlVr«T^COURT HOJ^SE

Term. 19

y^k, ^..adtiik....(£&.

You are hereby summoned to attend this Court, on..

19L£^at 10:00 o'clock A. M., to testify for.. in4he aaove named case, and to attend said Court daily until duly discharged.

" B y order of the Court, ^ ^ JOSEPH C. DEEGAN, Sheriff of Baltimore City

.Issued 'Be punctual in attendance or you will be attached.

(Bring this summons with you.) Deputy No

3 M 8-59 3 2 1 3 4

Circuit Court of Baltimore City

19..^ Z^..r....£...

FLOOR/l, ROQM^E^COURT HOUS

w i n .

You are hereby^ summC/ed to attend this Court, on..

• i ^ O , at 10:00 o'clock A. M., to testify for in the alrffename<L case, and to attend said Court daily until duly discharged.

By order of the Court, JOSEPH C. DEEGAN, Sheriff of Baltimore City

Issued (Bring this summons with you.)

"Be punctual in attendance or you will be attached. Deputy No....^.^Cj. kj..i.Q...Q...

7^ LTj, t r

3M B.8B 3 2 1 5 4 @ ^jfiXA^^i X^J^cZJ^ 2^ f \Mrd^^

P/7 ^ ' ' j ^ v Circuit Court of Baltimore City FLOOR ROOM^#T^Cj0URT H4HJSE

, y / \ - mf^ta*^ „„.{Mhmi^/l^^ Mr

summ You ar^hereby Summoned, to attend this Court, on , r

tLr.wCffa.t 10:00 o'clock A. M., to testify for, in the aboyrfnamed case, and to attend said Court daily until duly discharged.

, By order of the Court, fy^2) £ * JOSEPH C. DEEGAN, Sheriff of Baltimore City

Issued "Be punctual in attendance or you will be attached

(Bring this summons with you.) Deputy No..,

3M »-S» 7*21 S4 tgfflfa ® /

/ r /J) I Circuit Court of Baltimore City ..* A./...< .././../.,:..L/...(.^.C.t/L [ FLO O R 4, R O O M 417, C O U R T H0USI5

Y / . ••••••••••••••••X>«M<|t***C**WST*«/«* T^Iaikf 19.•••••••

, .OwXX...>^ .C '"L .; y»^A Mr..jLl,..L.. .^.L.Cr.C.USW. ^^/^^...^..^../l..C.}...A.,k...V...V..L

You are hereby summoned to/attend this Court, on ...F/...£\.JU.£.W X&I(.... day of

,,^j/-..L>..U.y..L...19^Xat 10:00 o'clock A. M., to testify f<*..C*.^...../sd.i.}.\. C.L^.C.Lt. '.Li... in the abovp named case, and to attend said Court daily until duly discharged. /

By order of the Court, - S JOSEPH C. DEEGAN, Sheriff of Baltimore City

Issued L^..^.....^!.y..l*....^.. (Bring this summons with you.) WTBe punctual in attendance or you will be attached. Deputy No ^L«-.I.


Plaintiff

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ;

FOR BALTIMORE CITY

MARYLAND

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defend en ts

Docket A -142

File No. A -40055

SUBPOENA DEC US TECUM

Mr. Clark: Please issue a Subpoena Decus Tecum to Dr. Alvin

Thalheiner Chairman of the State Board of Public Welfare, American Oil Building, directing him to produce all minutes of the Board of the Department of Public Welfare, all plans and proposals for integrating the Training Schools of Maryland, and especially the Ten-year Plan which he has in his possession or reasonable power to acquire, and bring said records to 134 Court-house to Judge Charles E Maylan at 1 0 : 0 0 A.M. on Monday June 6 , I 9 6 0 ,

.'UCKER R. BEARING 627 Aisquith Street PEabody 2 - 6 6 5 1

Attorney for the Plaintiff

SUMMONS FOR WITNESS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY

Docket A-142

Fi l e No, A- QO55

The Sher i f f w i l l p lease summon the

fol lowing w i t n e s s e s , returnable Monday June 6 , I960 Room 134

at 10 A.M.

/o

lO

/0

1. Raymond Mane11a Chief D i v i s i o n of Training Schools ' -^State Department of Public Welfare

y 301 W.jPreston Street Baltimore, Maryland

2. MR, DAVID L. CURRAN Greenridge Forrestry Camp for Boys * * * Finstone , Md.

/ 301 W. Preston Street Baltimore 1, Maryland

3. J . MARTIN POLAND Superintendent'Maryland Children's Center

* 301 W. Preston Street 52 00 W. Bland Blvd. Baltimore 1, Maryland

4 . MR. E. L. FLETCHER Superintendent Maryland j/f^-

/ "\ Training School Ji/r \Ly 301 W. Preston Stree t / ¥ v Baltimore 1, Maryland

5. MR. ANDREW MASON Supervisor jof Special

)7\ Education ***State Dept. n/ I\J of Education /jf

/ . 301 W. Preston Stree t Baltimore 1 , Maryland

fAi* MR. HOWARD MURPHY ynJpf IIJ Afro-American Newspapers /^jf * • Balt imore, Maryland /

7. DR. SANFORD V. LOCKEY f Chairman Advisor Committee,,/ of Juvenile Deliquency Yjj Welsh Libra ry*##Johns Hopkins Hospital ////I

' 1900 E. Monument L j 9 \ Baltimore, Maryland

8. MAS COLEMAN • 713 N. Eden Street /J/

£y Baltimore 5 , Maryland /^f

9 k DR. PETER LEGION ^ C / € L ^ e P t . of Sociology University of Md. 7009 Wake Forrest Drive Col lege Park, Md,

to testify for plaintiff in the case of ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and next Friend A-U2 VS

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE et al.,

Clerk of Circuit Court of Baltimore.

returnable

S U M M O N S F O R W I T N E S S ff —

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore City


4 Q at 10 A.M.

to testify for

in the case of

_vs.

Clerk of Cirg

'QH 'Al!3 3H0! '

35. Hd cs c E *T 30IJJ0 S.JJ1U3H<

•

o

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and next Friend

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

Plaintiff v. Docket A-I4.2

File No. A-lj.0055 STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al,

Defendants

Tucker R. Dearing and Juanita Jackson Mitchell, with whom were Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg on the brief, for the Plaintiff. Robert C. Murphy, Special Assistant Attorney General, with whom was C. Ferdinand Sybert on the brief, for the Defendants. Moylan, J.

The Plaintiff, Robert Eugene Myers, a 13-year old Negro boy, was on October 2^, 1°5>9 before the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, on an ex parte Petition. He was alleged to be delinquent as a result of stealing merchandise from two Baltimore stores. After the testimony, that Court adjudged the plaintiff to be delinquent and announced that the boy, on probation at the time for previous thefts, would be committed to a training school.

Counsel for Robert Myers thereupon made a motion that the boy be sent to Maryland Training School for Boys, contending that Boys' Village is a racially segregated school, and that State statutes requiring radially segregated schools In Maryland violate both the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses of the ll th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Court continued the case for further hearing on the constitutional question raised, invited the State Department of Public Welfare, the Attorney General of the

O P I N I O N

State, and the public training schools of the state to intervene as Interested parties to file briefs and to appear at a further hearing to be scheduled for the taking of testimony and the arguments on the constitutional question. The delinquent boy was sent on an Order of Detention to Boys' Village where he has remained since October 28, l c 59,

a period of eight months.

Before the scheduled re-hearing, the plaintiff filed in this Court the present proceeding, a class action in which he asks for a Declaratory Decree on the constitutional issue raised.

By stipulation, the parties agree that the physical and other tangible factors and facilities in these four State training schools are substantially equal.

The parties agree that a real controversy exists, that all proper parties are included, and that tMs case presents the sole question: Is racial segregation in the State's training schools per se a violation of the due process or the equal rights clause (or both) of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution?

Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1°57 Edition, relate to the State's four public schools for delinquent minors: - Boys' Village, Maryland Training School for Boys, Montrose School for Girls, and Barrett School for Girls. These Sections provide that these schools are public agencies for "the care and reformation of minors committed thereto under the laws of this State," and further provide that the Maryland Training School shall be for white male minors, Boys' Village for colored male minors, Montrose School for white female minors, and Barrett School for colored female minors.

In Brown et al v. Board of Education et al, 3I4.7 U. S. I4.P3, 7k S . C. 6P6, the Supreme Court of the United States on Nay 1 7 , 195lf declared the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, and in its Opinion after the rehearing on implementation on May 31, 1955 (3lj-9 tT. S. 29k, 75 S. C. 753)

said:

"All provisions of federal, state or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle."

The controversy in this case revolves around the question: Are Maryland's public training schools a part of the State's public education system? Are they within or beyond the orbit of the Supreme Court decisions in the School Segregation Cases, and in later related cases involving other types of public facilitiesyall of which are now the supreme law of the land?

In Brown et al v. Board of Education, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States stated:

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms .... , %

« We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate

- k -educational facilities are Inherently-unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

One contention of counsel for those named herein as parties defendant is that the Supreme Court in the School Segregation Cases was dealing with conventional elementary schools whose pupils return home daily at the close of each school day, whereas the youths committed to training schools must remain not only during the normal school day but night and day throughout the terms of their commitments. As a result, he contends that desegregation of the trainin-schools could have the effect of enforcing social as well as educational association among the two races for twenty-four hours a day. The Supreme Court, itself, in a series of cases following the Brown cases, in which similar efforts were made to limit the scope and impact of that decision, summarily rejected these contentions as untenable, declaring that the fundamental and sweeping constitutional principle it had enunciated on May 17, 195U» applies to all levels of public education, - to public residential schools as well as to day schools. The Board of Trustees of University of North Carolina et al v. Leroy Benjamin Frazier, et al, 76 S. Ct. lj.67.

The possibility of social as well as educational contacts between the races is precisely the same at a public training school as at a State College, State University, or any other public residential school - except that these other schools are co-educational and Maryland's training schools are not.

5 7

A second argument of Counsel for the Defendants is that the State's training schools having been set up "for the care and reformation of delinquent minors," -and education being a part, but only a part, of the process of rehabilitating their young wards - these public training schools are something less than full-fledged schools, and do not fall within the scope of the term "public education" in the sense that such term was used by the Supreme Court in School Segregation Cases. This contention, the Court feels, is without merit.

The public education system of Maryland, In its wide and comprehensive scope, embraces many types of schools with diversified curricula and facilities. It includes not only the hundreds of public schools of the usual or orthodox pattern where the students commute to their homes after the usual school day, but also includes a chain of specialized residential schools where the students live at the school campus twenty-four hours a day, - such as the State University five State Teachers Colleges and the Maryland School for the Deaf at Frederick (where the ages of the students range from 6 to 18 years). In all of these, following the Supreme Court's rulings in the School Segregation Cases, desegregation is already either a fait accompli or is in the planning stage.

The broad term "Public Education" encomnasses not only the conventional schools, but hundreds of schools provided by the State at public expense for special groups with varying aptitudes, abilities, handicaps and problems.

Public Education includes in Baltimore City, for instance, the Baer School for the Physically Handicapped, an engineering preparatory school (Baltimore Polytechnic Institute), the Homewood Demonstration School on the Hopkins

- 6 -

campus for academically talented children, the Montebello Public School with its accelerated courses for the gifted students, several vocational high schools, numerous ungraded classes, shop centers, and occupational classes for slow-learning and feebleminded children. All of these schools are as much an integral part of a public educational system nowadays as the more typical neighborhood school; the lockstep curriculum for all students is a thing of the past.

The Baltimore City public school system Includes, of course ,the Bragg School for Boys and the Highwood School at Catonsville (both maintained and operated by the Baltimore City Public Schools although located in Baltimore County), where boys exhibiting flagrant anti-social behavior, personality distortions and emotional quirks are sent to be rehabilitated before they are returned by school authorities to their former classrooms.

These two Baltimore City public schools are set up exclusively for these problem boys who are not educable in the more routine classrooms until their anti-social attitudes are re-formed and their hostility to all authority replaced by socially acceptable behavior. These two public schools, both correctional in nature, have enrolled in past years hundreds of emotionally unstable students who have formally been adjudged delinquent by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, placed on Probation and assigned by school authorities to these schools after full collaboration and exchange of opinion by the Court staff and school authorities. The fact that they have been adjudged delinquent and are forced to attend, both by our compulsory education statute and by the joint decisions of Court and school officials, in no wise alters the basic identity and character of these schools as schools.

s?

The use of social case work, psychology, psychiatry, vocational training and character-building recreation as auxiliary tools by the training school in its over-all program of rehabilitative education parallels their widespread use throughout Maryland's system of public education. In the Baltimore City public school system there are 116 counsellors, 20 visiting teachers, a director of social work and 5l social workers, 2 psychiatrists, 12 psychologists and a clinical specialist. Grouped together in the Division for Special Services, they diagnose the problems of hundreds of maladjusted students with anti-social behavior patterns. The use of these important adjuncts and tools have become standard practice in all schools, including our public training schools. They do not transform either into some other type of institution.

Public Bducation is designed for all children in our communities, - the normal child, the gifted child, the slow learner, the emotionally unstable, and the delinquent youth. Nothing In the differing curricula or specialized educational techniques employed in any of these various types of schools emasculates them as educational institutions or strips them of their essential identity as schools set up by the State or Municipal Governments at public expense.

The per capita cost to Maryland taxpayers of educating each of the approximately one thousand boys and girls in the four State training schools is $2,800 per annum. The per caoita cost of maintaining the inmates in our prisons is approx imately a third of that sum. It costs far more to secure experienced educators and trained teachers than prison guards and turnkeys. These figures reflect the true educational character of the training schools. Maintained by the State at public expense, they are an integral part of its system of public education.

- 8 -

(ol

The Supreme Court in the Brown cases, in defining the importance of public education, could hardly have more specifically included the public training school than by including among the basic aims of educating a youth "helping him to adjust normally to his environment" and laying "the very foundation good citizenship." This is precisely the vernacular of training school administrators.

In decisions following closely on the heels of the School Segregation Cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that the far-reaching constitutional principles announced on May 17, 195U are not limited to segregated public schools but must be held to apply to public facilities totally unrelated to public education.

In Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 350 U. S. R77» the Supreme Court, under the principle announced in the School Segregation Cases, affirmed the District Court for the lj.th Circuit in holding that segregation of the races in public recreational facilities (a public bathing beach), even though separate facilities available to both white and Negro races were entirely equal, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Federal District Court had held that segregation could not be justified as a means to preserve the public peace as no proper governmental objective existed In the classification and segregation of the races in such facilities, saying:

if that power (State's police power) cannot be invoked to sustain racial segregation in the schools, where attendance is compulsory and racial friction may be apprehended from the enforced commingling of the races, it cannot be sustained with respect to public beach and bath house facilities, use of which is entirely optional."

In Gayle et al, v. Browder et al, 77 S. Ct. 1L|.5> the Supreme Court in a Per Curiam Order, citing in support its previous decisions in the School Segregation Cases , affirmed on November 13th, 19^6 a federal district court which had held that state statutes requiring separation of the races on buses and other city transit lines in Montgomery, Alabama are unconstitutional.

It could hardly be plausibly maintained that the rationale of the School Segregation Cases, and the fundamental constitutional principles decided, do not apply to public training schools - when the Supreme Court itself cites them as controlling in cases involving public facilities totally unrelated to public education, - a public beach and public transportation lines.

The language of the Supreme Court in the Dawson case, supra, and the Gayle v. Prowder case, supra, would seem to provide the complete answer to another contention of Counsel for the Defendants that the already difficult job of rehabilitating delinquent youths would be greatly aggravated by mixing white youths and Negro youths in the training schools. Counsel points out that the General Assembly of Maryland, In enacting the segregation statutes regarding training schoolsj might have had in mind this consideration, which could be considered as a proper governmental objective in separating the races.

In this connection the Court, in reviewing the legislative history of our training schools, finds no evidence in support of such design by the General Assembly or the State Government. The State prisons, where the disciplinary problems are considerably greater, have never been segregated. Following the Supreme Court's decision in the School Segregation Cases, the State desegregated the Rosewood State

Training School for feebleminded children, many of whom have been adjudged as both "feebleminded and delinquent." Within recent years, following enabling statutes enacted by the General Assembly, the State has established the Maryland Children's Center^.(a Detention Home for Study of boy adjudged delinquent by our juvenile courts)J the five State Forestry camps, to which our public training schools send Court-committed delinquent boys for the last-sta^e

of their training program; and the Esther Loring Richards Clinic, to which the State's juvenile courts send delinquent children who have also been adjudged as emotionally disturbed. All of these institutions receive children from the juvenile courts of Maryland - without regard to their race or color. The judge of this Court, in his day to day familiarity with these institutions as the presiding judge of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, knows of no incident or trouble in any of them, disciplinary or otherwise, arising from the fact that they are operating as non-segregated Institutions.

This Court, in a 17-year span of service as Judge of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, has never known^nor read in the public press, of any such troubles arising in any of the public training schools throughout the country, the vast majority of which are non-segregated. The Children's Bureau of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1056

published the results of its Survey of Public Training Schools for Juvenile Delinquents^, (Bulletin # 33)«It reveals (paere 8) that 67 State training schools, even before the

Supreme Court's decision in the Brown case, admitted children of all races. The Survey further reveals that segregation in training schools is the pattern in fourteen Southern states

(o3

- 11 -

(pages 8 and 39), and that non-segregated training schools are the pattern in all but four of the remaining thirty-six states (page 8). Maryland with its four segregated public training schools is one of these four states. Of the several States de-segregating their training school since 195U-> the border States of Missouri and West Virgin! might be mentioned. The National Training School for Boys, and the District of Columbia training school located at Laurel, Maryland, are non-segregated schools.

In assessing the real character and basic function of a training school, an Opinion by Judge Alvey nearly a century ago is in point.

In Roth and Boyle v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329,

decided July 2, 1869, the Court of Appeals,—after holding that the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City acted within the jurisdiction and power it then had in reviewing and overruling a decision of the Baltimore City Court, which had declared that a 12-year old boy had been illegally committed to the Hiuse of Refuge, then a private school which later became the Maryland Training School for Boys,— went on to state by way of dicta^ at Page 33h:

"Inasmuch as a grave constitutional question has been fully discussed, involving the power of a Justice of the Peace to commit, and of the Managers of the House of Refuge to detain minors, charged as and proved to be persons of incorrigible or vicious conduct, so that his or her control is beyond the power of parent, guardian, or next friend, we deem it proper, in view of the great public importance of the subject, to say, , that we are clear in the opinion that the power conferred upon the Justice of the Peace, as also that conferred upon the Managers of the House of Refuge by the 18th section of Art. 7 q , of the Code of Public General Laws, Is in no wise in conflict with the Declaration of Rights, or the Constitution of this State. And that we fully concur in the

- 12 -reason and judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, In disposing of a similar question in the case of Ex parte Crouse, Ij. Whart., 9>«».

"In accordance with the suggestion of Judge Alvey, the following opinion of the Court in Ex parte Crouse, l\. Wharton 11, is appended: PER CURIAM. - "The House of Refuge is not a prison, but a school where reformation, and not punishment is the end; it may indeed be used as a prison for juvenile convicts who would else be committed to a common jail, and in respect to these the constitutionality of the Act which incorporated it, stands clear of controversy. It is only in respect of the application of its discipline to subjects admitted on the order of a Court, a magistrate, or the Managers of the Almshouse, that a doubt is entertained. The object of the charity is reformation, by training Its inmates to industry; by imbuing their minds with principles of morality and religion; by furnishing them with means to earn a living; and above all, by separating them from the corrupting influences of improper associates. To this end, may not the natural parents, when unequal to the task of education, or unworthy of it, be superseded by the parens patriae, or common guardian o^ the c ommun i ty?

"It is to be remembered that the public has a paramount interest in the virtue and knowledge of its members, and that of strict right, the business of education belongs to it. That parents are ordinarily intrusted with it, is because it can seldom be put into better hands; but where they are incompetent or corrupt, what is there to prevent the public from withdrawing their faculties, held as they obviously are, at its' sufferance? The right of parental control is a natural, but not an unalienable onfc

As to abridgment of indefeasible rights by confinement of the person, it is no more than what is borne, to a greater or less extent, in every school;

The . oth case, supra, decided in 1^69, has had a far-reaching impact on juvenile court statutes and the development of training schools as schools. The first juvenile court in the United States was not established until thirty years later and the first juvenile court in Marylsnd not until thirty-three years later (1902).

L>3

- 13 -

(pip

Some of the enabling statutes employ the language verbatim as initially used in the Crouse case and adopted in toto by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Significantly, our Court of Appeals clearly recognized in 1869, when the House of Refuge and other training schools were In their infancy, and the educational courses and facilities provided for the young wards of our courts were comparatively meager and primitive, that nothing in their early status as "reform schools" or in the fact that the youths were committed to these schools by courts stripped the schools of their basic character as educational institutions. No juvenile courts being in existence at the time, the majority of the State's wards in these schools In 1%9

were committed there by the criminal courts of Maryland or by justices of the peace exercising criminal jurisdiction. At present they are sent there by Equity Courts and other civil courts in which they have been tried In noncriminal proceedings. Statutes have specifically removed these juvenile courts and training schools from the orbit of the criminal system. These delinquent youths have no criminal record and lose no civil rights.

In Baker v. State, 205 Md. [4.2, the Court of Appeals held that Boys' Village is a Reformatory within the meaning of our Escape Statute as amended and broadened by the Legislature in 1927 (Acts of 1927 , Chapter 371;) to include, in addition to penal institutions named in the old 1837

statute, "reformatories and any other place of confinement." The Court significantly observed that:

"All along the accent has been on education and training rather than upon punishment."

A careful reading of the language used by the Court of Appeals in the Baker case Is persuasive that the decision was never intended to, and does not, strip the public

- 111. -

training schools of Maryland of their basic character as schools, although the minors committed to them are in a sense restrained of their liberty. The word Reformatory must be placed in the context of the Court's entire Opinion.

"A Reformatory is an institution in which efforts are made either to cultivate the intellect or instruct the conscience or improve the conduct of inmates " Black's Law Dictionary, lj.th Edition (195D.

Reformatory Schools for juvenile offenders was an oft-used term in the English law of several decades ago, and the outmoded and fast disappearing term reform school was frequently used in America in the 1880's and 1890's as the name of early training schools.

The limited sense in which the Court of Appeals in the Baker case, supra, applied the term Reformatory and the alternate connotation oft applied to the term as a penal institution for younger convicted felons are two different things. In 19U5

the State established the Reformatory for Males and the Reformatory for Females as the State's penal institutions for younger convicts. It retained the training schools as schools.

The Court of Appeals in Jones v. House of Reformation, 176 Md. at I4.5, noted that in 1935 "more than I4.OO colored boys were committed to Cheltenham School for Boys (since re-named Boys' Village) by courts of criminal jurisdiction." sits student population in I960 includes only five committed by the State's criminal courts and 391 by the State's juvenile courts (civil courts) in noncriminal proceedings. On June 6, I960, the four State training schools had a total student population of 1,0^6, - 8 sentenced by criminal courts and 1,01;8 (or 99-2/10$) committed to them iar^juvenile courts. *

The very statutes which established the Maryland Training School for Boys, the Cheltenham School for Boys (since renamed Boys' Village), the Montrose School for Girls and the Barrett School for Girls and which refer to them as "public agencies for the care and reformation of the inmates," specifically designated these institutions as schools by name. Any suggestion that a "reform school" or "Reformatory" cannot be at the same time a full-fledged school is clearly a non sequltur.

(s> 7

- IS -In addition, the Maryland Training School for Boys, the Montrose School for Girls and the Barrett School for Girls were by statute specifically made a part of the general educational system of the State.

"The Maryland School for the Deaf, incorporated under the Acts of 1867, Chapter 2I4.7, the Maryland Training School for Boys, organized under the authority of the"Acts of 191H, Chapter 300 (Art. 27, Sees. 707-71 H), and the Montrose School for Girls organized under the authority of the Acts of 1918, Chapter 303, (Art. 27, Sees. 720-728), are each on January 1, 1923 placed In and shall thereafter exercise their functions as parts of the Department of Education. Each of said institutions shall continue under the management of their respective Boards.. under the general supervision of the State Superintendent of Schools." Aoto of 1031*,. Article LlX, Sec. li;2 (Annotated Code of Maryland 1939.). Italics supplied.

Chapter 70 of the Acts of 1°37, which set up Cheltenham School for Boys,did not place it or its Board of Managers under the supervision of any State Department, but within a year (In 1938-39) the State Department of Education, at the request of State officials, made a thorough survey of the educational program of Cheltenham. The State promptly implemented the recommendations of the State Department of Education, provided an enlarged program of education at this

that in school lar patterned after^the other public schools of the State. The Court of Appeals notes in Jones v. House of Reformation, supra, at page h$ that the per capita cost in 1935

of educating boys at the Cheltenham School was $200 per annum. Today the per capita cost is $2,^00, an increase of ll|00$.

The proof Is overwhelming that the State established these public training schools as schools. They are a part of the State's public education system. The Supreme Court's decision in the School Segregation Cases, supra, are therefore controlling.

In the century-old legislative history of the State's private training schools and public training schools which succeeded them, several milestone dates mark sweeping changes, all of which gave tremendous impact and momentum to their evolution from primitive schools to fully equipped, modern schools, with full staffs of trained, accredited school teachers: -

Ao A « % o f thm O t a t r t l A M M M | ( Choptor 3 6 7 , Law* o f 19M)

o « t » b l i « b o « « * * o r r U n d T r * l o l a § Softool f o r : o t o n 6 o t r h

U i a o o r o - o a o o * B t m i t Softool f o r o i v l o ) " i f • p o r t o f %ko

o f WdoJu-tTou."

- 16 -

(of

1869 The Maryland Court of Appeals spoke out in Roth v. House of Refuge, supra.

1902 First juvenile court in Maryland established, -three years after the first juvenile court in the United States was set up in Cook County, Illinois.

194.3 New juvenile court law in Maryland for Bait'more City enacted an Equity Court succeeded old Magistrate's Court with jurisdiction in juvenile causes.

194.5 Statewide law (several counties exempted themselves) reintroduced juvenile courts at the Circuit Court level.

19l|. p State training schools were placed in 191+J r , ,QC-1 under newly created Bureau of Child Welfare Oode,lVi> of the State Department of Public Welfare,Art.88A,Ann.

. . In 194.8, Division of Training Schools was A created within this Bureau. The transfer of supervision to this Bureau from the Department of Education reflected no step backward in the status of training schools as schools. The Report of the Governor's Maryland Commission on Juvenile Delinquency and its sweeping recommendations resulted in this and other statutory changes. The reasons urged for this change were logical. The State Department of Public Welfare already had a backlog of successful experience in its broad child welfare program embracing dependent and neglected children committed to it by juvenile courts. Fear was expressed that in the Department of Education's vast and complicated programs for 300*000 Maryland school children, the comparative handful of court-committed delinquents (less than 1,000 per annum) could well become a "stepchild" and be overlooked. The change in State policy has accelerated the educational program of the training schools, teachers salaries have doubled, appropriations for needed facilities have sky-rocketed and modern school buildings have multiplied.

194-5 Reformatory for Males of 16 to 26 years (a penal institution) established. The resulting change in the make-up of the training school populations, with the siphoning off of hundreds of young criminal offenders, formerly committed to the training schools, has been a genuine metamorphosis. It has lessened old problems and tensions, lowered the average age and the size of the classes, and advanced the progress of these institutions as schools for younger, more tractable children.

- 17 -

The case of Nichols v. McGee, 169 P Supp. 721, (appeal dismissed, 361 U. S. 6) in which segregation in state£Ca£») prisons is upheld, is^rejected as wholly Inapplicable. That

•

case dealt with a state prison and not a school. There is simply no more resemblance between a training school and a prison than there is between delicate brain surgery and an ax murder. The Court in the Nichols case fully recognized this fact when it stated:

"The Brown case rationale cannot be extended to State penal institutions, where inmates and their control, pose difficulties not found in educational systems."

Counsel for the Defendants contends as an alternative proposition that a public training school, if neither strictly prison nor school, is at least a hyphenated or hybrid institution combining features of both, and therefore the Supreme Court's decisions in the School Segregation Cases are not relevant.

Plaintiff's Exhibit # 3, prepared by the Superintendent of the Maryland Training School for Boys, provides concrete and convincing evidence that our four training schools are basically schools, anr1 not custody-centered Institutions, with education secondary. The well-balanced, over-all educational program at the Maryland Training School is not an academic facade, - and it is substantially equal to the instruction and courses provided at the other three State training schools, as the parties have stipulated.

Even the training schools' responsibility for custody Is discharged, and the number of runaways kept within control, by keeping the youths usefully at work in the well-rounded and diversified educational program provided in the classrooms, the vocational workshops, the dormitories and cottages and on the campus. As Raymond Manella,

10

- 18 -Director of the Bureau of Training Schools of the Department of Public Welfare testified, our training schools are "neither maximum security nor minimum security institutions. They have an open program." None of the routine paraphernalia of the prison - - - locked doors, cell blocks, prison guards, and fences surrounding the institutions topped by barbed wire - - - is present. The Courts, representing the State as parens patriae in performing the parental role imposed by the juvenile statutes, do not send their young wards there to be placed in cold storage, but to be educated and trained in good citizenship. The purpose of such statutes is "preventive and not punitive."

Respect for authority and for the personal and property rights of others, conforming to socially acceptable standards of behavior, good work and study habits, and the importance of re-forming anti-social traits and respecting all laws are emphasized in all phases of, and are an ingrained part of, the well-rounded training school program, curricular and extra-curricular, just as they are in all schools. In this fashion the Schools rehabilitate and re-form the delinquent youth and safeguard society from his recidivism at the same time. Courses in Civics, Good Citizenship^ and Problems in Democratic Living are taught in the classrooms. Training school youths are taught to "play by the rules" in the school gymnasiums, cottage game rooms and on the athletic fields. They are taught how to get along with other people in their cottages, under the supervision and instruction of trained cottage personnel. All of these activities are component, coordinated and complementary parts of the unified school program, and are not to be thought of as competing and separate objectives of a training school. Without the School and Its educational program, the institution could be likened to the play without Hamlet.

II

The program at the Maryland Training School for Boys (Plaintiff's Exhibit # 3 ) , substantially equal to that of the other three state training schools, is carried on in three schools:

1. The Junior School with grades for the primary group (P, 9,,10 and 11 yearls old) and through the ninth grade for boys 12, 13 and

•

li; years old; 2. The Senior School; and 3. The Junior-Senior High School with grades

up to the 12th. The curriculum includes algebra, geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, physics, world history, United States history, Problems of Democratic Living, and Civics.

The school day runs from P:30 a. m. to 12:00 noon, and from 1:00 p. m. to I4.:30 p. m. Vocational shops are: automobile, machine shop, printing and carpentry.

The training school curriculum Is so closely patterned after that in other public schools that a child, committed on December 6th or on March 2nd, for instance, can enroll in and keep up with his regular class, and when his scholastic grades and credits are earned, can usually return to his former school in his neighborhood for the opening of the fall semester, or even in mid-semester, without academic difficulty.

The public records of every juvenile court in Maryland contain additional convincing proof that our State training schools are bona fide schools. Court records reveal that even the responsibility for custody is met by means of the Schools' coordinated educational program. The vast majority of

- 2 0 -

73

children at our training schools are there on indeterminate commitments. The length of stay at the institution (the average is about eight months) is determined by the boys and girls themselves in passing their school work and earning their academic grades. Detailed and informative Progress Reports are sent regularly to the committing judge at the close of each of two Semesters, just as report cards are sent to parents periodically by other schools. Not only do the youths in our public training schools visit their homes for a week at Christmas, and for several weeks during the summer vacation, but as a reward for good school progress and obedience to school rules of conduct, are allowed periodically to visit their homes for week-ends. This has been going on for more than ten years in Maryland, and the negligible number of boys and girls who fail to return (and have to be called for) at the end of their home visits is much smaller than the number who escaped in the old days when these schools, to prevent escapes, used the austere and repressive methods associated with standard prison life.

Counsel for the Defendants argues In his Brief that the equal rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment could hardly apply to youths in a training school because:

"It is hardly a fundamental civil right of a citizen as a member of society to have himself Incarcerated in one of the State's correctional training institutions; nor is it a civil right for one so incarcerated to dictate the terms under which he may be rehabilitated. The purpose of his confinement is the antithesis of freedom and liberty, and while we may not view the juvenile offender as a criminal in the classic sense, it is clear that he is removed from society for the protection of society, and restrained of his liberty until such time as his fledgling criminal and

4

- 21 -antisocial tendencies can be checked and remedied by institutional confinement."

In considering this contention, the Court reaches several conclusions:

1. The child committed to a training school loses no civil rights. A citizen may have no fundamental civil right to be confined in a public correctional school but the Court has no right to abridge the minor's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process at every staee of the Court proceeding Including the Court's selection of a training school. • 2. The word incarcerat»0J^defined in stanrJfl^ri

dictionaries as imprisonment, is derived from the French root word career which means prison. It is incorrectlv app"MfiH t-.r. training schools.

3. Although the court-committed youth cannot dictate to the judge the institution to which he is to be sent, the proper legal question or

# Constitutional criterion is, - Can the juvenile court judge, in selecting the institution, systematically exclude all Negro delinquents from the Montrose School for Girls and the Maryland Training School for Roys, and systematically exclude all white delinquents from the Barrett School for Girls and Boys' Village? The corollary to that question is this: Can the Maryland statutes which require the juvenile court judges to do that very thing be upheld as constitutional in the face of the decision

- 22 -

IS

of the Supreme Court of the United States in Boiling y. Sharp, 3I4.7 U. S. I4 .Q7, that such denial of a youth's right to attend a non-segregated school is per se a deprivation of his liberty without due process of law?

If, arguendo, the Courts should hold that the Supreme Court's decisions in the S chool Segregation Cases do not apply to training schools and that Maryland statutes requiring segregation in them do not violate the Equal Rights Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, -these segregation statutes do nevertheless violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Boiling v. Sharp, supra, segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia was held to be in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. The Court there said:

"We have this day held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. The legal problem In the District of Columbia is somewhat different, however. The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the laws" is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than "due process of law," and therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process 1

"Although the Court has not assumed to define 'liberty' with any great precision, that term Is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct wMch the individual is free to pursue

- 23 -

and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective. Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.

"In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. We hold that racial segregation In the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."

The rationale of the Supreme Court Opinion in Boiling v. Sharp, supra, would apply much more forcibly to the present case than it did to the District of Columbia case. The District student's loss of liberty without due process of law lay solely in the denial of his right, the Supreme Court decided, to attend a non-segregated school while living in his home and community. In this case, the Court Commitment, coupled with the Maryland segregation statutes, not only requires his forced attendance in a segregated school against his will, but during several months of forced detention he experiences, in addition, an actual loss of his liberty in the conventional sense.

When a citizen's constitutional rights are abridged he goes to the Courts for redress and for enforcement of those rights. The Courts in their own proceedings are hardly under less obligation to observe the constitutional right to due process of all parties before the Court than a District of Columbia School Board or other administrative agency in pupil assignments.

For the reasons set forth, the Court holds that those parts of the statutes (Sections 657 and 6 5 9 - 6 6 1 of Article 2 7 , Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition) which require separation of the two races (Negro and white) in the four State training schools violate both the Equal Rights and the DuftProcess Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore unconstitutional.

An Order will be entered in conformity with this Opinion.

77

ROBERT MYERS, MINOR BY MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and Next Friend


Plaintiff OF

STATE BOSRD OP PUBLIC WELFARE, ET AL.

V. BALTIMORE CITY Docket A-142 -File # A-40055

Defendants

DECLARATORY DECREE

This matter having come on for hearing in open Court, testimony having been taken, counsel for the parties having been heard, briefs submitted on their behalf having been considered and an opinion of the Court having been heretofore

of Baltimore City, ADJUDGED, ORDERED, DECLARED AND DECREED that Maryland's Public Training Schools are a part of the public education system of the State of Maryland,

AND IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED, DECLARED AND DECREED, that sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland establish racially segregated Training Schools in the State of Maryland.

AND IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED, DECLARED AND DECREED that those parts of Sections 657 and 65^-661 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition, which require separation of the Negro and white races in the four Training Schools violate both the equal rights and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore unconstitutional.

filed, it is this day of July, 1960, by the Circuit Court

AND IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED, DECLARED AND DECREED that the $^ftati&& Court Mfflgj0 cannot select a Training School to which a minor is to be committed on the basis of the minor's race or color.

AND IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED, DECLARED AND DECREED that the Defendants and each of them, their agents and successors in office,be, and they are hereby, forever and permanently enjoined and restrained from denying to the Plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely on account of race and color, commitment, admission and transfer- to any Training School established, operated and maintained by the State of Maryland.

1960

qA

7 ?

ROBERT MYERS, MINOR BY MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and Next Friend

Plaintiff v. STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, B S » BOARD OP MANAGERS OF BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC. BOARD OP MANAGERS OF BOYS VILLAGE, INC. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL, INC.

Defendants


OF BALTIMORE CITY Docket A-142 — File #A-40055

APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

HENRY J. RIPPERGER, CLERK MR. CLERK:

Please enter an appeal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland on behalf of the Defendants in the above entitled case.

Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the aforegoing order

for appeal was served upon Tucker Dearing, Esq., 627 Aisquith Street, Baltimore 2, Maryland and Juanita Jackson Mitchell, Attorney, 1239 Druid Hill Avenue, Baltimore 17, Maryland, Attorney^ for Plaintiffs, this 7 day of July, i960.

Robert C. Murphy // Assistant Attorne^-

go L (loots (

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and Next Friend,

Plaintiff

v. STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOYS VILLAGE, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL, INC.,

Defendants

PETITION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR TRANSMITTING RECORD ' TO COURT OF APPEALS

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: The State Board of Public Welfare, et al., by C. Ferdinand

Sybert, Attorney General, and Robert C. Murphy, Special Assistant Attorney General, their attorneys, respectfully represent:

1. That an appeal was entered to the Court of Appeals on July 7, i960, by your Petitioners in the above proceeding.

2. That the Court Reporter has advised your Petitioners that he is unable to complete a stenographic transcript of the testimony taken at the trial and necessary for Inclusion in the record on appeal before August 2, i960.

3. That, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 825 aj of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, the record on appeal must be transmitted to the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after the first Order for Appeal is filed.

4. That because of the aforementioned inability of the Court Reporter to complete the stenographic transcript before August 2, i960, and because the Clerk of the lower court must thereafter properly assemble the record, it is doubtful that the same can be transmitted to the Court of Appeals within the said thirty (30) day period. I

CIRCUIT COURT OF

BALTIMORE CITY Docket A-142 "

File #A-40055

5. That by the provisions of Rule 825 b. of the Marylane Rules, an extension of time to transmit the record, not exceeding ninety (90) days after the first Order for Appeal is filed may be granted by the lower court upon application of any party and for sufficient cause shown.

(6) That your Petitioners therefore apply for an extension of time for transmitting the record to the Court of Appeals up to and including August 31, i960.

Asst. Attorney General U Attorneys for State Board of Public Welfare, et al., Defendants

(2)

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and Next Friend,

Plaintiff v.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOYS VILLAGE, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL, INC.,

Defendants.


OF BALTIMORE CITY Docket A-142 File #A-40055

O R D E R

UPON the foregoing Petition, it is ORDERED this £ 9 " day of , i960, by

the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, that i£he time for transmittin the record on appeal in the above entitled case to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, be extended to and including August 31, i960.

S3

S T E N O G R A P H I C T R A N S C R I P T

ROBERT MYERS, Minor, by MAE COLEMAN, his mother and next friend, : In the Circuit Court of

Baltimore City vs. :

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC A-40055 WELFARE et al. : A-142 -</$V

I960

0O0

BEFORE JUDGE CHARLES E. MOYLAN

June 6, i960.

0 0 5 b

REPORTED BY: C H A R L E S G. C A V E Y

C O U R T AND G E N E R A L R E P O R T E R

I O O I M A R Y L A N D T R U S T B U I L D I N G

BALTIMORE.2, MD.

TELEPHONE LEXINGTON 9 - 2 4 5 9

MOHAWK A - 9 9 8 4

WITNESS INDEX

Name of Witness : Direct Cross

Mae Coleman 4 9

Dr. Alvin Thalheimer . . . . 56

Raymond Manella. . . . . . . 7 8 9 ^

(By Defendants). . 108

J. Martin Poland 100 106

Elbert L. Fletcher . . . . . 131 138

OPINION. 144

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number

Plaintiff's 1

2-A

2-B

2-C

2-D

Def.Ex. 1

Description of exhibit

Pile in action in Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, Docket 65544

Letter of Oct. 21,1955 from W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., to Attorney General

Letter of Jan. 11 , 1956 from Attorney General to Mr. Kemp

Letter of June 24, 1957 from Mr. Waxter to Attorney General

Letter of Sept. 10, 1959 from Attorney General to Mr. Waxter

Statement of Information on Educational Program at Maryland Training School for Boys

Educational Program at Boys Village, Montrose School for Girls and Barrett School for Girls

Ten-Year Plan submitted by State Department of Welfare to State Planning Commission Pamphlet "Characteristics of 860 Committed Children in the Maryland Training Schools on Januaryh 1, i960

Page

5

5

7

26

28

37

49

70

110

ROBERT MYERS, Minor, by MAE COLEMAN, his mother and next friend,

Plaintiff,

vs.


Dr. Alvin Thalheimer, Chairman

Mr. Calhoun Bond

Mrs. Ralph 0. Dulany

Mr. Sam Eig

Gen. Henry C. Evans

Dr. Sanford V. Larkey

Mr. Howard H. Murphy

Mr. Herbert 0"Conor, Jr.

Mrs. John L. Sanford

Board Members

and

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC.

and Miss Anita R, Williams, Acting President

Mrs. Annie Spencer

Dr. U. G. Bourne, Jr.

In the Circuit Court of I

Baltimore City !

A-40055 A-142 I960

Mrs. Bertha Winston

Rev. P, J. Prye

Mrs. Bernard Harris

Mr. Theodore W. Kess

Mrs. Lillian A. Lottier

Mrs. Charlotte Mebane

Board Members

and

THE BOARD OP MANAGERS OP BOYS' VILLAGE, INC.

Dr. William R, Henry, Jr., President

Leonard W. Curlin

Mrs. Violet Hill White

Mr. Charles E. Cornish

Dr. Robert G. McGuire

W. Carles Mosley

Joseph H. Neal

Garrett D. Rawlings

Clarence Anthony

Board Members

and

i! THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF I MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL, INC. t

i Ralph L. Thomaa, President

j Mrs. Dorothy Falconer

ji Paul E. Tignor

i Dr. Earle T. Hawkins

! James J. Lacy, Jr. i| I Dr. J. Morris Reese il l! • :| Mr. Lawrason Riggs of J. ii >i • • • • ;i Lester S. Levy i| J Stuart Berger ;| Board Members

i! . • a n d ' ' •'! THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF •I MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, INC. i -i

!i and

Wallace Reidt, President

ij Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Jr. j Mrs. Harold Donne11 ii ' .

Mrs. James H. Ferguson i

i Dr. James Earp Mrs. Frank A. Kaufman

i I

Mrs. Lewis H. Rumford, II : i

Mrs. Herman Moser : I Board Members I

BEFORE JUDGE CHARLES E. MOYLAN !

! Baltimore, Maryland

June 6, I960. !

1

The above-entitled cause came on for hearing before!

Judge Charles E. Moylan on June 6, i960, beginning at 10:15

a. m. j • i

_; i

Appearances: {

Juanita Jackson Mitchell and Tucker R. Bearing j for the plaintiff. i

1

Robert C. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General of ]

the State of Maryland, for the defendants. • j 1

THE COURT: Are counsel ready?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor. MR. BEARING: Your Honor, I just put on the Bench

T

the brief we submitted. I have given the Attorney General's j

Office a copy.

MRS. MITCHELL: May it please the Court, at this

time, by agreement of the State, we wish to stipulate and

enter into the record as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 the file | i

of the action in the Juvenile Court of Baltimore City begin- j i

ning as of October 7, 1959, Docket No. 655^4, in the matter j

of Robert Myers, Minor, 13 years of age, and further, may j

it please the Court, by agreement of counsel for the State, j

we wish to stipulate at this time as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-A j

a copy of a letter dated October 21, 1955 addressed to the \

Honorable C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of Maryland,

from Mr. W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Chairman of the State Board of ]

Public Welfare. !

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-A

"Hon. C. Ferdinand Sybert Attorney General of Maryland 1201 Mathieson Building Baltimore 2, Maryland

"Dear General Sybert:

"Under Section 32 of Article 8 8 A of the Annotated

Code of Maryland, the Maryland Training School for Boys, the

Montrose School for Girls, Boys' Village of Maryland, and the i

Barrett School for Girls exercise their corporate functions j

under the supervision, direction and control of the State

Department of Public Welfare. |

Two of the schools are for the care of boys and !

two for girls, one of each for white and one of each for i i

Negro. (Sections ? 4 2 to 7 4 8 , inclusive, of Article 27 of the !

Annotated Code of Maryland.) The school for Negro girls : 1 I

(Barrett School for Girls) is an expensive operation because

of the small number of children in custody at any one time. I

The State Department of public Welfare has recommended to

the State Planning Commission that the Montrose School for i

Girls be enlarged to permit caring for both white and Negro j

girls, provided any necessary legislation authorizing this be |

enacted. The girls at Barrett School for Girls would be I

transferred to Montrose, and Barrett would be either closed J

or used for some other purpose. This recommendation was '

predicated on the belief that substantial savings to the

State would result therefrom.

"Caring for Negro girls at Montrose rather than

at Barrett raises the question as to what, if any, effect the ;

recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in the I

i

public school cases, have with respect to the Maryland State | . i

training schools. Specifically, do the Supreme Court cases '•

invalidate the Maryland statutory requirement that the

Montrose School for Girls limit its care to white girls duly j

committed to the School under the laws of Maryland? j

"Your opinion on these questions would be helpful |

to the State Department of Public Welfare and to the training; t

schools in planning for the future. '

"Respectfully jours, j

"W. Thomas Kemp, Jr.,Chairman | "State Board of Public Welfare!

. i "WTK,Jr.:P I

• • . i

"cc: Mr. Murphy

"cc: Mr. Hunt." |

MRS. MITCHELL: And as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-B a

letter addressed to W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Chairman of the Board

of Public Welfare under date of January 1 1 , 1956 from

C Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, and Norman P. Ramsey,

Deputy Attorney General.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-B

January 1 1 , 1956

'\ "W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. ! Chairman - Board of Public Welfare ! 120 West Redwood Street il Baltimore 1, Maryland

i "Dear Mr. Kemp: 1 ' i] "You state in your recent letter that the State | j !! Department of Public Welfare has recommended to the State ii' i Planning Commission that Montrose School for Girls, which :i • ' •i

at present cares for white girls, be enlarged to permit care

j of both white and Negro girls. The Board of Welfare proposes

to have the girls at Barrett School, which at present cares

j for colored girls, transferred to Montrose, so that Barrett \ . • •

will be available for some other use. In the event Barrett l ' . . .

:i is not required for otherDepartment of Public Welfare use, :j it would be closed. You state that in the opinion of the

Department, substantial savings will result to the State from -i • " •

this consolidation of the two schools.

, "You have inquired whether the legislative

designation of these institutions as schools for white and 'i • • . • • '

j colored girls prevents such a consolidation, in light of the

9 !

i I

decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the public

education cases. Specifically, you inquire whether the

Supreme Court decisions have the effect of invalidating the

Maryland statutory provisions which confine Montrose School

to the care of white girls and Barrett to the care of colored ;

girls. Since the training schools for boys are likewise set

up on a segregated basis your inquiry, although directed to ',

the girls' schools, is of general applicability. 1

"The statutory provisions with respect to the

various Houses of Reformation in the State of Maryland are j

found in Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951

Ed. and 1955 Supp.). The particular institutions under the

Department of Public Welfare are: Boys Village (for colored

boys), Maryland Training School (for white boys), Montrose

School (for white girls), and Barrett School (for colored j I

girls). Section 7^3.of Article 27 (1955 Supp.) deals with !

Boys Village and reads as follows:

"'There shall be established in the State an

institution to be known as the Boys' Village of Maryland.

Said institution Is hereby declared to be a public agency

of said State for the care and reformation of colored

10 I

male minors committed or transferred to its care under |

the laws of this State. The appointment and powers of i

the board of managers of said institution shall be

governed by article 88A, as 32 to 35* both inclusive, j

of the Code.' (Emphasis supplied.)

"Maryland Training School for Boys is dealt with in j

Section 7 4 6 , which reads, in part, as follows: j i

"'From and after the acquisition by the State of

Maryland from the Maryland School for Boys, a corporationj

of this State, of the property heretofore held, conductedj

and managed by said corporation as a reformatory insti- 1

tution for the care and training of white male minors

committed thereto under the provisions of the laws of | I

this State, the same shall continue under the name of I

the Maryland Training School for Boys to be conducted as j

a public agency of this State for the care and reforma- J

tlon of white male minors now committed thereto, and who |

may hereafter be committed thereto under the laws of

this State. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)

"Montrose School for Girls is treated in Section !

7 4 7 , which reads as follows:

' i l l • _ . _ I.

" ' P r o m a n d a f t e r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n b y t h e S t a t e o f ! M a r y l a n d o f t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e M a r y l a n d I n d u s t r i a l j

t

S c h o o l f o r G i r l s t h e s a m e s h a l l c o n t i n u e a s a r e f o r m a t o r y ^ u n d e r t h e n a m e o f t h e M o n t r o s e S c h o o l f o r G i r l s t o b e j c o n d u c t e d a s a p u b l i c a g e n c y o f t h i s S t a t e f o r t h e c a r e !

a n d r e f o r m a t i o n o f w h i t e f e m a l e m i n o r s n o w c o m m i t t e d t h e r e t o , a n d w h o m a y h e r e a f t e r b e c o m m i t t e d t h e r e t o ! u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h i s S t a t e . T h e a p p o i n t m e n t a n d j p o w e r s o f t h e b o a r d o f m a n a g e r s o f s a i d i n s t i t u t i o n j

i • ' I j

S h a l l b e g o v e r n e d b y a r t i c l e 8 8 A , § § 3 2 t o 3 5 , b o t h ; i n c l u s i v e , o f t h e C o d e . 1 ( E m p h a s i s s u p p l i e d . ) J

" B a r r e t t S c h o o l f o r G i r l s i s c o v e r e d b y S e c t i o n | 7 4 8 , w h i c h r e a d s , i n p a r t , a s f o l l o w s : !

" ' T h e r e s h a l l b e e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s S t a t e , a n j I n s t i t u t i o n t o b e k n o w n a s t h e B a r r e t t S c h o o l f o r G i r l s , i

• . !

T h e s a i d i n s t i t u t i o n i s h e r e b y d e c l a r e d t o b e a p u b l i c i a g e n c y o f t h i s S t a t e f o r t h e c a r e a n d r e f o r m a t i o n o f c o l o r e d f e m a l e m i n o r s c o m m i t t e d o r t r a n s f e r r e d t o i t s c a r e u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h i s S t a t e . * * * • ( E m p h a s i s s u p p l i e d . ) ,

" E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s e s t a t u t e s s h o w s t h a t i n e a c h

instance the Code Specifies whether colored or white are to j i

be received by the institutions. ] j

"By the provisions of Article 88A of the Annotated: •

Code of Maryland ( 1 9 5 1 Ed.), Sections 3 and 3 2 , supervision, '; . • I direction and control of the institutions above mentioned |

are committed to the Department of Public Welfare. j

"The history and legal effect of the decisions of J

the Supreme Court in the Public Education cases were oon- | ! i

sidered in our opinion of June 2 0 , 1 9 5 5 , addressed to i

Dr. Thomas G. PUllen, Jr., State Superintendent of Schools. |

We held in that opinion that all constitutional and legisla- i

tive provisions of this State which require segregation in th^ " i

public schools are unconstitutional, and hence must be j

treated as nullities. We stated that the law laid down by !

the Supreme Court with respect to public education Is clear, !

and that differences of mechanics of relief did not in any |

way limit the present existing legal compulsion on the school

authorities to make a 'prompt and.reasonable' start toward

the ultimate elimination of racial discrimination in public education.

"Since the General Assembly specified in the

13

statutes creating the various training schools whether white

or colored are to be there received, your present inquiry

raises the issue of the constitutional validity of each of

the several Acts of the General Assembly. Before proceeding

to a detailed consideration of the problem posed, some state

ment of the basic principles which must guide our actions in

the matter seems appropriate.

"The fundamental concept upon which the Federal

Government and that of the States of the United States is

based is that our State and Federal Governments depend for

their existence upon the will of the people expressed through

Constitutions duly adopted. The basic theory of our State

and Federal Constitutions is that the powers given by the

people to the governing body break down into a tripartite

.division. The three coequal branches, executive, legislative

and judicial, serve the people, and are themselves restrained

from despotic or arbitrary exercise of power by the internal

system of checks and balances. This principle is so well

established as to require little discussion.

"The judicial branch of the Government of the

United States and of the State of Maryland is, under our

1

. • I F

' I

14

.' " I

system, the Interpreter of the Federal and State Constitutions)

The existence in the judiciary of this important power and ! • - , i

I

duty is one of the most vital of the internal system of checks; • !

and balances protecting our people against the arbitrary-

exercise of executive or legislative authority. The landmark |

decision of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (U.S.) 137, 2 L.Ed.

60, stands as a monument to the judicial recognition of this

vital principle. Inherent in the power to interpret the

Constitution of the United States and the various States,

which is vested in the judiciary, is the power to pass on the

constitutional validity of laws passed by the legislative

branch of the Government.

"It would be contrary to the theory of our

government to permit the Executive Department to arrogate to

itself this purely judicial power. Attempts to invade this

exclusively judicial power have been resisted by the courts

in the ;ast. This is as it should be. Even the theory that

the executive's oath to support the Constitution entitles

such an officer to decide questions of the constitutional

validity of statutes passed by the legislative branch has

been rejected. 11 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, Section 87,

15 I I

pp. 712-713; 11 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, Section 205, J

P. 907. |

"As a corollary to the exclusive right of the 1

judiciary to determine constitutional questions, and im order!

properly to protect the Legislature and its prerogatives as

against executive action nullifying legislative will, we j

indulge in the presumption that every law found on the statute;

books is constitutional until declared otherwise by the courts:.

"The Maryland Constitution expressly recognizes j

the doctrine of separation of powers in Article 8 of the ;

Declaration of Rights, which provides: '

"'That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial J • •. ' i

powers of Government ought to be forever separate and j l

distinct from each other; and no person exercising the

functions of one of said Departments shall assume or

discharge the duties of any other.' ,

Substantially this same provision has been found in our

Constitution since the earliest days of Maryland. Unlike the

Federal Constitution, where separation of powers must be

found by reading the entire document, Maryland has always so

provided. Niles on Maryland Constitutional Law, at p. 19,

I

16

in commenting on this provision, made the following statement:

"'The language of our Maryland Declaration of

Rights * * * is clear and explicit; and our courts have

been alert to oppose even the first steps toward

usurpation by one department of the powers or duties of

either of the others * * * . ' ' ' j

"Our Maryland view was clearly laid down by Judge J

!

Earle in the case of Crane v. Meglnnis, 1 G. & J. 463, i

decided in 1829, where the court made the following comment:

"'The Constitution of this State composed of the

Declaration of Rights, and Pom of Government, is the

immediate work of the people in their sovereign capacity,

and contains standing evidences of their permanent will.

It portions out supreme power, and assigns it to different

departments, prescribing to each the authority it may

exercise, and specifying that, from the exercise of which

it must abstain. * * * When they transcend defined

limits their acts are unauthorized, and being without

warrant, are necessarily to be viewed as nullities.'

The court then went on to point out that the judicial power

of the court to interpret the Constitution is the check upon

legislative excess or legislative encroachment upon the

rights of citizens or of coequal branches.

"The office of Attorney General is created by

Article V of the Constitution, Sections 1 through 6. The

Attorney General is head of the Department of Law, one of

the executive and administrative departments of this State.

Article 41, Sections 2 and 171, Annotated Code of Maryland.

By Article 32A, Sections 1 through 12, the general powers

and duties of the Attorney General are set out.

"The place of the Attorney General in the

constitutional structure of our State is such that this

office must be circumspect that, as an arm of the executive,

it does not encroach upon duties and prerogatives of the

judicial or legislative departments. Chancellor Bland, in

The Chancellor's Case, 1 Bland 595* 672, pointed out the

obligation of the various departments one to another, when

he said:

"'The Declaration of Rights declares "that the

legislative, executive, and Judicial powers of govern

ment ought to be forever separate and distinct from

each other." This division and separation is the

18 I

peculiar characteristic and great excellence of our

government. It is the grand bullwark of all our rights, j

and every citizen has the deepest interest in its most

sacred preservation. Each of these several departments

should be kept, and should feel it to be its highest

honor, to keep strictly within the constitutional

boundaries assigned to it. The Legislature should not

encroach upon the judiciary, nor upon the executive,

nor should either of those departments trench upon each

other or upon the legislative.1

"Historically, the Attorneys General of Maryland

have observed the injunction not to encroach upon judicial

or legislative prerogatives. In the exercise of the Attorneyj • • . I

General's duty to act as advisor to the Governor, this office 1

i

has rendered opinions to the Governor as to the constitutional

validity of Acts pending for signature before the Governor. i

20 Opinions of the Attorney General, 268; 7 Opinions of the

Attorney General, 239; 21 Opinions of the Attorney General,

272; 36 Opinions of the Attorney General, 129; 38 Opinions of

the Attorney General, 150. Other opinions may be cited and ,

the list here contained is not intended to be exhaustive.

19 :

I I

As to existing laws, however, after passage by the Legislature, I

the Attorney General should exercise care to observe the j

division of powers. This office must scrupulously avoid

invasion of the judiciary's powers and duties. We will • i

always seek to give just and proper effect to every decision !

of the courts of this State and of the Supreme Court of the

United States on constitutional matters. However, we are I

constrained to denounce an existing law as violative of I

State or Federal constitutional guaranties only in those \

situations where a fair interpretation of a court decision •

indicates a challenged law is constitutionally invalid. In

the absence of clear indication that a decision of our courts

or of the Supreme Court of the United States covers and •

invalidates a given statute, we must, under our constitutional

restraints, withhold condemnation of the law. i

"The inquiry then must be whether this is such a j

case. In our opinion, it is not a clear case within any

decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the courts

of this State, such as would warrant our expressing a view

of the invalidity of the training school laws unless the

matter be resolved by proper action of our judiciary or our

Legislature. It is not our function to make policy in this •

field.

"The unique position occupied by the training

schools here under discussion is evident from the fact that

they are primarily Intended as places to separate erring

minors from the corrupting influence of improper circumstances

I and associates. Basically, the State is removing the in

dividuals there confined from society for the protection and

welfare of the individual. The theory that every minor

should receive education as part of the process of 'reform' I i

introduces the element of doubt. But for this aspect of i

training schools, they would be purely correctional.

"Very many of the past discussions of training j

schools, folnd in the reported Maryland cases and in the j

opinions of the Attorneys General, indicate the nature of j i

the problem. For example, in an opinion of Attorney General j

j Robinson, reported in 9 Opinions of the Attorney General, l68,|

in discussing the Maryland Training School for Boys, the

Attorney General said:

"'As its name and position among the State Depart

ments would seem to imply, the Maryland Training School

21

for Boys was intended for the education ofmale minors

along economical and practical lines.'

In the same opinion, Attorney General Robinson made the

following comment:

" r * * * it (the Maryland Training School) was

established primarily for the care and reformation of

such white male minors, who, through misfortune,

environment or the effects of crime, are, in the opinion j

of the Justices of the Peace or Courts of the State or \

County, better off within its walls.' (Emphasis supplied.!)

Again, at page 170, the Attorney General commented: !

"'I realize that your institution was not intended |

to be a place of punishment. It was organized as a place

of reformation.' (Emphasis supplied.) i

"The Court of Appeals, in Baker v. State, 205 Md. j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j

4 2 , had before it the question of whether the Escape provisions

of the criminal law (Article 2 7 , Section 1 6 4 , 1 9 5 1 Ed. of

the Code) applied to Boys Village. The appellants contended

Boys Village was not within the criminal law Escape statute.

Judge Henderson, at page 4 5 , said: "'The appellants further contend that Boys Village

22

is not a "reformatory * * * or other place of confine

ment" within the meaning of Section 164. This argument

overlooks the fact that the statute creating Boys Villagej

states that it is a place for "care and reformation".1

"The Court held that Boys Village was a 'reforma

tory • within the meaning of the statute.

"Further lack of clarity is indicated by the fact

that the statutes creating the institutions in question are

codified in Article 27 of Our Code. This Article is, of course,

the criminal law Article. However, for many years, these j • i

institutions exercised their powers under the supervision of i

the State Superintendent of Schools; the instructors have been)

included in the Teachers Retirement System, and they have to

a degree been considered 'educational institutions'. They

have not, however, in our opinion been included within the

term 'public education' in the sense that that term has been

used in the Supreme Court opinions.

"As heretofore set out, one of the ways In which

the various institutions seeks to reform the inmates is by

education. However, the distinguishing characteristic of

such institutions, to our mind, is that inmates are there

2 3 !

i under legal compulsion and are denied the privilege of leaving

the school. The inmates are, in other words, confined to j

these institutions. This is a situation different from that j

which was before the Supreme Court in the Public School cases,!

in that educational equality was the problem before the court.'

Here, desegregation of the institution, contrary to express !

legislative intent evidenced by the statutes creating the ;

institutions, could have the effect of enforcing social as |

well as educational association among the inmates for twenty- ; . I

I

four hours a day. . j

"We are aware that compulsory school attendance

laws may make it obligatory upon parents who wish their

children to attend the public schools to accept and abide

by a system of public education from which racial discrimina-p i

tion has been eliminated, consistent with our opinion of j

June 2 0 , 1 9 5 5 , interpreting the application of the Supreme j

Court decisions to the Maryland public education scene. We

believe it is important, however, to consider the freedom of

choice which inheres in parents under our compulsory school

attendance law. Section 2 2 3 of Article 7 7 of the Code (Public

Education Article), provides, in part as follows:

24

"'Every child residing in Baltimore City and in

any county in the State between 7 and 16 years of age

shall attend some day school regularly as defined in

Section 226 of this Article * * * unless it can be shown

that the child is elsewhere receiving regularly

thorough instruction during said period in the studies

usually taught in said public schools to children of

the same age * * *.1 (Emphasis supplied.)

"It will be noted that parents are free to

demonstrate that a child is receiving regular instruction in

private schools. This retains the necessary element of

freedom of choice In the field of public education and is

consistent with the social views of the citizens of the State

of Maryland that the elimination of discrimination in the

fields of public action should not carry over into and destroy, i

the historic view of our people that separation of the races j

in social matters is the accepted norm and has been the j I

established policy and practice through the years. See

Williams v. Zimmerman, 172 Md. 563, 567, 192 A. 353, 355.

"One further point is worthy of mention. Basically

the argument in the public education cases turned on the issue

25

of whether to retain or reject the 'separate but equal'

doctrine laid down in,Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537,

4l L. Ed. 256. We are not aware of any instance in which

the doctrine of 'separate but equal1 has been applied to the

field of correctional institutions such as those here under

discussion. Even though the effect of the public education

cases is to abolish the doctrine in all fields to which it

was heretofore applicable (which has been questioned), we do

not believe it can be fairly said the effect would be carried

over into still other fields of activity never heretofore

included within the doctrine.

"Judge Hammond, while Attorney General, had occa

sion to write an extended opinion on the constitutional

validity of a personal property tax on 'stock in business'.

37 Opinions of the Attorney General 424 at 439. After he

had concluded that the courts of our State would probably

hold the Act valid and constitutional, even though he had

some doubt in his mind as to its constitutional validity,

he made the following comment, which we believe exactly

appropriate in the instant case:

"1 * # * our doubts are not so strong as to

i

warrant this office taking the extraordinary action of

advising the State Tax Commission to ignore an Act of

the General Assembly.' I

In our opinion, the present case is not such a clear one as to1

warrant our taking the 'extraordinary action' of advising j i

i your Department to ignore the express will of the Legislature.:

•' • i "Very truly yours, \ "s/ C. Ferdinand Sybert I Attorney General t

I i "s/ Norman P. Ramsey i Deputy Attorney General. j

CFS:MH NPR" '

MRS. MITCHELL: A letter addressed to Thomas J. S. j

Waxter, Director, State Department of Public Welfare, under j

date of June 24, 1957, signed by Clayton A. Dietrich, Assistant ' • I

Attorney General, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-C. j

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2-C "June 24, 1957

"Hon. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director State Dept. of Public Welfare 120 W. Redwood Street Baltimore 1, Md.

i

26 i

27

"Dear Judge Waxter:

"This will acknowledge your letter to this office

dated June 21, 1957, stating that you have received informal

advice from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City for Juvenile

Causes that they expected petitions to be filed requesting

that a colored delinquent be sent to a training school

designated for white.

"After receiving your telephone advice on Friday

afternoon to this effect, I conferred with Mr. McDermott

concerning the suggested procedure of having the Department

intervene on a voluntary basis. I told Mr. McDermott that I

did not think it was proper for us to enter the proceeding as

volunteers. He tended to agree with me and suggested that I

confer with Judge Moylan.

"I conferred with Judge Moylan and Mr. McDermott

this morning in chambers. After advising Judge Moylan that

I had serious doubts as to the propriety and jurisdiction

of the court in the matter, I suggested that in any event

the movants be required to file a formal petition, and that

the Department and the school be joined as respondents under

a show cause order. In light of the importance of the ques-

28

tion and the constitutional problem Involved, I do not believe! • • i

that the matter can be handled in the somewhat summary and

informal manner I originally contemplated. Judge Moylan has

the matter under advisement and is aware of the fact that I

will be out of town the balance of the week.

"I shall keep you advised of developments.

"Very truly yours, "s/ Clayton A. Dietrich Asst. Attorney General.

CAD.MH1

•-I

MRS. MITCHELL: And as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-D

a copy of a letter under date of September 10, 1959 addressed I • ' ' • ' i

to Mr. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director, State Department of j

Public Welfare, signed by C.Perdinant Sybert, Attorney General

and Robert C. Murphy, Special Assistant Attorney General.

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2-D

"September 10, 1959

"Mr. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director State Department of Public Welfare State Office Building 301 West Preston Street Baltimore 1, Maryland

"Dear Mr. Waxter: I i i

"Receipt is acknowledged of your recent letter j

requesting our present view as to the constitutionality of

' Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code of I . • •. . • • I

Maryland (1957 Edition). I j • 1 "These statutes relate to the State training schooljs,

namely, Boys' Village, Maryland Training School, Montrose j 1

• 1 1 School, and Barrett School, and provide that such institutions

are public agencies for the care and reformation of minors 1 j

committed thereto under the laws of this State. The statutes J

further provide that Maryland Training School shall be for i 1

white boys, Boys' Village for colored boys, Montrose School

for white girls, and Barrett School for colored girls. . j

"The precise constitutional issue presented in |

your letter is whether the legislative mandate requiring !

operation of Maryland's training schools on a recially seg- j

regated basis violates the equal protection clause of the ! • • i

Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. "By opinion dated January 1 1 , 1956 (41 Opinions '

1 1

of the Attorney General 120) we considered this same question i in light of judicial decisions as that time, particularly the ,

1.

!

j

decision of the Supreme Court of. the United States in Brown

v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 493 (1952*), holding segre- j

gation of children in public schools solely on the basis of }

race to be unconstitutional. We there held, in pertinent j

substance, that a presumption of constitutionality attaches |

to each act of the Legislature and that the Office of Attorney i

General, as an arm of the executive branch of our government, j

was constrained to denounce an existing law as violative of j

state or federal constitutional guarantees only in those

situations where a fair interpretation of a court decision

indicates that a challenged law Is constitutionally invalid.

We then noted that the training schools were primarily in- ' i

tended as places to separate erring minors from the corrupting

influence of improper circumstances and associates and that \

these institutions were both legislatively and judically J

declared to be reformatories. While we fully recognized that'

education was a part of the process of reforming the individuals

committed to the training schools, and that to a degree the

institutions have been considered as educational institutions,

it was our view that they did not fall within the purview of ;

• !

the terra 'public education' in the sense that such term was

t

|i • ' •

i . 31

Ii i| used by the Supreme Court in the Brown case. Specifically,

we said: 1... the distinguishing characteristic of such insti

tutions (training schools), to our mind, is that inmates

jj are there under legal compulsion and are denied the

ji privilege of leaving the school. The inmates are, in ii i ii other words, confined to these institutions. This is a

Situation different from that which was before the

Supreme Court in the Public School cases, in that

educational equality was the problem before the court.

Here, desegregation of the institution, contrary to

express legislative intent evidenced by the statutes

creating the institutions, could have the effect of

enforcing social as well as educational association

among the inmates for twenty-four hours a day.'

• 'One further point is worthy of mention. Basically

j; the argument in the public education cases turned on the' '; '

!| issue of whether to retain or reject the 'separate but ! i! . . . . . i

equal' doctrine laid down in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163

I1 U. S. 537, 41 L. Ed. 256. We are not aware of any

ij instance in which the doctrine of "separate but equal" '1 • •. 1 :| • . 1 ,1 • . • 1

if ' i if • ' • •• '• • •• i

_ . _ • ___ _ ; : ' . _ 32 |

has been applied to the field of correctional institution^ I such as those here under discussion. Even though the |

. • . • i

effect of the public education cases is to abolish the !

doctrine in all fields to which it was heretofore ap- j

plicable (which has been questioned), we do not believe !

it can be fairly said the effect would be carried over

into still other fields of activity never heretofore

included within the doctrine." ! i i

. "We have found nothing in the present law as it j

has developed since our opinion of January 1 1 , 1956, which is j

at variance with our earlier views, and we consequently !

reaffirm the same, restating herein our ultimate conclusion j

in that opinion as follows: j

" 1... the present case is not such a clear one as j

to warrant our taking the extraordinary action of advising

your Department to ignore the express will of the j

Legislature.'

"We think that the opinion of the United States

District Court in Nichols v. McGee, 169 F. Supp. 721 (N. D.,

Calif., 1959) bears sufficient relationship to the present ;

question to include a reference thereto in this opinion. In

3 3

that case the petitioner, an Inmate of a State prison, con- I

tended that his constitutional guarantee of equal protection ' i

! of the law was denied him in that he was required to join an

j exclusively Negro line formation when proceeding to his ! i J

assigned cellblock for daily lockup and to the prison dining j

hall, and that he was required to eat In a walled-off and \

| exclusively Negro compartment in the prison dining hall. He

j contended that such systematic segregation caused him a loss ;

! of self-respect, thereby making it difficult for him to effect!

| the same degree of rehabilitation possible for unsegregated | i • ' ' ' ' ... j | prisoners of other races. He relied principally on Brown v. i i ' ' • • • <

Board of Education, supra. The Court there held: 'By no parity

of reasoning can the rationale of Brown v. Board of Education j

be extended to state penal institutions where the inmates, and!

their control, pose difficulties not found in educational j

systems. Federal courts have long been loath to interfere in j

the administration of state prisons•. " . . i

"Very truly yours, /s/ C. Ferdinand Sybert i C, Ferdinand Sybert Attorney General

/s/ Robert C. Murphy Robert C. Murphy !

CFS Spec. Asst. Attorney General R C M A "

34 I

i

I MRS. MITCHELL: Now, may it please the Court, in !

a brief opening statement, the petitioners in this proceeding !

i

advise you that upon hearing of the petition in the Juvenile !

Court, this Court stated he would commit the boy to a training1

school. i i

At that time, counsel for Robert Myers.entered a i

motion that he be sent to the Maryland Training School, con-i

tending that Boys' Village was a segregated school which i I

violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend- i i

ment of the Constitution of the United States. 1

We will show that the mother of this boy, prior i

to coming to the city of Baltimore, had this boy attend an

! integrated and public school in Baltimore County and wanted j

him to have an integrated rehabilitation training. | i

We will show further that the mother indicated j

that the distance to Boys' Village was prohibitive and that

i her boy, while attending an integrated public school in the

County, had never been in trouble and she felt that his re

habilitation would be more effective under integrated

circumstances.

> Whereupon, the Juvenile Court of Baltimore City

35 | _. •-. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ... ....... _

struck out the Order of Committment and ordered said Robert j

Myers detained at the customary place in the State of MarylandJ

for the detention of Negro boys, Boys' Village, pending filing1

of a brief. ' J

Subsequently, this present proceeding was filed j

in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City and we ask that this ! I

Court so decide that Section 657, 659, 660 and 66l of j

Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1915 Edition

as amended, are unconstitutional in that the legislature

is without authority to promulgate a statute because it is j !

violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution J •

of the United States and, further, that the Court enter a j

declaratory judgment and declare that any rule, policy, r

custom, practice and usage pursuant to which said defendants, ;

indicating the members,of the State Board of Public Welfare

and members of the Boards of the four training schools of j 1

the State of Maryland, or any of them, their lessees, agents i

and successors in office by which they deny the plaintiff

and members of the class he represents committment, admission j

or transfer to any of the schools of reformation operated and maintained by the defendants on account of race and color;,

36 I

! that this contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the united States.

And finally we request that this Court Issue a

I permanent injunction forever restraining the defendants and

each of them, their lessees, agents and successors in office

from denying to the plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely j • • • i

on account of race and color,.committment, admission and I

It transfer to any training School established, operated and { maintained by the State of Maryland. |

There is one further stipulation, may it please

the Court: 1

i I For the purposes of this proceeding, the petitionerj i

and counsel for the State have entered into an agreement to i i ' • j stipulate that the physical facilities in the four training 1

i • j I schools of the State are physically equal. !

i

THE COURT: May I ask counsel if you intend to j

put on any testimony?

MRS. MITCHELL: Yes. i

THE COURT: I am not rushing you but I would like

to know about how much testimony you will have.

MR. DEARING: I am of the opinion that we do not

37 I

• - - - - - - * - - - — • - - . (

need much testimony here. It is just a matter of the ; i

plaintiff testifying and some of the Department of Public j • I

Welfare officials and some of it could possibly be stipulated j • |

as to what they would testify to. If Mr. Murphy is agreeableJ

we could enter into such a stipulation. j

THE COURT: The Court would like to see counsel

in chambers.

(A short recess was taken.)

MRS. MITCHELL: May it please the Court, by agree-j

ment of counsel, we wish to stipulate this document as j

Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 , which is a statement of information !

on the educational program at Maryland Training School for j • • . • • I boys. |

i I

THE COURT: That was prepared by the superinten- I

dent, Mr. Elbert L. Fletcher in the latter months of 1959, J

I think. | I

MR. MURPHY: I see the date 1959 running through |

it. ;

PLAINTIFF'S. EXHIBIT 3

"INFORMATION ON THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AT

3 8 ;

"MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS, 2400_Cub Hill Road, ! , _-_ , , Baltimore 34, Md. !

"ACADEMIC I

"Requirement: - All boys under 16 years of age must atterid

at least a half a day of academic classes. Boys over 16 have}

the opportunity to attend academic classes of they so desire,

"JUNIOR SCHtOL ; i

"Here all boys are in the academic program a full j day. These, are the younger boys who live in the junior !

. • j cottage area. The regular public school curriculum is followed. In addition to content subjects, these boys get three hours per

week of physical education and three hours per week of arts arid

crafts. There are twelve regular classroom teachers, physica-j

education teacher, arts and crafts teacher, and a building I . 1

principal. All are college graduates, some are fully j

certified and licensed by the State of Maryland, while others |

are in the process of getting certified which will require

completing certain required courses in neighboring colleges.

"Boys are placed in classes according to level of 1

reading ability, intelligence quotient, and previous school

experiences as well as physical and social maturity level.

39

Following is the breakdown of classes as of November 1959. '

"Teacher #1 - Primary Group - Grades 1 and 2 — 8, 9, •

10, 11 years old j !

"Teacher #2 - Primary Group - Grades 1, 2, and 3 — ,

12, 13, 14, 15 years olf 1

"Teacher #3 - Third grade — Ages 8, 9, 10, 1 1 , 12 j

"Teacher #4 Fourth grade — Ages 9, 10, 11 , 12 f

"Teacher #5 - Fourth grade — Ages 13, 14, 15 I i

"Teacher #6 - Fifth grade — Ages 10, 11 , 12, immature 13 , 1

"Teacher #7 - Fifth grade — Ages 13, 14, 15, immature 16|

"Teacher #8 - Sixth grade — Ages12, 13, 14, and 15. Less

aggressive. \

"Teacher #9 - Sixth grade — Ages 14, 15, immature 16. ;

More aggressive.

"Teacher #10 - Seventh, eighth, ninth, etc. grades. ]

Generally 13, 14,15, and less mature 16 year olds. j

"Teacher #11 - Physical education for all grade levels.

"Teacher #12 - Arts and crafts for all grade levels.

"The average size of these classes for the Fall of <

1959 is about 15. Some days they are less and other days more,

all according to the population. At this wirting the smallest?

i • . 1

4o j

group is 11 and the largest is 18. However, we have known

these groups to be never less than 18 and as high as 26 and 27

or more.

"The building has ten classrooms, arts and crafts j

shop, administrative offices, staff lounge, staff lavatories, ! ' I

boiler room, medical and general use room, and was completed | ' i

in April, 1957. It is in within easy access of all junior i t

cottages. j . i

"SENIOR SCHOOL

"Here all boys under 16 years of age are in classesj

at least a half day. Boys of 11th and 12th grade levels j i

attend all day. In addition to the content subjects all boys j

get at least three periods of physical education per week. j

All teachers are college graduates and all but two are fully ,

certified, and these two will be certified by June i960. j

Most severely retarded reading cases receive special correctional

instruction. .

"The program is two-fold. Boys from pre-primer

through sixth grade (poor level) remain with the same teacher ;

each day for 3 ? hours, except for physical education periods.

The other half day they are In the vocational and maintenance

41

programs. (( "Teacher #1 - A.M.

Part ( 3rdgrade s. One ( P.M.

( "Teacher #2 - A.M. ( P.M.

— Pre-prlmer, primer, 1st, 2nd and

— Fourth grade.

— Fifth grade. — Sixth grade. (Low level)

Half day academic and half day vocational

"Part two is known as the Junior-Senior High School

section where there are seven groups, each reporting to home

rooms and rotating among five subject specialists, including

physical education.

"Group 1 — Advanced sixth grade

Group 2 — Seventh grade

Group 3 — Eighth grade

Group 4 — Advanced ninth grade

Group 5 — Regular ninth grade

Group 6 — Tenth grade I

Group 7 — Eleventh and Twelfth grades — All day acadenjic "Group 1 Arithmetic History Geography . Language Arts Science Health

Group 2 Arithmetic Civics Geography Language Arts Science Health

Group 3 Arithmetic History Geography Language Arts Science Health

Physical Education Physical Education Physical Education

42

i "Groups 4 and 5 Group 6 Algebra or Gen. Math. Algebra or Gen. Math. Citizenship Biology-Science World History-Health English ;. Language Arts Physical Education I Physical Education

"Group 7 Algebra, Geometry, Trig, or General Math. Chemistry, Physics, or Senior Science U. S. History English Problems of Democratic Living Job Information Physical Education Study Hall

"Teacher #1 - All mathematics areas, study hall, teacher j

aid : "Teacher #2 - Science, health, biology, chemistry, physic^,

problems of democratic living |

"Teacher # 3 - Civics, U. S. and World history, citizen-

ship, job Information, geography, direction in art j

"Teacher #4 - English, reading, spelling, literature, j

study hall.

"Teacher #5 - Physical education (for these groups as

well as the two lower levels mentioned at top of Page 2)

"In addition to these programs there is a part-

time correctional reading teacher who classes are "Teacher

#6 made up of boys from the academic pre-prlmer,

primer, first, second, and third grade group as 1

well as boys in the all-day vocational program. j

Classes are one hour and thirty-five minutes per

day and meet four days per week. ' l

"The average size of classes in the Senior School !

in the Fall of 1959 is about 13 to 14. At this writing the ;

smallest group is 8 and the largest 16. However, we have

known the smallest to be 16 and the largest 28. ' i

"The boys are placed in classes according to

reading level (based on standard achievement test results andj

performance) and public school experiences. As much as

possible we attempt to place them in a group somewhat like j

they would be attending in public school — providing their i

reading ability is equal to average reading level of the j

group. If a. boy from a public school 7th grade reads on a i-

3rd grade level then we place him with the 3rd grade group \

and provide as much correctional and remedial work as possible.

However, if he comes to us from a tenth grade in public school

and can perform on a fairly good tenth grade level then we

place him in such a group, We look at the I.Q. and deoide

whether or not he has the ability to progress in the grade

level group to which we contemplate assigning him. Standard \

achievement tests and intelligence tests are guides for us j

hut not the final determining fector in placement.

"The senior building was first occupied in 1931. ' i

It contains (academically) seven classrooms, rest rooms, and !

administrative suite. Furnishings are fairly new, building hajs

been re-painted several times, and general conditions are

above average for a building 28 years old. We are asking to j

have present ceiling lighting replaced with modern fixtures. | i

Across the corridor in the east wing are recently completed j • , i

library facilities (for which there is no librarian) and i

unusually adequate staff lounge area. "SALARIES

"Teachers I - Five years oor more experience and

college degree $5050 - $6050 '

j

"Teachers II - Less than five years of experience !

and college degree $4040 - $4850

"HOURS

"8:30 A.M. - 12 Noon and 1:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M.

Mondays through Fridays - September 1 through end of June.

All legal holidays observed.

45

J "No provision or assignments for Thanksgiving

j Friday, Christmas-to-New.Years, and Eastern holidays same

as in public school. r[

j "RETURN TO PUBLIC SCHOOL

j "At least thirty days before a boy is to return to

public school we prepare a. 'Training School Educational

Report' form and send it to the Pupil Personnel Supervisor I i

jj in the county where the boy will live. In Baltimore City

'j the form goes to Mrs, Vivian Washington in the Division of ii i Special Services at educational administration on 25th Street,

i • ". • • .

I This form makes recommendations, gives previous school place-

| ment, current family situation, record of achievement and

j intelligence tests, transcript of work done at training

school, scholarship record, interests, attitudes, problems

which may affect school adjustment, and recommendation for

j placement in public school. Also, current date concerning

! physical defects, summary of adjustment, and special help I

lj boy received at training school,

| "Public school authorities, for the most part, l ' ' ' .

| are quite cooperative and follow our recommendations wherever I • ] possible. In the senior high school area credits in the

4 6

various subject areas are recognized and accepted and the boy-

can proceed for the most part without too much loss. Since

we offer nothing in foreign languages, commercial subjects,

and in some other elective areas there is sometimes a little

difficulty in adjusting a program for the boy upon his return

to public high school.

VOCATIONAL

"Currently, our strictly vocational shops are

automobile, machine shop, printing, and carpentry. Vocational!

maintenance units are general repair, sheet metal, farm

building maintenance, dairying, dry cleaning, electricity,

farming, garment repair, foods, laundering, masonry, painting,

plumbing. These are housed in the senior school building or

in outlying buildings. Strictly maintenance are building

sanitation, clothing issue, disposal plant, office messengers,

hospital ward work, power plant, stores, delivery truck,

and grounds maintenance. This program involves only the

senior size boys. Boys over 16 have the privilege of

attending vocational or maintenance programs on an all-day

basis,

"At the present time those boys In automobile,

47

machine, carpentry, printing, general repair, sheet metal,

farm building maintenance, electricity, masonry, and plumbing

attend 'related subjects' classes three hours per week under

the instruction of a certified teacher in this feild. Here

shop history, mathematics, drawing, and spelling related to

the particular trade are stressed. There is a second related

subjects position vacant due to our inability to find a

trained person to fill it. Modern and most adequate class

rooms are available in the east wing of the senior school

building for this instruction.

"Most shop areas have recently been nenovated in

one manner or another. Many are as up-to-date as those in th<

best vocational schools.

"A study Is now under way by the Industrial

Education Department of the University of Maryland to show us

how to improve our vocational program.

"Sizes of shop classes vary according to the trade.

Where the work ismostly of a maintenance nature the groups

are quite small, but where most of the instruction takes

place within the shop or locale of the trade the groups range

from 8 to 12 in size.

4 8

MRS. MITCHELL: And further by agreement of counsel

"Some vocational Instructors have completed, or

are now taking courses toward, certification requirements

as licensed vocational teachers. Those who are licensed work

a thirty-five hour week while the non-licensed are required

to put in a forty hour week. Salaries are as follows :

"Vocational I - $4290-$5150

"Vocational II- $3640-$4370

"The main purposes of the vocational program are

to provide exploratory experiences for boys. They are not at

the training 3chool ong enough to complete a real course of

study or become too proficient even as apprentice-learners.

Assignments are made mostly according to the interests of the

boys. In many cases the psychologist will make definite

recommendations in light of his testing. Some boys do

become fairly proficient in the elementary phases of various

trades and are able to secure post-training school employment

as the result of the training received here.

"Prepared by -

"Elbert L. Fletcher, Supt."

• 49 j

we will stipulate at this time and introduce after the hearingj

a statement of the educational program at the other three j

training schools. Boys' Village, Montrose and Barrett School j

for Girls.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Murphy, I think you said

you will have no opening statement.

MR. MURPHY: No opening statement. !

THE COURT: Proceed with your first witness. j

MR. DEARING: I would like to put on Mrs, Coleman, i

Thereupon

MAE COLEMAN,

a witness produced on behalf of the plaintiff, having first

been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mr. Dearing:

Q Mrs. Coleman, when you were down here on October

29, 1959, do you remember that Judge Moylan indicated that

he was going to send your boy to a training school? Is that

corre ct ?

A Yes, it is.

50 j

jj Q And at that time did you request that he be sent

i to the Maryland Training School? ij

I A Yes, I did.

li lj Q What was your reason for wanting him to go th the ii

jj Maryland Training School at that time instead of Boys'

|j Village?

|| A He had been at Boys' Village before. I thought

jj if he goes to an integrated school, he would have a better

i! chance of rehabilitation because he had been going to school l!

ii with mixed groups.

I show you a.picture here. Can you identify this The colored boy on the right is my son, Robert

j I

I When was that picture taken? j

April 4, 1957. j I

What is shown in the picture? ! An integrated school. !

i

Was that the Integrated school you spoke of? t

This is the public integrated school at Essex, i

ij Maryland. j

Q i i j picture?

i: l| ' A I I ij Myers.

A

Q A

Q

A

51

Q Is that a picture of the class or a picture of the

school group?

A A picture of the class he attended.

MR. DEARING: I would like to have this exhibit

marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 .

•I MR. MURPHY: Do you plan to Introduce this in jl • ' 'j evidence ? l| • jl MR. DEARING: Yes. 'l • ' • !i MR. MURPHY: I object to it. ! ! • .

Ij THE COURT: Mr. Dearing, I am wondering about the ii

|i relevancy of this picture.

MR. DEARING: It only shows that she said her son

was in an elementary school, in an integrated school, and

that this is just a picture of the class where he was in an

integrated school. Your Honor.

THE COURT: I am not too clear about the relevancy

of it but at any rate I will overrule the objection and give

counsel an exception for the. record and admit it in evidence.

It was 1950 what? THE WITNESS: 1957. THE COURT: And it is a class in the Baltimore

52

#2

County Public School?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

By Mr. Dearing:

Q And while your son was there, did he get into any

kind of difficulty?

MR. MURPHY: I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A No.

By Mr. Dearing:

Q When did he leave that school, Mrs. Coleman?

A I think we moved to Baltimore sometime in 1958.

Q Did he have occasion to enter any other school after

that?

A I had him transferred to 116, a school that was

closer to where I lived.

THE COURT: School 116 in Baltimore City?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

By Mr. Dearing:

Q You had him transferred there?

A When we moved from Essex to Baltimore City, I had

him transferred to 116. That is the closest school to where

53

jj he lived. jj Q Robert Myers is your son, is that correct? i' 1 A Yes. ji jj Q What year was it you had him transferred to Balti-

!l more City? il ' • | A Around 1958.

j Q Was that an integrated school or was it a school |j ij that was segregated as a practical matter? MR. MURPHY: I object.

THE COURT: Sustained. I can't see that it matters

Q Was your boy still attending that school when he got

involved in this difficulty?

A 116, yes.

Q Have you had occasion to visit your son in Boys'

Village since he has been there?

A I think I've been there about three times.

Q Is it easy to get out there to Boys' Village?



one way .or another.

By Mr. Dearing:

•

"I

1 T 1

i • ! • •

A I have no way of transportation. • THE COURT: I think I might say the^objection is 1

' • i probably well taken as to the form of the question. It ' • ' i

1 1 seems It Is pretty leading. You might ask how far it is j

1 1 1

•I

and how she gets there. j

1

By Mr. Dearing: j !

1 • 1 Q How far is it to Boys' Village? j 1 I

A It is between 48 miles from the City by Greyhound j i !

bus because you go on 301 and then you have to walk about j i

two and a half miles after you get off the bus. You have j to leave home seven o'clock to get there. 1

j Q Do you know where Maryland Training School is

! located, Mrs. Coleman?

A It is somewhere near Towson. • Q Do you know what distance approximately it is

from Baltimore, Maryland?

A A rough guess, I imagine around ten or twelve milesj • • Q So that it would be more convenient for you to j

visit your son in the Maryland Training School than at Boys1

• Village, is that correct?

•

MR. MURPHY: May I object and state the reason? 1 ! '

I

. , . , . . . . 5 5

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to the

question on form without a reason.

By Mr. Dearing:

Q If your son were in Maryland Training School, would

you be able to visit him as often as you are able to visit

him at Boys' Village?

A I would be able to visit him every visiting day,

Sunday, they have.

Q Do you want your son to go home today?

A I would like to very much because —

Q If your son cannot go home, would you want him

transferred to Maryland Training School where he would be

closer to home?

A If he isn't able to come home, I would rather him.

Q Rather him to be where?

A I would rather for him to be home.

Q Suppose he cannot come home today, do you want-him

transferred to Maryland Training School where it would be

closer to home ?

A I would like for him to be transferred if he cant

come home but I would rather for him to be home.

1

1

56

MR. DEARING: That is all I have.

• MR. MURPHY: No questions. | •

(Witness excused.) :

Thereupon DOCTOR ALVIN THALHEIMER,

• a witness produced on behalf of the petitioner, having first


DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mrs. Mitchell: Q Doctor Thalheimer, what is your position on the

• Board of State Welfare?

A I am Chairman.

Q You were appointed by the Governor of the State to

that position, weren't you? i •

• 1 A Yes.

Q What are the duties of the State Board of Public -

• Welfare? A We are to make policies of the Department. The

Board is the official head of the Welfare Department.

" " ~~~ " • I

; Q Among the duties ofyour Board, is the supervision,

•

57

policyHnaking and program projections of the various four

training schools in the State of Maryland your responsibility''

A Yes.

THE COURT: Mrs. Mitchell, I just mention this in

passing •— the Rosewood Training School, I think, is — the

name is the Rosewood State Training School, so you might say

the four above-mentioned so we will know what you are talking

about because while Rosewood Is under the supervision of the

Board of Hygiene, I think it is the Rosewood Training School

for the Mentally Retarded. There is a fifth State Training

School.

MRS. MITCHELL: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q The four training schools which are mentioned in

these proceedings are under your direct supervision and

control, are they not?

A Yes, they are.

Q You have stated that each has its own Board of

Directors but that yours is the coordinating supervisory

agency, is it not?

A . That's right.

Q There has already been introduced into evidence

58

| Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-A, which is a letter from the Chairman I

! of the State Board of Public Welfare under date of October 2 1 ,

j 1 9 5 5 to the Honorable C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General j

of Maryland. Are you familiar with this?

A I read that letter. I was not on the Board at that !

time. Q The second paragraph of the. letter states the

i following: j

"Two of the schools are for the care of boys and | !

two for girls, one of each for white and one of each for j i

Negro. (Sections 7 4 2 to 7 4 8 , inclusive, of Article 27 of the j Annotated Code of Maryland.) The school for: Negro girls j

I (Barrett School for Girls) is an expensive operation because j

of the small number of children in custody at any one time. J i

The State Department of Public Welfare has recommended to ' i

the State Planning Commission that the Montrose School for j I

Girls be enlarged to permit caring for both white and Negro | I girls, provided any necessary legislation authorizing this j i

be enacted. The girls at Barrett School for Girls would be

transferred to Montrose, and Barrett would be either closed i

or used for some other purpose. This recommendation was j

59

predicated on the belief that substantial savings to the

State would result therefrom.

"Caring for Negro girls at Montrose rather than at

Barrett raises the question as to what, if any, effect the

recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in the

public school cases, have with respect to the Maryland State

training schools. Specifically, do the Supreme Court cases

invalidate the Maryland statutory requirement that the

Montrose School for Girls limit Its care to white girls* duly

committed to the School under the laws of.Maryland?

"Your opinion on these questions would be helpful

to the State Department of Public Welfare and to the training

schools in planning for the future."

You are familiar with the inquiry which was sub

mitted by the Board?

A Yes.

Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-B is the response of the

Attorney General, C. Ferdinand Sybert, under date of January

1 1 , 1956 to Mr. W, Thomas Kemp, Jr., then Chairman of the

Board of Public Welfare, and at that time it was his con

clusion that the recent Supreme Court decision did not apply

60

to the training schools. Is that correct?

A That is correct. He did not say "did not apply".

He said it was not clear enough to warrant" him declaring the

law invalid.

Q Subsequent to that, I show you Plaintiff's Exhibit

2-C, which was in response to a further inquiry to the

Attorney General's Office dated June 24, 1957 and this was

addressed to the Honorable Thomas J. S. Waxter in response

to Judge Waxter's inquiry of June 21, 1957. This reply was

dated June 24, 1957. At that time there was further inquiry

of the Attorney General's Office as to the procedure in

having an adjudication of the matter, was there not?

A That was around the date when there was the

possibility of the case being brought before this Court and

the Department was particularly interested at that time that

the thing should not be handled on an individual basis that

somehow, if that case went to trial, that it have a general

determination.

Q The Attorney General, through Mr. Clayton A.

Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General, in this Plaintiff's

Exhibit 2-C advised the Board that "In any event the movants

61 j J

| be required to file a formal petition, and that the Department

and the school be joined as respondents under a show cause

order. In light of the importance of the question and the

constitutional problem involved, I do not believe that the

matter can be handled in the somewhat summary and informal

manner I originally contemplated."

So far as you know that was the last information

received from the Attorney General's Office?

A The letter we received, yes. I t

Q I show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 2-D, a copy of the

letter addressed to Mr. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director of the

State Department of Public Welfare from C. Ferdinand Sybert,

Attorney General, and Robert C. Murphy, Special Assistant

Attorney General, under date of September 10, 1959 in further

response to an additional inquiry from your Board?

A That is right. Do you want me to explain how that

came about?

Q Would you explain the circumstances under which

this inquiry was made?

A It may have been this present case that was being

thought of at that time and Mr. Dearing and others came to

62

the Board of Public Welfare. We had a hearing for them in which they said —

Q, Would that be in August 1959?

A Probably; that further action was contemplated to

have the Court determine that the law segregating the schools

was unconstitutional and in response to that statement on

thei** part, we said we would make a further inquiry of the

Attorney General to see whether in his opinion there was any-

further change in the opinion of the Attorney General as to

the constitutionality of the statutes.

Q As a result of that inquiry, the Attorney General reaffirmed his former conclusion of January 11 , 1956?

A That's right.

Q And I quote "In our opinion, the present case is

not such a clear one as to warrant our taking the 'extra

ordinary action1 of advising your department to ignore the

express will of the Legislature." Is that correct?

A That Is correct.

Q Doctor Thalheimer, in the administration of the

training schools, will you describe briefly what the purposes

of the training schools are and what the programs are in the

63

training schools?

A When the delinquent boys and girls are placed by

the Courts, they are placed there on indeterminite commit

ments and we have the function of trying to rehabilitate

these boys and girls and permit them to go back into society

as useful members of society.

Q What, if any, educational programs are sponsored in these schools by the State?

A According to State law, everyone under 16 must attend school even when they are in the training schools for delinquency. We have school classes in each of the four training schools so that he or she may continue their education during the period they are there.

Q, What is the emphasis placed on the training school programs of the State? Is it punishment or is it rehabilitation training?

A For rehabilitation. Our function is to rehabilitat these children.

Q At any time have the training schools received any surplus programs from the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare according to your knowledge?

A Do we get any money from it? Yes, we get money

I for the children's program, some of which is used at the i • i schools. 1 am sure that is true.

| Q What is your understanding of the policy of the i

; Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare with ! regard to contributions to persons or correctional Institu-

! tions — T ! MR. MURPHY: I object. I • I THE COURT: I sustain the objection. i

By Mrs. Mitchell: i

i Q Tell us, if you know, approximately how much you

j have received from the United States Department of Health,

i Education and Welfare?

A I wouldn't know very definitely. The general

; program is purely a state program. It is not like an assist-

I ance program where we get 50 percent from the Federal Govern-

I ment. It is under the Department of Public Welfare. The i training schools per se are purely a state program and the

money would come from the services or goes as part of their j

' children's services. I think that is the situation. ;

! Q Are you familiar with the activities of the Maryland^

i

65

Citizens' Advisory Committee to the State Board of Public

Welfare ?

A I don't know it by that name.

Q Do you have a Citizens' Committee to supplement the j

work with the State Department?

A Perhaps a year or two years ago we started the

Sobeloff Committee, a committee of people in the communities

of the State who might help out in considering problems

relating to delinquent children and the committee is still

operating and many of the problems we have are taken up

with that committee at the monthly meetings. Any actions,

of course, by that committee has to be approved by the Court.

Q Approximately how many citizens serve on that

Advisory Committee?

A I would say about twelve.

Q Who is the Chairman of that committee?

A At the present time Mr.Larkins. I started as

Chairman. There are also two other members, Mr. Smith and

Mrs. Sanford.

Q During the course of the activities of that committee,

have they considered the problem of racial segregation in the

66

training schools ?


THE COURT: Sustained.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q What, if any, action has the Advisory Committee

taken with regard to a recommendation to the Board as to

racial segregation in the training schools?

THE COURT: Is that by the Citizens' Committee or

the Board's recommendation?

MRS. MITCHELL: I am talking about the Advisory

Committee's recommendation to the State Board of Welfare.

Your Honor, Doctor Thalheimer said this group of citizens

cooperated with the State Board of Welfare to assist in

the promulgation of their program. I am now asking whether

any recommendation has been made to the State Board of Public

Welfare with regard to racial segregation in the training

schools.

MR. MURPHY: I now object again.


By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q May I ask another way. What, if any, action has

the Advisory Committee to the State Board of Public Welfare | taken with regard to racial segregation in the training ;

schools?

MR. MURPHY: I would continue to object. By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q As to what action the Advisory Committee has taken i

with regard to a recommendation to the State Board of Public

Welfare with regard to racial segregation.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

By Mrs. Mitchell: • - •

Q Has the State Board of Public Welfare received, to

your knowledge, any recommendation from the Advisory Committee

with regard to racial segregation in the training schools?

MR. MURPHY: I object. That same question was asked

in a different manner.

MRS. MITCHELL: But I think the question is sound.

He says he was a former member of the Committee.

THE COURT: You are not asking what it is but whether

he received the recommendation. I will permit that.

A That is correct.

THE COURT: They have made a recommendation to you?

6 8

THE WITNESS: Their recommendations have been in

response to questions that have been put to them. In fact,

I am a member of the Advisory Committee.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

0. You were a former Chairman of it and also a member

of the Advisory Committee.

MRS. MITCHELL: Your Honor, it seems to me it is

within his knowledge and it is certainly proper to ask what,

if any, action the Advisory Committee has taken in this matter.

THE COURT: I agree with Mr. Murphy. I sustain

the objection. It would seem to me that while the Advisory

group of citizens form to help and advise and collaborate

with the State Department of Public Welfare, from your question

I take it that it has made a recommendation. It may be. I

am not certain. It may be that the Maryland Youth Commission

may have made a recommendation to the Governor or the State

Board or certain authorities but the question here is whether

the statutes, not whether these groups of public spirited

people, are for or against segregation and whether the Maryland

statutes referred to here are in fact constitutional or un

constitutional in the light of Supreme Court cases in the

69

last several years.

MRS. MITCHELL: I would agree that that is the core

of the proceeding here. That is the question to be decided

by this Court but we would take exception to your sustaining

the objection to this question because our proffer was to

show that independent citizens1 groups had served in an

advisory capacity to the State Board of Public Welfare and

also made certain recommendations to the Board with regard

to racial segregation in the training schools.

THE COURT: An exception is granted. This thought

does occur to me: On the point of whether a real controversy

exists rather than a synthetic one, I would suppose the

action of the Circuit Court on the demurrer went into that.

MR. MURPHY: I think that in our answer to the

petition, we do not raise any question as to thelack of

controversy. I think we can assume that we have one.

THE COURT: That being true, this evidence might

well indicate that there is a real controversy, but as long

as that is not in the case, I stand by my ruling and will

sustain the objection.

70

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q Doctor Thalheimer, I show you this pamphlet. Would

you tell His Honor what it is?

A The Department of Planning, at the request of or

following action by the Legislature required each State

Department to get out a ten-year plan, indicating primarily

what the capital expenditures were likely to be over the

next ten years, so that it might be organized in a compre

hensive way and fit in with whatever they thought was the

philosophy of their organization.

Pursuant to that request or statute, the Department

of Public Welfare has recently submitted to the Department of

Planning this document, which is our ten-year plan and which

proposes how we intend to operate over the next ten years.

MRS. MITCHELL: May it please the Court, we would

like to offer this as Petitioner's Exhibit 5.

MR. MURPHY: I would like to see what it is you

wish to introduce other than the booklet itself.

MRS. MITCHELL: We proffer by the introduction of

this exhibit to show that in the planning of the State Board

of Public Welfare for its program activities, there is no

71 i

• . i

provision made for racial segregation in the training schools. That is shown on page 33 of the State Plan. My purpose is

further to elicit from the Chairman of the State Board of

Public Welfare the reason for the absence of racial segrega-l

tion in the training schools, MR. MURPHY: Your Honor, the issue, as you very

clearly pointed out, is the statute. This document that the

plaintiff wishes to introduce is a projection into the future

and it does indicate that the State Department of Welfare

has planned integrated facilities but the State Department

of Welfare Is not the Legislature and what we are dealing

with here is legislative action, so I think the document in

its entirety, from what I have seen, and particularly this

one section now being proffered is totally irrelevant and

without any basis.

MRS. MITCHELL: May it please the Court, we submit

that the evidence of the State Board of Welfare's own planning,

indicating that a more effective job could be done for the

children of the State in the Maryland training schools could

be done without racial segregation is pertinent as part of

the larger picture of the exercise of their administrative

i ij 72

i •. i duties under the statute.

: THE COURT: I think it is a close question. The

State Department is a party to this action and I will over

rule the objection.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q I direct your attention, Doctor Thalheimer, to

page 33 of this report. Will you tell His Honor what that

plan shows?

A In planning for the next ten years, we have had

the cognizance of the fact that during that period it was

likely in our opinion that the statute may be found uncon-i •

I stitutional, so that we had to plan on what we thought was

' going to happen.

Based on that prediction or guess, we decided

we would separate the two schools, Maryland Training School

and Boys' Village, on the basis of having the very youngest

boys at Maryland Training School, for.boys of intermediate

i age at Boys' Village, both white and colored, and the senior

boys in this group at Maryland Training School and It was our

opinion, I might say, I don't know how far I can go on this

going away from the question, but the State Department

7 3 ;

generally would welcome integration, but it certainly has

a feeling that it is the creature of the State that follows ,

the law and we would not put this plan into effect. We

depend for our action on the Legislature and the Courts.

We feel this projection of what we thought would j

happen over the next ten years was a very satisfactory way of'

dividing the children; that it would have certain advantages ,

with the present division and that boys could be classified

by age or rather the maturity of the boys, a certain age or

maturity range, Instead of having to follow the whole gamut

from the very youngest to the very oldest boy.

. By Mrs. Mitchell: i

Q Doctor Thalheimer, are you also familiar with the

program of your department as it relates to State Forestry

Camps ? !


THE COURT: I overrule the objection.

A I am.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q Would you explain when these camps were instituted

and what the policy of the State Board is with regard to these

7 4

camps as far as racial segregation goes?

A They were started in 1955. the first camp. Two

camps were subsequently added and we now have three Forestry

Camps. The total population Is 80 and the statute creating

them did not have any words "white" or "colored" and the

Board, using its judgment, made them integrated institutions.

Q Are you also familiar with the work of the Maryland

Children's Center?

MR. MURPHY: I would object again and rather than

continue my objection, would like to make a general objection

to this line of questions.

THE COURT: I want to say on this line of question

ing that the legislative enactment setting up the study home,

the Maryland Children's Center, and the Forestry Camps have

no words in the law requiring a separation of the races, as

is the case in the four training schools directly involved

in this case.

The Court would not think the fact that one

institution is not segregated, that the argument of why

should another children's institution be segregated Is a

particularly valid one when we decide the pure constitutional

7 5 !. j .

I • |

question of whether the Legislature had a right to pass the i

statute it did, and conversely whether that action contravenes

the Federal Constitution and, therefore, is invalid. i

I do think that on.the question of whether there |

is and has been for a number of years in our State a State j

policy and a Legislative policy that the rehabilitation of j

impressionable youngsters can be brought about better if '

the two races are kept apart makes the question on the [

Maryland Children's Center, I think, relevant. I think on

that question, certainly not on the point of whether the ;

Legislature is inconsistent — they did that this last year —! i

I would think that would be going pretty far afield, but on !

the question, for instance, the Attorney General's rulings '

have been so alluded to here on the point that the Attorney

General raises as to whether in Maryland there is a pretty i

much imbedded state policy in the Legislature that the re- !

habilitation of youngsters might be accomplished better in

segregated training schools than otherwise; that what is

happening right here in the same State, over a period of more ;

recent years with respect to whether children's facilities

probably bear on that point for that reason. I overrule the

76

objection.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q Doctor Thalheimer, would you tell His Honor when

the Maryland Children's Center was established and what its

program and present operation are with regard to racial

segregation?

A I would say It has been less than a year. It

opened gradually and has a capacity of 56. It is completely

occupied at this time. What else did you want?

THE COURT: It has 56 there?

A Yes.

THE COURT: That is capacity, 56 youngsters?

A Yes.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q Was the Maryland Children's Center created by-

statute also?

A It was.

Q And that, would be in Chapter 77 of the Acts of the

State Legislature of 1958,, is that correct?

A I don't know the reference.

Q That Is the statute which created the MaiyLand

7 7

Children's Center. Again, Doctor Thalheimer, what, If any, 1

racial designation is there in that statute? j

A None. There is none. It Is an integrated lnsti-tution.

Q If it were not for the present limitations in the

statutes which, created the four training schools which are

the objects of this proceeding, then the operation of the

training schools would be on an integrated basis? ,


THE COURT: Do you want to be heard before I rule on the question?

MRS, MITCHELL: No.

THE COURT: I think the answer is right obvious i from what he has been saying but technically I think it is \ objectionable and will sustain the objection. :

MRS. MITCHELL: It Is a matter of argument, probably:. THE COURT: Yes.

MRS. MITCHELL: The witness is with you.

MR. MURPHY: No questions.

(Witness excused.)

Thereupon— • • i

RAYMOND MANELLA, | a witness produced on behalf of the petitioner, having first j


DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q Mr, Manella, you are with the State Board of Public 1

Welfare?

A Yes.

Q What is your position?

A I am Chief of the Division of Training Schools.

Q, Would you tell His Honor your educational background

and experience with respect to your preparation for your

present position?

A I have had in the field of working with delinquent

and problem youngsters approximately eighteen years experience.

My special degree is in social work administration

from Western Reserve University and I have taken advanced

courses and I have had direct experience with working with

delinquent youngsters in detention and commitment schools

and for the past seven years I have been on the staff of the

7 9

Department of Welfare responsible for the training schools,

Forestry Camps and the Maryland Children's Center.

Q In what institutions beside the Maryland Children's

Center?

A I spent a period of time as Probation Officer in

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and while there had to do

with the detention center which the Court operated and also

responsibility for setting up a camp program for detained

delinquent youngsters.

Following that, I was in the service and had some

experience in the service supervising after-care delinquent

boys in the Veteran's Administration.

Following the war, I took a job as Dean of the

Village of New York, a private school for delinquent and

problem youngsters. There were about 170 youngsters there,

and their activities.

Following that, I took a job superintending a

small institution in Pennsylvania for problem youngsters,

delinquent and defective youngsters and spent five years

there. That was the Western Children's Home, and I came to

Maryland in 1 9 5 2 .

Q Mr. Manella, I show you a projected plan of operation

which your Department has already presented to the State

Planning Commission. Will you explain to His Honor the reasons

for this plan?

A It has been our responsibility for the supervision

of training schools and the formulation of policies. The

decision was made at a State level that the Department should

be prepared for a possible racial integration of the training

schools and acting with the Director and the Board, I spent

quite some time with the superintendents of the institutions

discussing the plan which the State could put into operation

should a decision be made that the training schools were to

be operated on a racially integrated basis.

Q Aside from the changing state of the law since 1954

when the Supreme Court enunciated the policy of segregation

per se being unconstitutional In public schools, aside from

that consideration, what, if any other consideration guided

the thinking and planning and study by the State Department

of Welfare for its projection of this program?

A I would say that the combined professional opinion

of our own experts, the superintendents of the training schools,

81

the members of the Department staff who were charged with j

this responsibility and the opinions of experts in the field

— and I would say one of the primary sources for the depart- i

mental planning of operation was suggested by the Sobeloff

Commission back in 1933. j

The Governor organized a special commission that hadj

as its responsibility an analysis or review of the organiza- j

tion of the State's services and one of these services had J

to do with delinquency control and the means of preventing

and treating delinquency, and the Sobeloff Commission in 1953

reported to the Governor and explained that under the Maryland]

system of training schools, they were not doing as effective

a job in the rehabilitation of delinquent children because

of the extreme wide ranges of the youngsters being admitted .

to the four training schools in terms of their chronological brackets

age and physical and social/ and the commission urged that we begin to diversify the facilities for youngsters and as !

I

a first step on this point for diversification, we proposed

and the Governor and General Assembly accepted the Forestry !

Camps as facilities for all older boys. Subsequently the I

Legislature also accepted the concept of the Maryland Trainingj

82

I School for the study of —

THE COURT: It has been so long ago since I read

that report when it came out, the Sobeloff Commission was

later the Stockbridge Commission, but I was not aware and I

am asking you did the Sobeloff Commission make any recommen

dation with regard to whether the training schools here should

be segregated or not?

A Judge Moylan, there- was no direct recommendation

that the training schools be racially integrated.

THE COURT: They didn't go into that matter. They

said "what was wrong with the training schools?"

A And our conclusion was that the only possible way

administratively and legally that this could be brought about

and provide for a diversified youngster program at different'

age levels and different periods in their careers and the

only way to accomplish this would beto classify the institu

tions and this was really the basis for the plan as made up

in the ten-year development program on page 3 3 .

By Mrs. Mitchell:

C. Would you explain that plan to His Honor from the

standpoint of the classification of the training schools?

i I

83

A It is pur feeling that because of the present state

policy, youngsters ranging in age from 8 and 9 to 19, younsterjs

who range from almost complete opposites insofar as their

delinquency patterns are concerned, youngsters at one end

of the scale are placed in institutions with other youngsters

and we feel that physically there is a large discrepancy

between youngsters 8 and 9 and youngsters of 17 and 18.

Educationally, we feel that youngsters are not grouped as

would be the case In a public school system.

In terms of a delinquency pattern, it is our feeling

that the State schools are not Operating as they could be

even if we were able to classify the youngsters and transfer

them to institutions set up to meet the specific needs of

different youngsters or different levels of advancement.

We feel this is expensive not only in terms of dolaars and

cents but expenses to the community in the field of re

habilitation facilities which the State operates for children.

Q Mr. Manella, from the standpoint of your observa

tion of the State Forestry Camps, would you tell His Honor

what has been the experience of the Department in the opera

tion of these camps?

1

MR. MURPHY: I object. j


A It is our feeling, therefore, that the camps have

really carried out the realistic intent simply with the

Forestry Camps, except it transfers boys from Boys' Village

and Maryland Training School and do not provide a program

which would be in accordance, as part of their rehabilitation!

and in connection with that, the two other objectives of the j

camp, I think, it has been realized have been faced over

the years, with the first year's program expenses, that

they were crowded, really dangerous overcrowding in our

two State training schools for boys, which is the secondary

objective of the camps, to reduce some of the crowding and

to provide programs for older boys, boys that were older

physically and psychologically and who were not concerned

with pursuing the normal school program as such,and in our

judgment and the Judgment of the superintendents of the two

training schools and on the experience of the State Forestry

Camps, where we would be emploued by the State Department in

preserving the State's natural resources while being guided

into being good citizens.

85 :

Q Where are they located?

A One in Allegheny County and two in Garrett County. ;

Q Has there been any program in the communities in

which the Camps are located with the program activities of

the boys, with the citizens of the various communities?

A We have as an assignment — and we have with us

here today the superintendent of one of the training schools,

Mr. Fletcher, and one of the things we found in our experience,

these programs have been merged Into programs utilized in

a number of community resources to help our programs in the

Camps and to give you two of the illustrations, our youngsters

go Into the neighboring towns for religous services and

recreational activities and sometimes for an educational

program.

THE CtURT: Mr. Manella, would you comment now

on the visitation privileges of the students at the four

training schools?

THE WITNESS: Over the years, as a part of the

treatment or rehabilitation program of training schools

i and the camps, I might say that we have encouraged the.

setting up of regular programs of visitation for youngsters i

86

which takes place while they are in the institutions and

the purpose for this is really very simple, since the

youngsters ultimately will have to be returned to live in

the community from which they were committed by the courts.

It Is the philosophy that youngsters must, as part of their

rehabilitation, begin to take responsibility —

THE COURT: I don't want to prolong it but young

sters are released and go home for a weekend periodically

at all the training schools.

THE,WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: And during the summer vacations, what

percentage of the training school population goes home for

Christmas Holidays ?

THE WITNESS: We would have roughly at any one

time eight hundred committed youngsters at the training

schools and camps. During the Christmas period, we have had

as many as four hundred youngsters In the community on

vacations or weekends off, special days of privilege during

the Christmas Holidays and we are very encouraged how many

of these youngsters can take responsibility.

THE COURT: They are hot under guard and come back

87

either alone or as parents bring them back when their

vacation is over.

THE WITNESS: That is correct. This is really the

test as to whether the program —

THE COURT: This isn't anything new. It has been

going on for about thirteen or fourteen years, I believe,

hasn't it?

THE WITNESS: Easily the last ten.

THE COURT: At the close of the academic school

sessions, while the school doesn't close down, but at the

end of the academic classes in mid June or thereabouts, all

students of the training schools go home for a period of a

summer vacation, do they not?

THE WITNESS: All training schools have a summer

vacation plan and they are usually in August. Youngsters

are given a short vacation period, anything from three to

four to ten days. That is in the program.

THE COURT: Aren't there two vacations during the

summer? One in the early summer — I am not sure — I am

asking for information — or has that been changed — one

in early summer around two weeks and one before schools open

88

up in the community? '

A It varies from training school to training school

hut there is a policy in each school with a summer vacation

plan usually in August.

THE COURT: Either one or two?

THE WITNESS: It could be two.

THE COURT: Where they just walk out and go home 1

and come back when they are supposed to report back to school.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q What, if any, contributions are received by the

Department from the United States Department of Health,

Education and Welfare?

A I know of just the two sources. One would be funds

appropriated through the Federal Department of Health,

Education and Welfare for Children's services, or where the

Department is the beneficiary of a grant of roughly $200,0.00

and a small portion of that, I would say, not less than a

thousand dollars and not more than three or four thousand

dollars, is utilized by my division to promote.with the

training schools to develop projects. We have useful programs

89

along this line, and in the second area, which would not

involve a Federal program would be the State Surplus Program

for surplus real and personal property.

Q Have you received such surplus real and personal

property from the Federal Government?

A Yes.

THE COURT: I think it is only fair for the record

to state that the State, after some years of dragging its

feet on that score, finally took a leaf out of the late

lamented St. Mary's Industrial School and arranged a plan

Of visitation which has been very helpful and was at St.

Mary's and I think you are satisfied that it would be helpful

at a public training school.

THE WITNESS: It is a very important part of the

teaching program.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q You have heard the testimony of Doctor Thalheimer

as to the educational programs in the four training schools.

What, if any, connection does the State Department of

Education have with that program?

A There has been a consultant on the staff of the

90

State Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Masson, who carries

responsibility for professional consultation on educational

matters and educational programs and we rely really upon

the State Superintendent of Schools for this aid from this

consultant in connection with the educational programs at

the training schools, the Forestry Camps, the Maryland 1

Children's Center —

Q Are they certified? '

A The State Department does have a certification

policy for the training schools and I am not so sure at this

point whether this policy does not extend to some private ; i

schools, too.

Q What is the extent of the educational programs in 1

the various training schools? You begin at what grade level

and extend to what grade level and what is the type of

educational program given?

A The age range is extended from eight years to almost;

nineteen and it is the responsibility — and I think the '

superintendents can speak more satisfactorily on this but it :

is our responsibility to organize and administer and to

operate an educational program for all the youngsters who

come into the State training schools, which is an important !

part of the program. j

Now, so far as the grade levels are concerned, \

these youngsters represent almost a microscopic percentage i

of the total youngsters in the State and range from 10 to 18.

If my recollection is correct as to this, there are 390,000 ,

youngsters in Maryland between 10 and 18, less than a thousand

of those being at the training schools, and in setting up

this special program for these thousand youngsters, we have

to provide for them the educational opportunities which the

Staee provides to the child, this being a special education

and requires an educational program which is designed to be j

helpful to our youngsters. It has to be at each level and I

that explains how this matter of special educational program

becomes Important in a State training school.

Q Approximately what portion of the. child's time

during each year is spent on these special program activities?

A It varies. In a week, thirty or thirty-five hours.

THE COURT: About the same as —

A The youngsters think the school is too long.

THE COURT: It is about the same as the elementary

9 2

or junior grades?

A Probably a little longer than what a youngster

would spend in public or parochial school.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q It has been testified that the statute creating

the four training schools, which is the object of this pro

ceeding, call for the racial segregation of the children

committed to them. What, if any, Integration has taken place

in the various training schools?



A This is limited to training schools?

MRS. MITCHELL: Yes.

A We have now, subject to correction, these are

approximate figures, at Barrett School, I think the whole

staff is 4 9 full-time people. There are no white employees

but there's two white employees at Boys' Village, one full-

time and one part-time.

At Montrose School for Girls, approximately

nine or ten full-time Negro staff members out of a total

staff of 7 4 .

93

Mr. Fletcher may correct me but I believe the last

time I discussed this matter with him, it seems that he had

about fifteen or twenty full-time employees out of a staff

of 204. !

THE COURT: How about the faculty, the teachers? :

A- Only at.Maryland Training School do we have full- j

time teachers. . ]

THE COURT: They have both white and colored '

teachers at Maryland Training School?

A Yes. ;

THE COURT: But that is not true at the other three?

A No. j

By Mrs. Mitchell: • i

Q Mr. Manella, what is the emphasis in the total program of the training schools of the State?

A Our philosophy, which I believe is stated real

clearly in this document, is that the training schools and

all institutions for delinquent children in the State are

primarily rehabilitation or treatment and open curricula

and the basis for this is primarily in the statutes which

created the Juvenile Court structure here in the State of '

9 4

Maryland. Our youngsters appearing in Juvenile Court appear

not as individuals charged with adult crimes but as children

in need of direction and special treatment. The State acts

in locus parentis and that means simply that there is no

intent on the part of the State agency responsible for those

youngsters to punish but to rehabilitate. The whole purpose

of the Juvenile Court and the training schools, children's

schools/ Is for the training of delinquent children. The

whole purpose is directed at the special training and re

habilitation of the youngsters, so that they can be prepared

for return to the community as soon as they are ready.

Children are not sentenced to training schools. They are

committed. They are not found guilty. They are adjudicated

to be delinquent.

MRS, MITCHELL: Witness with you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Mr, Manella, what is the purpose for the training

schools?

A I would say the rehabilitation of the child and

the return of the child to the community as a useful citizen.

95

Q Would you say the end result then is not to make

the child a better student?

A I would say the end result is to make the child a

better student and if being a better student is brought

about by the total treatment plan, the answer would be yes.

Q This is not an educational adjustment for the

child ~

A In a public school sense, I would say no, but in

the sense of total education and total treatment and total

rehabilitation, again it is a matter of how you define the

term "education".

Q I am talking about formal education.

A I would say formal education in these institutions

is a part of a battery or a number of programs which would

include a religious program, a recreational program, medical,

psychological, case work programs.

THE COURT: That is true with all schools, isn't it?

The Baltimore City Public Schools have some types of social

courses with all of these youngsters.

A I would say there is more intensity of professional

services at the institutions.

96

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Would you say, Mr. Manella, that the children are

incarcerated in the schools to make a social adjustment?

A I would say that one of the objectives which the ;

courts of the State have defined for our youngsters found j

delinquent would be the protection of the community and the i

protection of the child while this treatment or rehabilita

tion is taking place and as a part of that, then the training,

schools and courts take responsibility for bringing about a

change In the youngster so that he can make a satisfactory !

social adjustment. i

Q Aren't all of these childrenmaladjusted socially?

A Legally, there is no question that they are mal- ;

adjusted. Otherwise, there would not be a finding of

delinquency. I would say socially, some of our youngsters

are extremely well adjusted if you look only at the term

"culture" in which they happen to live. If that culture is

delinquent, that child can be adjusted socially and not be

delinquent.

Q Perhaps another question would bring that out.

Do you experience much diversity in cultural patterns?

9 7

Let's take Maryland Training School, for example, which is

strictly for white boys.

A Yes, there is cultural diversity as you go through

the economic social levels. You can find youngsters repre- ;

senting most of the sub-cultures in a Maryland community.

I mean youngsters coming from families who have recently i

migrated to the State from other areas of America. Youngsters

may follow a family pattern but the large majority of young-

sters come from the lower economic strata.

Q Is it fair or would it be fair to characterize

the operation of the institutions as one intended to shake

the criminal tendencies ?

A In the cases of certain delinquents. Where the |

criminal pattern has been established, I would say yes, but

in a large majority of cases the intent is not and the ! i

program is not really geared to correctional measures such j

as would be the case with prisons and reformatories or

adult behavior in the orbit of crime and one analogy would !

be that some of our youngsters are in the training schools

for non-criminal offenses In the adult sense,, incorrigibility*

running away and other minor transgressions which are strictly

98 :

i

juvenile and not adult.

Q You spoke of the age diversity as being a factor. i

A That is right. I would say in the training schools;

at any one time we have a small percentage of delinquent • i

children who have taken on definite adult criminalistic i

patterns. It is a small percentage and we have considered :

that in our long-range program and we are proposing in this \

program a special institution for the older boys and as part \

of that program with that institution, we would set up a j

special program for the revividist with more criminally

inclined emphasis and we would set up a 200 bed program for

the older boys. That is in the future. ;

Q How do the Forestry Camps differ from the training

schools in the institutional setting? < A Again, all our institutions for children differ ;

i

basically, not basically but in degree. The Forestry Camps I !

are set up primarily for youngsters who are carefully screened

for transfer on the basis of certain specific criteria which ,'

the department has defined. The camps are designed to help

guide older boys who are more highly physically developed

and more physically aggressive than other youngsters who

99

have dropped out of school or were not performing well in school.

Q When you say you screened them, what do you mean?

A We have a criteria as follows: We will consider

for transfer, the Department will consider for transfer

boys of 15 and over who are interested, in the camps, are not

doing too well in school and are physically advanced and the

superintendents of the schools and a respresentative from

my staff visits the two schools regularly and interviews

the youngsters and gives consideration to those whom we

think should be transferred and when it is determined that

the youngster will benefit from that,we arrange for actual

physical transfer to the camp.

THE COURT: Mr. Manella, it is true, is it not,

that the courts of the State, the Juvenile Courts, do not

commit delinquent boys to the camps?

A That is correct.

THE COURT: During the period of the court's

commitment, the training camps are used as a final stage?

A Pre-release.

THE COURT: In the education and training before

100

Thereupon-—

J. MARTIN POLAND,

a witness produced on behalf of the Petitioner, having first


DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q You are employed by the State Department of Public

Welfare?

A Yes.

the end of the court's commitment?

A That is true.

THE COURT: After some selectivity.

A Yes, it is the final step before the youngster is

released by the court and under supervision returned to the

community.

MR. MURPHY: I would not further cross-examine

Mr. Manella but would like to call him, as a direct witness

for myself but not at this time,

THE COURT: Very well.

(Witness withdrawn.)

101

Q What is your present position?

A Superintendent, Maryland Childrens Center.

Q How long have you had this position?

A Since March 17, 1959.

Q Would you tell His Honor your background and j

preparation and training and experience for this position?

A I received my undergraduate degree from Western

Maryland College, my graduate degree from University of

Pennsylvania and worked at the Childrens ServiceBureau in i

New York. I worked for the Pennsylvania Prison Society in

Philadelphia where I served as Director and in Social Service i

with the Mill School, training school, in Pennsylvania.

Q It has been previously testified here that the

Maryland Childrens Center was established as a result of the

Acts of the Legislature, Chapter 57, Acts of 1958, pursuant

to which the Childrens School was established or opened in — A October 1959.

Q Would you tell His Honor briefly what the program

is ?

A We are a diagnostic institution for children

adjudicated delinquent in Maryland and ordered to the care

102

of the Maryland Childrens Center by courts of proper juris

diction for study and attention.

During the maximum of thirty days that they are

with us, we conduct many studies of the child and return

the child to the court with the result.of that study and

recommendation for treatment.

Q It has also been pointed out that there is no

provision for racial segregation in the Act which created

the Maryland Childrens Center. What has been your experience

in that regard?


THE COURT: I will sustain it. May I say this

with regard to the Maryland Childrens Center, which was

mentioned earlier, and I believe I was not clear In my ruling.

The Maryland training schools, the four training schools and 1

three Forestry Camps are not in a real sense separate

Institutions for separate types of individuals. They are

three facilities, a chain, a sequence of facilities which

the Legislature has set up by and large for the Juvenile

Courts of Maryland and they are all Integral parts of a chain1,

and certainly what some separate institution is allowed to

103

do by statute and what some other correctional places do, >

even in the State of Maryland, would have no bearing on

whether the laws were taking it in or out of the Constitu

tion. I i

A boy is apprehended by the police tonight in !

Baltimore City for some apparently serious violation of the

law. He would be held overnight in the Pine Street Police*

Station and when the Court opens the next morning or the

following Monday, he would appear in Court. Testimony is

taken. If he is charged with being delinquent, and quite

often the Judge after judging the boy to be delinquent,

will detain the boy in the Maryland Childrens Center, which

is a detention home for study and recommendation to the court

The limit there is thirty days. They make a recommendation

to the court on the boy. The court may then place the boy

on probation or commit the boy to one of the two public

training schools for boys. During the life of the commitment

then if the youngster — unless there is something in his

career which would indicate he should not be in a training

school, would have the privilege of finishing up his re

habilitation education and schooling and discipline at one

104

i of the three training camps. ,

It is.really a chain of services for the same boy i

bringing about the same rehabilitation training and not in • ' • i

any sense a separate education Or in separate Institutions,

and it is for that reason that I am overruling the objectionj i

I did not make clear that I thought your question was proper

and that is the reason I overrule Mr. Murphy's objection.

Now, Mrs. Mitchell, what is your question?

By Mrs. Mitchell:

. Q What has been the experience of the Maryland

Childrens Center with regard to the absence of segregation

in its program there? I think the objection was made to

that question. It has already been testified and already

in the record and Doctor Thalheimer pointed out that the

statute which created the center had no provision for racial

segregation.

THE COURT: That is right. I permitted that.

By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q Mr. Manella did go into that in describing the

total program.

A We have never had any problem in this area whatso-

105

ever. We have had some prejudiced youngsters of both races ,

but it has not been a problem where they get into personal

conflicts. We handle that like any other problem.

THE COURT: In addition to your studies, you have ,

a school going on out there?

A Oh, yes. I could give examples. We may have a I

Negro youngster who is having problems with being a Negro.

It is only after observing him in this setting that he can

decide what tests to administer. The psychiatrist can ;

determine what test he should be given and have some real

conclusion as to the problem, whether it is racial,

psychiatric or something else.

Q Are you saying that racial segregation or other

racial restrictions contribute in any way to the delinquency j

of some of the children who come to your school?


THE COURT: Sustained. I think we have gone far

enough on that. I want to say now with regard to the Maryland

Childrens Center that the question is not what Mr. Poland .

says here as an expert. I think that would be improper and

it is.for the Court to decide whether the statute Is con-

stitutional or not.

MRS. MITCHELL: Since this is my witness, Your

Honor, I think Mr. Poland on the strength of his experience

and training and background and preparation is certainly —

THE COURT: You qualified him as an expert but

I don't think we are in an area where expert testimony is

needed. .I think it is a thing the chancellor has to decide.

MRS. MITCHELL: If, on the other hand, racial

segregation does have an effect upon a human being, a child

or ourselves —

THE COURT: Your question would call for opinion

exidence.

MRS, MITCHELL: As an expert.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Do you

object?

MR. MURPHY: I do.

MRS. MITCHELL: No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Yours is more in the nature of a clinical facility

A It might be so described, yes.

107

Q A clinical facility?

A Yes.

Q You study the children, the causes of delinquency.

A As related to a particular child, yes.

Q How long do the children usually stay with you?

A Twenty-five to twenty-seven days but there is some

variation, of course.

Q And your institution is primarily a detention

center as opposed to an actual training institution?

A We are diagnostic. We are not a rehabilitation

center.

Q You are not a psychiatrist, are you?

A No.

MR. MURPHY: No further questions.

(Witness excused.)

MRS. MITCHELL: I think that is the Petitioner's

case. THE COURT: May I speak with counsel?

(Off-record discussion followed.)

THE COURT: The Court will adjourn until 1:1-5.

f T

108

AFTER RECESS 1:20 p. m. ,•

MR. MURPHY: I would like to recall Mr. Mane11a. '

Thereupon—

RAYMOND MANELLA, I

produced as a witness by the defendants, having previously

been duly sworn, testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION I

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Will you please restate your name?

A Raymond Mane11a. 1

Q You are the Chief of the Division of Training

Schools? . i

A That's right.

Q How long have you occupied that position? >

A Since October 1952. 1

Q, Mr. Manella, at this time, how many inmates are

confined in the institutions, the training school institutions?

A I can only give you an approximate number. There

is about a thousand youngsters in all of the State institutions.

Q I am thinking of the four training schools.

A At the last report, the population counts were

109

something like this: Maryland Training School reported, I

believe, 430 youngsters; Boys' Village 380; Barrett School

reported 90; Montrose School reported 126,

Q Are all those children committed by the courts?

A Ninety percent are committed by the courts and

about ten percent detained subject to further order.

THE COURT: But by the courts? All are sent by

the courts.

A Yes.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q And all are restrained of their liberty?

A Yes.

Q What is the average stay in the training insti

tutions?

A It varies from institution to institution but the

average stay would be about nine months.

Q Are the training schools obliged to take all who

are committed by the courts?

A The law is very clear. Courts of proper juris

diction can commit to the four State training schools until

a further order of the court and the training schools are

110

under the statute obliged to take all youngsters for whom a :

legal commitment paper or detention order Is signed by a

responsible judge. • I

Q I would like to have this pamphlet marked for

identification. I

(Pamphlet entitled "Characteristics of 860 Committed

Children in the Maryland Training Schools on January 1, i960" (

marked Defendants' Exhibit 1 for identification.) \

Q (By Mr. Murphy) I show you this document, which

purports to be or is entitled "Characteristics of 860

Committed Children in the Maryland Training Schools on January

1, i960" and ask whether you can identify that?

A Yes, I can.

Q I would refer you to table 12 in this document.

MR. HEARING: May I see that? ;

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

Q I show you table 12 and ask you to read the title

of that.

A Table 12 reads "Type of Offenses of Committed Boys

and Girls in State Training Schools, January 1, i960."

Q That covers the type of offenses. Would you please

i n ;

1 relate them.

I A Do you want.me to list them?

Q I want you to list the nature of offenses and the ,

total number of children committed for that offense. 1 A On January 1st of this year, out of a total of

•| 860 committed children, 8 were in the training schools for 1 arson, 33 for assault, 60 for automobile theft, 126 for i

i breaking and entering, 16 for disorderly conduct, 23 for ,

I robbery, 14 for sex offenses, 184 for stealing, 8 for vandalism,

113 for being ungovernable, 123 for being runaways, 1 for

trespassing, 85 for truancy, 12 for violation of probation, '

' 2 for violation of after-care supervision and 52 other

children for whom no offenses were reported.

MR. MURPHY: I would like to offer this in evidence

as Defendants' Exhibit 1 as to Table 12.

THE COURT: Is the page numbered? '

I MR. MURPHY: No. It is Table 12.

THE COURT: Of Defendants' Exhibit 1.

MR. MURPHY: I might say, if there is no objection,

I would introduce the entire document because it relates to

the characteristics of children and may be of some benefit to

112

the Court.

MR. DEARING: I enter a general objection to this

whole thing. Your Honor, on the ground that it is irrelevant,

incompetent and immaterial.

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection and give

you an exception. The whole pamphlet is.accepted in evidence.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Mr. Mane11a, what is the purpose of committing

children to training schools rather than penal institutions?

A The purpose — and this is, I think defined and

the general definition from the statute, the purpose is to

bring about the rehabilitation and training of the child

rather than to punish, to correct or to fine a minor as

defined in the statute not of any criminal offense as such.

That is the whole philosophy, intent and purpose of the

Juvenile Court Act.

Q Is there any purpose of physical security of these

children while in the institution?

A We operate at the present time almost completely

open custody type institutions, which is differentiated from

a prison security running from minimum up to maximum security.

113 ! j _ L . r : r . . . . . . . .

t! . H

LL I Q, Would you please describe the institutional ; ! . ' ' • •

I setting of the training school? I mean by that how the ii ;i children are housed and how they live?

A All of our institutions or rather all of our

; training schools are cottage-type institutions which means

: the children under care live in cottages approximately, I

would say, two-thirds of the time. That is, they are in

i| the cottage building as such, depending on the size of the

'} training school. There are, of course, a few cottages, at

Barrett we had three, the number of cottages increases because

J at the Maryland Training School there are 13 classes. Do

;i you want me to develop that any more?

; Q I would want you to tell how the inmates are housed

in the cottages.

A We have at all the training schools a combination

of dormitory sleeping accommodations and single rooms. At •J \ the girls' schools, we have a majority of children under care i • ' • •

i in single rooms and in the. two boys' schools we have a

combination of sleeping and open dormitories.

Q Do they eat within the cottages?

A At the two boys' training schools all meals are

114

taken right in the cottage buildings.

Q Actually cooked there?

A No, they are prepared centrally in a central

kitchen and transported by truck in vacuum containers to the

cottages.

Q What is the purpose of a cottage setting as opposed

to a more secure setting?

A In the evolution of this Juvenile Court philosophy

and in the evolution of the idea of treatment centers for

children rather than correctional or penal type facilities,

the cottage concept as such came into practice in the last

half of the 19th Century. The first cottage plan institution

was in Ohio.

The basis of this philosophy is that It seems that

you won't be able to successfully treat children for problems

in anything approaching a penal or correctional type facility,

so you have to reconstruct as much as you can in these small

cottages which are meant to resemble homes, the family with

the Intimate kind of mother or father-child relationship which

you must have in the community if you are going to produce

healthy kids.

115 ;

Q What is the degree of supervision within the . • • . ' l

cottages? '

A While the youngsters are in the cottages, I think

we can spell out that supervision as provided at all times. | I

Q By whom?

A Cottage parents, cottage masters, cottage masters ]

primarily in the two boys' training schools. , • • • i

Q Is it intended that the cottage parent will be • j

symbolic of the child's parents? ;

A The philosophy Is changing. At one time that was

the understanding, that we would actually try a small cottage

family type group, to be as much as a family type community

as we could get, but in more recent years it has been explained

and commonly accepted that we can never really approximate

true family living in a training school cottage program

because first of all, the cottage parents are not psychologically

related. We really need directional and supervisory guidance

of these children by trained groups.

Q Is the educational program carried on within the

cottage? A Only in our admission cottages is there an educa-

116

tional program. Each training school has its own educational j

department, headed by an educational director with subordinate I • i

employees and a teching staff and a staff of vocational shop j

instructors. Incidentally, this program is developed under !

the supervision of the State Department of education. | I

Q Which program is that? j

A The educational program at the training schools.

Q You say the children spend two-thirds of their !

time within the cottages? i

A This includes sleeping and the afternoon and working

periods. I would say roughly 50 to 66 percent,

Q What Is the importance of the cottage setting in 1 1

the children's adjustment that we are trying to effect.

A I have to agree with most of the experts.. I agree 1

that in any cottage training school, the hub of the training

is in the cottage and in the cottage program as such, since

the youngsters are exposed to most of their time in the cottage

with the cottage life program and unless this program is

properly managed and unless the activities program is properly

arranged, the rehabilitation program will probably fail. are

Q In other words,/you saying, sir, that the formal

117

education program within the Institution is not the prime

factor?.

A I would not place prime emphasis on the education

phase.

Q What, if any conduct or disciplinary problems do

we have within the cottage?

A I might say that we have the same kind of discip

linary, behavior problems, that, youngsters present in the

public schools and you find in any families in the community,

youngsters get involved in fights. Youngsters assault other

youngsters and there' is occasional property damage, many of

the girls and boys, not too many compared to the number

admitted—remember, I don't like the word "escape" from a .

juvenile institution because it is not a security institution

and there are occasional sex deviations that you can expect

in a one sex institution, but I don't think it is the same

range of offense against persons and property which you expect

in any open community.

Q Are the children supervised 24 hours a day?

A. Our intention, and I do believe the programs at

each of the training schools provides for around-the-clock

' 118

: supervision and at no time, unless the youngster is really ' i [

I in a pre-release trial kind of basis do we permit too much

freedom of movement.

Q Mr. Manella, have you had any experience working j

in or with an Integrated training facility?

A With a public training school as such?

i Q Yes.

A No.

Q Private? i

A Private, yes, segregated detention school, yes;

integrated detention school, yes, and, of course, my own j

experience here in Maryland with the camps and the Maryland

Childrens Center,which are integrated. I might say one other

thing, that the public training school has — a public train- !

ing school, yes. I was with one in Allegheny County and '

worked with them.

Q, In Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania?

A Yes. That is an integrated school for boys.

Q In an integrated facility. Was that a cottage

type facility?

A Yes.

'i ' • •

j! 119 i i ' - • - • ••• - • • • • • • • - - - - • • • • • • - -

I 1

I • "

•! •• ;

:! Q And the so-called cottage parents, of what race were 3 they'? • I i • ' I

#10 '! A At the institution in New York. •i •• • .' • "• i

MR. DEARING: I object.

• THE COURT: Overruled. j

:; MR. BEARING: We note an exception. h • 1

A At a private training school in New York, in 1948, • • •• i. ' '

!! we had not yet employed any Negro cottage masters as such, .I

!; but there were quite a few Negro employees on the staff. !: •"• • ' j

At the County training school to which I referred •i • • ' ' i ,'; earlier, it was an all-white staff, even though the school !

;| was integrated racially.

At the Childrens Center, we have almost a 50-50 •

. proportion Negro and white staff members. We have 42 full- !

: time employees there.

THE COURT: Where is that?

A Maryland Childrens Center.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q You have testified that you are trying to effect

a different type setting?

A That's right. I would say rather than at this

120 I i i

time a family setting or climate or atmosphere, that we want |

a small group atmosphere with a high degree of relationship '

so-called between the cottage parent as such and the youngsters!

in that particular cottage, which is a little larger than a 1

• I i

realistic family group. i

Q Within your experience and training, is It natural !

that a Negro boy for example would look upon white cottage !

J parents in the proper way which you have in mind?

i MR. DEARING: We object. ! • • • t

THE COURT: Overruled. I ; ' ' !

MR. DEARING: An exception.

j A . I would say that where the program or philosophy i

of the institution has provided for this, that the anxiety i

that either the white or Negro youngster has may stem from

the anxiety which he may have brought in with him or the ;

psychological differences, and that does not enter into the j

total program of the institution. That is provided for and

there is a plan for handling it. This was my experience

with a private training school in New York. We had roughly

: twenty percent Negro boys and the rest were white.

By Mr, Murphy:

• 121 j

• . i • 1

Q In the integrated facility with which you have had I

experience, is there any air of tension because of the racial !

difference? . I

A I would say initially some youngsters, depending j • i

on their social and cultural form with reference to the ! I

neighborhood and the community area from which they came and \

they are brought into institutions and there is a lot of J

anxiety in those cases. j

Q You say initially ? i

. i

A That is right. ' .[ Q What do you mean by that ? '

|

A I mean some white youngsters will come to us from \

what the sociologists call industrial neighborhoods and in and J

around Harlem and they came in with all sorts of ideas about .! i

the Negroes and the same could be said of Puerto Rician boys |

from up in the neighborhood of 155th Street. |

Q, Was this a continuing thing?

A No. I recognize this as one of the problems that

the youngsters brought into the institution andone of the

problems we had to remove if we were going to have effective

rehabilitation of this boy.

Q Doesn't this tension detract from the basic purposes . • • •' i

of the institution as you describe it? i

A Unless the institution is properly managed and j • i

unless it operates with the proper reference to philosophy, ; ' 1

It can very definitely destroy the rehabilitative intention j !

of the institution, and that has happened. . i

Q Has that happened within your experience?

A No. j

Q How do you know it has happened? j

A This comes to me primarily out of my reading and j

associating with people In the field. \

Q Isn't this always a factor? '

A I. would say as long as -our society, as long as our j

culture includes a variety of racial and social groups, yes, !

but I think we have to train these youngsters for living in I

the world and in convincing them that a segregated world does !

not exist today.

Q Have you had any contact with the D.C. children's

fields ? i

A Yes. Q Would you explain what that is?

123

A I know a little bit about the District Training

School, which is —

THE COURT: The National Training School?

A In the National, which is run by the Federal Bureau I!

jj of Prisons. Several years ago they built on the grounds of :\ what was formerly the District Training School a school for S •• •

;> the mentally retarded, two additional institutions, both of

ij which cared for delinquent children. One of these is a 400-:j bed co-educational training school with older boys and girls

jj and a smaller one with boys ;under 14 and this is the District ' i

:i • .

j} Training School for Delinquent Children,

ii ' Q An integrated school?

A Yes. ' Q Of your own knowledge, have there been any racial

11

ii incidents within that institution? ii I

i A I don't know of any behavior problems beyond what !•

^youngsters get Into while under care. This is only my under-•! '

il standing at this point. By that,I don't mean that they have i i ' ! no boys who are more highly aggressive and explodable youngsteijs Jwhich require care in what they would call a security cottage i

land I understand that many of the problems we have in our

124

j! training schools, children committed, for example, for assault^ !i • :j against persons andproperty. 'i - •

THE COURT: What he is asking you, has there been i

any race trouble in the District School or not? I I

A My answer is, as far as race causing anything, my | i

Janswer would be no. >

I MR. DEARING: I object to the question and move to j

;strike out the answer. j '! !

;j THE COURT: Do you mean the Court's question? 1

I MR. DEARING: No. j

THE COURT: Overruled. You say you had not been to !

that home ? 1

A Not the District Training School.

THE COURT: Any trouble attributed to the fact that

colored boys and white boys are sent to the same integrated

training school?

MRS. MITCHELL: May we request information as to

where the District Schools are located?

A Laurel, Maryland, right off the Expressway.

MRS. MITCHELL: Located in the State of Maryland?

A Yes, fourteen miles out of Washington.

125 i

THE COURT: Mr. Murphy asked you a very plain j ; i • 1

j[ question and I have been trying — you keep talking and I ii ! ij don' t have any answer to it — he has asked you in your i

r • • •

ij experience in the training school field and all whether you • • i

•i know of any integrated schools or facilities where the factor I ii ' • 1

! • ! ; of integration has in itself created abnormal or other problem^. ii • • ' i

j MR. MURPHY: That is the question. j II- 1

THE COURT: He keeps saying he read this and that. , il • i Do you know of any institution where there has been this i

1 . . . ;

;j trouble? i! A I thought you limited that to the Childrens Center i

il • ; ' at Laurel. As far as my knowledge goes. no. I

'! By Mr. Murphy: •

jj Q You say so far as you know none can be traced to I ii 1

;! race conflict? . . . . . . . . i

il A We are still with the Childrens Center? j

!j Q, Yes. I ' i

i; A As far as I know and based on the facts available r i

i. •

i| to me, and I am not basing this on rumor, hearsay, or what-not j -1 i ;i but what I happen to know about the program, I would answer j ' definitely no. • ;

'j MRS. MITCHELL: I want to object at this point. '

j The Supreme Court and the various Federal Courts and State j

!j Courts have held where the issue has arisen that the possi- j •i ' 1

;| bility of racial tension or the disturbance of the public j i • 1 » peace would in no wise be a defense by the State for failure 1 • |

j to comply with the constitutional guarantee. Our own Federal | !; District Court was reversed by the Fourth Circuit Court of j

'] Appeals in the Recreational cases when that matter came , it • j 1 before the Court, the question of swimming pools in Baltimore :

' t i City, the Municipal Beach at Fort Smallwood and the State I i| • • '> \\ Beach at Sandy Point, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

| reversed the Federal District Court of Maryland and ruled ' : • !

|| that the fact of the possibility of disturbance to the |

;j public peace and racial incidence could not possibly be a i

j defense for continuing the policy of racial segregation and < i| , • -i ;j that was affirmed by the Supreme Court. j 'I ' I j1 THE COURT: Hasn't the witness said that he doesn't;

know of any trouble arising from this situation? I

|j MRS. MITCHELL: But we want to go on record at this!

•\ time as stating that the Supreme Court in the School cases ; ii i ;J which have come before it, as well as all the other cases on i

127

the question have said that this is not a defense for con- <

!tinuing racial separation and in the matter of disturbance 1

I •• • '• ' 1

i of the public peace, the Court has continuously held that ! ' • i ! this is not a valid defense. ; i1 • " ; j! By Mr. Murphy: j

,j Q Are you familiar with the issue of white and colored

'j children in this institution, Children's Village? j

ij A Children's Village in New York? j i: I • I i ii Q Laurel, Maryland. 1

! f • • • , i

;! A My understanding, and this is by hearsay, is that j i| • • • ' i

ij approximately 80 percent of the children under care at the 1

! • ' ' • i

IChildrens Village at Laurel are Negro youngsters and 20 percent; i . ' I white. j

Q In other words, the minority race becomes the j i

i I ijmajority? j

A That's right.

Q, Hasn't that within your experience caused racial

conflict?

MR. DEARING: I object.


il 128

#11

ii By Mr. Murphy: i

Q What is the ratio of colored to white children in

the training schools, the four training schools?. ;

A Of this moment, roughly 52 percent white and 48 i i

percent Negro. ; . i

Q Have you projected these figures into the future? I

A Yes. In our ten-year development program, we '

project through 1970 the expected population at the institutions

THE COURT: Mr. Manella, on that last point, in

answer to a previous question, you gave these figures, I think}

Boys' Village 380, Barrett School 90. That would be a Negro

population of 470. The other two schools, Montrose 126 and

Maryland Training School 430, a total, of 556, making a total

of 556 white children and 470 colored children.

A My rough guess is 52 percent white and 48 percent

Negro.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q On the basis of these projections, Mr. Manella —

and I am sure you are familiar with it — will the colored

race ever be the majority race in the next ten years?

MRS. MITCHELL: We object.

I

129

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Just one or two other questions. Do you recall

the several conversations in my office approximately one week

ago when we talked about Childrens Village?

A Yes.

Q Did you answer me the same way that you are now? j I

A Yes, I believe I did consistently. j

Q Did you at any time refer to assaults within the j

institution at Childrens Village? j

A Boys fights, yes. j

Q Did you also state they were ascribed to race j i

conflict? i i

MRS. MITCHELL: We object. j I

THE COURT: Sustained. I would like to say this, j

as long as the plaintiff put Mr. Manella on this morning and |

was given pretty wide range,his expert qualifications and j

his experience and all in different institutions, now, I think\ i

i we are starting to get a little far afield. You have made j him your witness this afternoon, it frankly occurs to me that |

i Mr. Manella, who certainly cannot be qualified as an expert ,

:! 130

!i •

; in the Laurel institution just because he has been there and i,

;l knows some of the people there and has heard gossip or talk

about having a fight there or whatever it is, I don't know.

I do not think you can qualify him as an expert as having

Ij any particular knowledge about the operation of the District

jj Training School located at Laurel, Maryland.

For those reasons, I sustain the objection.

MRS. MITCHELL: May it please the Court, we would

consider that these questions are illegal under the present

i state of the law as already enunciated and in the case that

involved our own state facilities which went to the Supreme

j Court. THE COURT: I won't comment on that because I

I ••

' intend to ask the next witness a similar question. Do you

I have any further questions from Mr. Manella?

MR.DEARING: We have no further questions of

Mr, Manella. (Witness excused.)

i1

!! 131

ij Thereupon ii •

jj ELBERT L. FLETCHER,

j| a witness produced on behalf of the Defendants, having been

j first duly sworn, testified as follows: jl ' ' - • DIRECT EXAMINATION II Il By Mr. Murphy:

j Q Mr. Fletcher, what is your position? ii •

A Superintendent, Maryland Training School, 2400 j| Cub Hill Road. i! • • " ii Q How long have you been superintendent, Mr. Fletcher !! •

{ A Fourteen years and about eight or nine months.

i! Q And your educational background? II • ' Ii A Varied. A bachelor's degree. A master in the fiel jj of sociology, resident and degrees at Teacher's College, i1 ' •

•j Doctor's not completed, the philosophy of education, resident

j! in education, University of Maryland, the Human Development

Project, and additional courses at the University of Colorado :i

i; jj and one or two other schools. jj . Q Have you had any prior positions in the juvenile

ij field prior to your present situation? I '.; A That is all. I began with three years in Texas; ii . . 11 •

132

six and a half years at Childrens Village and ten years at j

the New York State Training School and my experience in ' i

Maryland. !

Q What is your primary responsibility as superinten- j

dent of the Maryland Training School? j i

A We generally think of ourselves as the one who !

i i

coordinates the resources of a large institution. Unfortunate*^

in such a large institution, we are away from boys andit is ! just a matter of supervising and controlling the entire ,

I organization. ;

i Q Mr. Fletcher, based on your long experience and I

i

study, what do you feel Is the key to a successful adjustment J j

of the State's Juvenile institutions?' A We think of several factors with relation to the j

child forming the overall treatment. Of course, I think most !

of us agree that most of the waking hours are spent with the

cottages. In other words, you have nine boys for eight hours

a day in the cottage and you have 72 positions with the school

and then you have maybe a night watchman post of nine hours a

day and we have thought, generally speaking, that the closer

relationship with the boy should lie, of course, in the cottage|

133

!| people, included with the other elements of teaching, school |i . - • • I! work, habits and all, and these are the main factors but there ii .

jj are other factors. i'1 • • • j! Q Which in your opinion would have the highest i i jj influence ?

A We think the most important is the cottage life

where we think the main real adjustment takes place rather

than in the other places.

Q What is the role of the cottage parent?

A A counsellor and a guide arid in many cases they

!! have a boy and father status and generally speaking they will .1 I!

'I bring their problems to the counsellor, for instance, if there il • '

'! is any school problem, as any parent would. ii ' . jj Q Have you ever worked in an integrated training ij

i school? A Yes.

Q Where ? .

A New York State Training.

Q Public?

A Yes.

Q Did you undergo any problems of conduct at an

I I

I ' •

I

l . 134

j integrated facility that you did not undergo in a segregated i i facility?

MR. DEARING: I object. It doesn't make any

j difference whether or not he encounters problems in an inte-i "

j grated facility which he would not encounter in a segregated

| system or vice versa. It is immaterial, irrelevant and

! incompetent as a defense for any violation of constitutional j i I I rights under the equal protection or due process clause of

I the Fourteenth Amendment. ! THE COURT: Overruled. I

j A I was rather going to broaden this if I might.

| I rather had to confine this to just the question you asked

: but would like permission to broaden on it if I may. | 1 i

j We encounter problems now In cultural groups. The

I rural boy has different ideas than the city boys and a Jewish •

! boy coming in has a big problem. i

j Q Did you have any more of that in the New York

State Training School than any other? i | A Yes. Whenever you mix your cultures, and there i • ' '

j it would be more than just mixing the Negro boy. There is I there a Puerto Rlcan culture. We have all read of what they

jj have done and where they have their gangs. They come in and

ij create racial fights and it was very difficult In new York.

| We might get 14 boys out of a gang fight consisting of Puerto

I Rican. or white gangs and you must consider at any time mixed I

j ages in different groups. You see that they have better

supervision and we feel, I feel this is not a matter of what

I can do. I can handle it.

We would like to have a little more supervision

and a little less number in a cottage. We would like to have

twenty in place of forty and would certainly in a heterogeneous

group want not more than twenty. It would just increase it.

That Is part of my job. I am not worried about it but I feel

that we could be given a start. Crowded like we are, I would

not want to be in a situation where we would be dumped on a

one-way proposition. As superintendent, I know it would not

be a one-way track with integration. I know we will have the

total boy problem with integrated schools. We had trouble |

when St. Mary's closed up and those boys were transferred to

our place.We had hold-overs from the two integrated in

stitutions and anything that is different makes problems.

Q You mean when St. Mary's went out of business?

136

j: A Yes, we had a good deal of trouble for two or three ii II !| years until all the St. Mary's boys came through me. It '\

ii tended to increase the business and there is no use saying Ij !l it didn't.

Q Would the increase detract from the purposes of

] the institution?

A If you don't have the facilities for handling, it

will wreck it and break down everything you are doing. That

is what we are fearful of but let us do the separating.

Q, Would you say you would have to surrender some

security under such situations?

A It is more than that. It is security and training.

It would bring in a lot of feeling. We are dealing with a

most difficult group to handle because their background is ii

Ii a good deal different and we have to recognize that. We just ; i

jl need a little better training facilities and if those things '! '

j; are not provided for us and if we are going to do any kind

i of a job, it would make my job under existing circumstances it

I; |j very difficult. I! Q, In addition to your job being made more difficult, ' ! '

i| what other factors are we talking about ?

137

A I don't know of any o thers .

Q How would a l l of t h i s a f f e c t your i n s t i t u t i o n a l

program?

A I t would a f f e c t us very l i t t l e except that various

areas we might have to change and then there i s some d i f f e r

ence in the educational l e v e l where we might need a d i f f e r e n t

type teacher . I keep in touch with Mr. Veney and we t a l k

about the educational l e v e l s . He needs more reading than I

do and needs more in the academic end than I do and. those

are fac tors that we would have to consider .

THE COURT: For the record, he i s the Superintenden

of Boys' V i l l a g e .

A Yes. He and I.work pret ty wel l toge ther .

By Mr. Murphy:

Q Have any of your inmates been transferred to the

Forestry Camps?

A Yes.

Q What i s the experience within your knowledge when

the boys are Integrated at that l e v e l ?

A I have never v i s i t e d the camp. I have had some

boys come back with some sort of s tory as to why they were

138

forced to return and so forth and so on.

Q Have they ever given you a reason based on racial

conflict?

A Yes, they give that along with the others.

Q Can you elaborate on that?

THE COURT: What group do you mean by that? ' ! " ' • ' •

| A Runaways. I've had some boys run away and come ii 'i • ij back and make these various complaints. ! !

jj THE COURT: Their rate of runaways isn't as great 'j from the camps as at your school where you have no Negro i i j; students? i! it

,i A Sir, in order to be fair with the Maryland Training Ii ;j School, they have a runaway problem but may I say this: They '\ . jj are taking the top cream of my boys, who are not runaways up |!

|j there. They don't want the chronic runaway.

ij MR. MURPHY: I have no further questions.

jj CROSS-EXAMINATION

!l By Mr. Dearing:

jj Q Mr. Fletcher, just one or two questions. Is it

true that when these boys are rehabilitated, they will have

to come back into a heterogeneous society?

ii 'j A I would rather you be a little specific. As much ii

i ias we would have them run that way, I believe that he will go ii jjback to Negro parents and Negro homes and Negro culture and ,i • . |; they may go into a school program, a mixed group.

jj Q Isn't it very important then that they have this 'i

jj heterogeneous experience so as to do a more effective job of i, i

;j rehabilitation?

jj A I don't really know. I don't honestly know. I

!|wish I did. I! >i ji Q Isn't it logical that if they have these race ii ;l

[problems, they should be taught to live with other people ii iunder supervision so that they will know how to live and get 'I • !l along in an integrated world at home ? ji • • ;j A I hope I didn't leave any other impression. That I1 should be done. I just want to say this: We will do the 'i j! job if you wish it done. ii jj MR. DEARING: I have no further questions. j! THE COURT: I take it that you are saying, Mr, i

| Fletcher, that if the Court of Appeals of Maryland or the i! Supreme Court should rule on these or similar constitutional :!

jj questions and you would berequired to take both races at the

140

Maryland Training School, that you don't want it to happen

again where St. Mary's closed that quick and you had to take

their boys without giving you proper facilities. You were

over-populated for three years arid you are still overcrowded,

of course. Isn 11 that true ?

A That is true and also I feel that when a court has

' the right to commit, the court will commit Negroes to me and

no white boys to Mr. Veney. I hope it would be an over-all

commitment to the Department. I could talk with Mr, Veney

and we could get along very well on that,

MR. MURPHY: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

MRS, MITCHELL: No further witnesses. J

THE COURT: I will be glad to hear from counsel.

(Thereupon followed argument by Mr. Dearing,

Mr. Murphy and Mrs, Mitchell.) THE COURT: You have closed your arguments but I

i would like to say to counsel on both sides, if you wish to i comment on the points I raise now, it might be helpful to

the Court.

We speak of the rights of Negroes or other groups

I under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. When the

141

i1 Government sets up public facilities, members of different t

j groups are entitled to receive equality of treatment, but the

:( Supreme Court, as I recall it, at the time of the Brown case i' ' ' ; within a matter of a week had the District of Columbia Schools i! •

jbefore it. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitu-r

; tion has no relevancy in the District of Columbia. That is

jnot a State, and as I recall the decision, the Supreme Court

,1 virtually struck down discrimination in the District of

jj Columbia public schools and predicated its decision on the

! due process clause of the Federal Constitution rather than ;!

jj equal rights, the Fifth Amendment. They got the same result j i l! but through a different part of the Federal Constitution. •I

'! Now, with that as a premise, the position has been

j: urged in this case by young citizens who say "I want to go

jto a school where education is not segregated. I want to go

j! to an integrated school as a matter of right. The Supreme

;! Court has said segregated public schools are inherently unequai i! .per se. Public education is a right, whereas no one would i !! claim a right to go to a training school or an adult to a !! 'prison. We have had a few cases where youngsters have com-i1

ii • ii plained about going on the bus but by and large people say

142

there is a stigma to a training school and not a matter of

right.

Mr. Murphy -- I think I get his point there, that

it is a place for the rehabilitation of those who have

offended and are taken out of society, but in the Fifth Amend

ment, I raise this point and then I want your comment — and

it has no string to it but in sending a youngster to a public

training school, we have a duty in the court to observe due

process. In the District cases which reached the Supreme

Court, the court said in effect that colored children going

to a District School that is not integrated, that those

citizens were being deprived of their liberty without due

process of law.

They had a right to liberty and to go to integrated

schools and there weren't any as of that time in the District

of Columbia; that it was a denial of due process with the

School Board, one branch of the Government, and an administra

tive branch, to say no, you go to this school. It is segre

gated but that is all that is available. If that is a denial

of due process, we in the court have to send children to this

school or that and we have to observe the due process of the

j ^ 3

'i j

: people before us but they have forfeited their rights of due

! process because they are in the court.

If a Grand Jury that indicts a man is selected

from citizens of one group or race and others are excluded

|| from membership, that conviction has been stricken down. Of

course, that would be a criminal case where one would be going

to prison.

(Argument continues.)

•i THE COURT: I think counsel on both sides have been

ii very lawyer-like and helpful and have been fine officers of the

!| Court. i

ii The Court will hold the matter sub curia awaiting !

submission of respondents' brief. i (Thereupon, at 2:30 o'clock p. m., an adjournment i

II j

;[ was taken.) I

144

ROBERT MYERS, Minor by MAE COLEMAN, his Mother and next Friend

Plaintiff

v.

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Et al,

Defendants

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

BALTIMORE CITY

Docket A-142

File No. A-40055

MOYLAN, J.

OPINION

The Plaintiff, Robert Eugene Myers, a 13-year old

Negro boy, was on October 28, 1959 before the Circuit Court

of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, on an ex

parte Petition. He was alleged to be delinquent as a result

of stealing merchandise from two Baltimore stores. After the

testimony, that Court adjudged the plaintiff to be delinquent

and announced that the boy, on probation at the time for

previous thefts, would be committed to a training school.

Counsel for Robert Myers thereupon made a motion

145 |

" • "•" ' ' ; • ' " " T "

that the boy be sent to Maryland Training School for Boys, j

contending that Boys 1 Village is a racially segregated schoolj,

and that State statutes requiring racially segregated schools:

in Maryland violate both the Equal Protection and the Due

Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States. j

The Court continued the case for further hearing {

on the constitutional question raised, Invited the State i

Department of Public Welfare, the Attorney General of the j

State, and the public training schools of the state to i

intervene as interested parties to file briefs and to appear i at a further hearing to be scheduled for the taking of testimony

• i

and the arguments on the constitutional question. The de- •!

linquent boy was sent on an Order of Detention to Boys 1 Village

where he has remained since October 28, 1959, a period of i

eight months. |

Before the scheduled re-hearing, the plaintiff

filed in this Court the present proceeding, a class action

in which he aske for a Declaratory Decree on the constitu

tional issue raised. By stipulation, the parties agree that the physical

146 j

I

and other tangible factors and facilities in these four Statej

training schools are substantially equal. I

i

The parties agree that a real controversy exists, '

that all proper parties are included, and that this case !

presents the sole question: Is racial segregation in the j

State's training schools per se a violation of the due process

or the equal rights clause (or both) of the Fourteenth Amend- i

ment of the Federal Constitution? :

Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated I

Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition, relate to the State's four

public schools for delinquent minors: -Boys' Village, 1

Maryland Training School for Boys, Montrose School for Girls, ,

and Barrett School for Girls. These Sections provide that j

these schools are public agencies for "the care and reformation

of minors committed thereto under the laws of this State," j

and further provide that the Maryland Training School shall j

be for white male minors, Boys' Village for colored male

minors, Montrose School for white female minors, and Barrett

School for colored female minors. I n Brown et al v. Board of Education eft al, 347

U. S. 483, 74 S. C. 686, the Supreme Court of the United 1 i 1

147

States on May 17 , 1954 declared the fundamental principle

that racial discrimination in public education is unconsti

tutional, and in its Opinion after the rehearing on imple-

mentation on May 31 , 1955 (349 U. S, 294, 75 S. C. 753) said: |

"All provisions of federal, state or j local law requiring or permitting such ! discrimination must yield to this j principle." ,

The controversy in this case revolves around the j

question: Are Maryland's public training schools a part of I

the State's public education system? Are they within or |

beyond the ordit of the Supreme Court decisions in the School 1

Segregation Cases, and In later related cases involving j

other types of public facilities all of which are now the j

supreme law of the land? j

In Brown et al v. Board of Education, supra, the j

Supreme Court of the United States states: j

"Today, education is perhaps the most ' important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school atten- I dance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces.

148

It Is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

One contention of counsel for those named herein

as parties defendant Is that the Supreme Court in the School

Segregation Cases was dealing with conventional elementary

schools whose pupils return home daily at the close of each

school day, whereas the youths committed to training schools

must remain not only during the normal school day but night

149

and day throughout the terms of their commitments. As a

result, he contends that desegregation of the training

schools could have the effect of enforcing social as well

as educational association among the two races for twenty-

four hours a day. The Supreme Court, itself, in a series of

cases following the Brown cases, in which similar efforts

were made to limit the scope and impact of that decision,

summarily rejected these contentions as untenable, declaring

that the fundamental and sweeping constitutional principle

it had enunciated on May 17 , 1954, applies to all levels

of public education, - to public residential schools as

well as to day schools. The Board of Trustees of University

of North Carolina et al v. Leroy Benjamin Prazier, et al,

76 S. Ct. 467.

. The possibility of social as well as educational

contacts between the races is precisely the same at a public

training school as at a State College, State University, or

any other public residential school - except that these

other schools are co-educational and Maryland's training

schools are not.

A second argument of Counsel for the Defendants

Is that the State's training schools having been set up j i

"for the care and reformation of delinquent minors," - j and education being a part, but only a part, of the process j

l

of rehabilitating their young wards - these public training j

schools are something less than full-fledged schools,

and do not fall within the scope of the term "public educa

tion" in the sense that such term was used by the Supreme j

i Court in School Segregation Cases. This contention, the

Court feels, is without merit. J

The public education system of Maryland, in its wi<je

and comprehensive scope, embraces many types of schools with ; ' i

diversified curricula and facilities. It includes not only j

the hundreds of public schools of the usual or orthodox j

pattern where the students commute to their homes after the I

usual school day, but also includes a chain of specialized ! {

residential schools where the students live at the school !

campus twenty-four hours a day, - such as the State University]

five State Teachers Colleges and the Maryland School for

the Deaf at Frederick (where the ages of the students range

from 6 to 18 years). In all of these, following the Supreme

Court's rulings in the School Segregation Cases, desegregation

151 : i i

is already either a fait accompli or is in the planning stage]

The broad term "Public Education" encompasses not ! I

only the conventional schools, but hundreds of schools pro

vided by the State at public expense for special groups with

varying aptitudes, abilities, handicaps and problems. I

Public Education includes in Baltimore City, for | i

instance, the Baer School for the Physically Handicapped, an j

engineering preparatory school (Baltimore Polytechnic In-i

stitute), the Homewood Demonstration School on the Hopkins I

campus for academically talented children, the Montebello

Public School with its accelerated courses for the gifted i

students, several vocational high schools, numerous ungraded

classes, shop centers, and occupational classes for slow-i

learning and feebleminded children. All of these schools

are as much an integral part of a public educational system

nowadays as the more typical neighborhood schoo; the lockstep j

curriculum for all students is a thing of the past.

The Baltimore City public school system includes,

of course, the Bragg School for Boys and the Highwood School

at Catonsville (both maintained and operated by the Baltimore

City Public Schools although located in Baltimore County),

where boys exhibiting flagrant anti-social behavior, person- !

ality distortions and emotional quirks are sent to be re- I

habilitated before they are returned by school authorities . i

to their former classrooms.

These two Baltimore City public schools are set up!

exclusively for these problem boys who are not educable in

the more routine classrooms until their anti-social attitudes t

are re-formed and their hostility to all authority replaced I

by socially acceptable behavior. These two public schools,

both correctional in nature, have enrolled in past years |

hundreds of emotionally unstable students who have formally • i

been adjudged delinquent by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, placed on Probation and J

. 1

assigned by school authorities to these schools after full i

collaboration and exchange of opinion by the Court staff and

school authorities. The fact that they have been adjudged |

delinquent and are forced to attend, both by our compulsory

education statute and by the joint decisions of Court and

school officials, in no wise alters the basic identity and

character of these schools as schools. The use of social case work, psychology, psychiatry,

10 ' 153

! vocational training and character-building recreation as :i | auxiliary tools by the training school in its over-all 1 program of rehabilitative education parallels their wide-i

spread use throughout Maryland's system of public education,

i In the Baltimore City public school system there are 116

j counsellors, 20 visiting teachers, a director of social work

and 51 social workers, 2 psychiatrists, 12 psychologists and

a clinical specialist. Grouped together in the Division

for Special Services, they diagnose the problems of hundreds

\ of maladjusted students with anti-social behavior patterns.

I The use of these important adjuncts and tools have become

I standard practice in all schools, including our public train-1 ing schools. They do not transform either into some other

; type Of institution. i

Public Education is designed for all children in

our communities, - the normal child, the gifted child, the

slow learner, the emotionally unstable, and the delinquent

youth. Nothing in the differing curricula or specialized

educational techniques employed in any of these various

types of schools emasculates them as educational institutions

or strips them of their essential identity as schools set

154 I i

. . . _ _ . r +- _ . r - -- - - - - ^ |

up by the State or Municipal Governments at public expense.

The per capital cost to Maryland taxpayers of i

educating each of the approximately one thousand boys and

girls in the four State training schools is $2,800 per annum.

The per capita cost of maintaining the inmates in our prisons'

is approximately a third of that sum. It costs far more to

secure experienced educators and trained teachers than prison

guards and turnkeys. These figures reflect the true educa- •

tional character of the training schools. Maintained by the ,

State at public expense, they are an integral part of its system

of public education.

The Supreme Court in the Brown cases, in defining

the importance of public education, could hardly have more j

specifically included the public training school than by j i i

including among the basic aims of educating a youth "helping j

him to adjust normally to his environment" and laying "the j

very foundation for good citizenship". This is precisely .

the vernacular of training school administrators.

In decisions following closely on the heels of

the School Segregation Cases, the Supreme Court has made clear

that the far-reaching constitutional principles announced on

155

May 17, 1954 are not limited to segregated public schools

but must be held to apply to public facilities totally un

related to public education.

In Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,

350 U. S. 877, the Supreme Court, under the principle

announced in the School Segregation Cases, affirmed the

District Court for the 4th Circuit in holding that segrega

tion of the races in public recreational facilities (a public

bathing beach), even though separate facilities available

to both white and Negro races were entirely equal, violated

the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Federal District Court had held that segregation could

not be justified as a means to preserve the public peace

as no proper governmental objective existed in the classifica

tion and segregation of the races in such facilities, saying:

• * * if that power (State's police power) cannot be invoked to sustain racial segregation in the schools, where attendance is compulsory and racial friction may be apprehended from the enforced commingling of the races, it cannot be sustained with respect to public beach and bath house facilities, use of which is entirely optional."

156

I n G a y l e e t a l , v . B r o w d e r e t a l , 77 S . C t . 1 4 5 ,

t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i n a P e r C u r i a m O r d e r , c i t i n g i n s u p p o r t

i t s p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s i n t h e S c h o o l S e g r e g a t i o n C a s e s ,

a f f i r m e d o n N o v e m b e r 1 3 t h , 1 9 5 6 a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t

w h i c h h a d h e l d t h a t s t a t e s t a t u t e s r e q u i r i n g s e p a r a t i o n o f

t h e r a c e s o n b u s e s a n d o t h e r c i t y t r a n s i t l i n e s i n M o n t g o m e r y ] • • . I

A l a b a m a a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . I ! i I

I t c o u l d h a r d l y b e p l a u s i b l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e i i

r a t i o n a l e o f t h e S c h o o l S e g r e g a t i o n C a s e s , a n d t h e f u n d a

m e n t a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s d e c i d e d , d o n o t a p p l y t o

p u b l i c t r a i n i n g s c h o o l s - w h e n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i t s e l f j

c i t e s t h e m a s c o n t r o l l i n g i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g p u b l i c f a c i l i - j

t i e s t o t a l l y u n r e l a t e d t o p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n , - a p u b l i c b e a c h j

a n d p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n l i n e s . j

T h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i n t h e D a w s o n ! • • j

c a s e , s u p r a , a n d t h e G a y l e v . B r o w d e r c a s e , s u p r a , w o u l d s e e m )

t o p r o v i d e t h e c o m p l e t e a n s w e r t o a n o t h e r c o n t e n t i o n o f

C o u n s e l f o r t h e D e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e a l r e a d y d i f f i c u l t j o b o f

r e h a b i l i t a t i n g d e l i n q u e n t y o u t h s w o u l d b e g r e a t l y a g g r a v a t e d

b y m i x i n g w h i t e y o u t h s a n d N e g r o y o u t h s i n t h e t r a i n i n g

s c h o o l s . C o u n s e l p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y o f

157

Maryland, in enacting the segregation statutes regarding j

training schools might have had in mind this consideration, j

which could be considered as a proper governmental objective I in separating the races. !

In this connection the Court, in reviewing the j

legislative history of our training schools, finds no .• . • j

evidence in support of such design by the General Assembly or i

the State Government. The State prisons, where the dis- | !

ciplinary problems are considerably greater, have never been | i

segregated. Following the Supreme Court's decision in the I

School Segregation Cases, the State desegregated the Rosewood) State Training School for feebleminded children, many of whom I

i have been adjudged as both "feebleminded and delinquent." |

i

Within recent years, following enabling statutes enacted by ! i

the General Assembly, the State has established the Maryland i i i

Children's Center, (a Detention Home for Study of boy adjudged! i

delinquent by our Juvenile courts), the five State Forestry

camps, to which our public training schools send Court-

committed delinquent boys for the last-stage of their training

program, and the Esther Loring Richards Clinic, to which the

State's juvenile courts send delinquent children who have

158

| also been adjudged as emotionally disturbed. All of these

! institutions receive children from the Juvenile courts of

j Maryland —without regard to their race or color. The judge;

J of this Court, in his day to day familiarity with these j

institutions as the presiding judge of the Circuit Court of !

j Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, knows of no i ' . ' : ' • •

! incident or trouble in any of them, disciplinary or otherwise* •i

arising from the fact that they are operating as non-segre-• ' . ' "'" • ' i

; gated institutions. j i . • . • • • . i

j This Court, in a 17-year span of service as Judge !

| of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenilej

| Causes, has never known nor read in the public press of any j

such troubles arising in any of the public training schools ! • • ' . !

throughout the country, the vast majority of which are non-

I segregated. The Children's Bureau of the United States Depart*;

j ment of Health, Education and Welfare in 1956 published the j

! results of its Survey of Public Training Schools for Juvenile

Delinquents. (Bulletin #33). It reveals (page 8) that 67

State training schools, even before the Supreme Court's

decision in the Brown case, admitted children.of all races.

'\ The Survey further reveals that segregation in training

schools is the pattern In fourteen southern states (pages 8

and 39), and that non-segregated training schools are the

pattern of all but four of the remaining thirty-six states

(page 8) . Maryland with its four segregated public training

schools is one of these four states. Of the several States

de-segregating their training school since 1954, the border

States of Missouri and West Virginia might be mentioned.

The National Training School for Boys and the District of

Columbia training school located at Laurel, Maryland, are

non-segregated schools.

In assessing the real character and basic function

of a training school, an Opinion by Judge Alvey nearly a

century ago is in point.

In Roth and Boyle v. House of Refuse, 31 Md. 329/

decided July 2, 1869, the Court of Appeals, after holding

that the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City acted within the

jurisdiction and power it then had in reviewing and over

ruling a decision of the Baltimore City Court which had

declared that a 12-year old boy had been illegally committed

to the House of Refuge, then a private school which later

became the Maryland Training School for Boys, went on to

160

state by way of dicta at Page 334:

"Inasmuch as a grave constitutional question has been fully discussed, involving the power of a Justice of the Peace to commit, and of the Managers of the House of Refuge to detain minors, charged as and proved to be persons of incorrigible or vicious conduct, so that his or her control is beyond the power of parent, guardian, or next friend, we deem it proper, in view of the great public importance of the subject, to say, .. that we are clear in the opinion that the power conferred upon the Justice of the Peace, as also that conferred upon the Managers of the House of Refuge by the 18th section of Art. 78, of the Code of Public General Laws, is in no wise in conflict with the Declaration of Rights, or the Constitution of this State. And that we fully concur in the reason and judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in disposing of a similar question in the case of Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart., 9

"In accordance with the suggestion of Judge Alvey, the following opinion of the Court in Ex parte Crouse, 4 Wharton 1 1 , is appended: PER CURIAM. - "The House of Refuge is not a prison, but a school where reformation, and not punishment is the end; it may indeed be used asa prison for juvenile convicts who would else be committed to a common Jail, and in respect to these the constitutionality of the Act which incorporated it, stands clear of controversy. It is only in respect of the application of its discipline to subjects admitted on

18 161

the order of a Court, a magistrate, or jj the Managers of the Almshouse, that a

doubt is entertained. The object of the • charity is reformation, by training its

inmates to industry; by imbuing their !i minds with principles of morality and

religion; by furnishing them with means j to earn a living; and above all, by

separating them from the corrupting influences of improper associates. To

i this end, may not the natural parents, • when unequal to the task of education,

or unworthy of it, be superseded by the parens patrice, or common guardian or the

I community? "It is to be remembered that the public

j has a paramount Interest in the virtue ! and knowledge of Its members, and that of j strict right, the business of education

belongs to It. "That parents are ordin-j arily intrusted with it, is because it j can seldom be put into better hands;

but where they are incompetent or corrupt, what is there to prervent the public from withdrawing their faculties, held as they obviously are, at its sufferance? The right of parental ontrol is a natural, but not an unalienable on

j As to abridgment of indefeasible rights by confinement of the person, it is no

j more than what is borne, to a greater or j less extent, in every school; "

The Roth case, supra, decided in 1869, has had

a far-reaching impact on juvenile court statutes and the

development of training schools as schools. The first

juvenile court in the United States was not established until

162

thirty years later and the first juvenile court in Maryland

not until thirty-three years later (1902). Some of the

enabling statutes employ the language verbatim as initially

used in the Crouse case and adopted in toto by the Maryland

Court of Appeals.

Significantly, our Court of Appeals clearly

recognized in 1869, when the House of Refuge and other

training schools were In their infancy, and the educational

courses and facilities provided for the young wards of our

courts were comparatively meager and primitive, that nothing

in their early status as "reform schools" or in the fact that

the youths were committed to these schools by courts stripped

the schools of their basic character as educational institu

tions. No juvenile courts being in existence at the time,

the majority of the State's wards In these schools in 1869

were committed there by the criminal courts of Maryland or

by justices of the peace exercising criminal jurisdiction.

At present they are sent there by Equity Courts and other

civil courts in which they have been tried in noncriminal

proceedings. Statutes have specifically removed these

juvenile courts and training schools from the orbit of the

163

I I

criminal system. These delinquent youths have no criminal \ • . • i

record and lose no civil rights. j

In Baker v. State, 205 Md. 42, the Court of Appeals!

held that Boys' Village is a Reformatory within the meaning .;

of our Escape Statute as amended and broadened by the !

Legislature in 1927 (Acts of 1927, Chapter 374) to include, i

in addition to penal institutions named in the old 1837 i

statute, "reformatories and any other place of confinement."

The Court significantly observed that: i

"All along the accent has been on education and training rather than upon punishment."

A careful reading of the language used by the Court

of Appeals in the Baker case is persuasive that the decision \

was never intended to, and does not, strip the public i

training schools of Maryland of their basic character as ; i

schools, although the monors committed to them are in a sens©

restrained of their liberty. The word Reformatory must be

placed in the context of the Court's entire Opinion.

"A Reformatory is an institution in which efforts

are made either to cultivate the intellect or instruct the

conscience or improve the conduct of inmates......" Black's

Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1951). !

Reformatory Schools for juvenile offenders was an !

oft-used term in the English law of several decades ago, and

the outmoded and fast disappearing term reform school was

frequently used in America In the 1880*8 and 1890's as the i

name of early training schools. |

The limited sense in which theCourt of Appeals

in the Baker case, supra, applied the term Reformatory and

the alternate connotation oft applied to the term as a penal j

Institution for younger convicted felons are two different

things. In 1945 the State established the Reformatory for

Males and the Reformatory for Females as the State's penal !

institutions for younger convicts. It retained the training

schools as schools.

The Court of Appeals in Jones v. House of Reformation, 176 Md. at 45, noted that in 1935 "more than 400 colored boys were committed to Cheltenham School for Boys (since re-named Boys' Village) by courts of.criminal Jurisdiction." Its student population in i960 includes only five committed by the State's criminal courts and 391 by the State's juvenile courts (civil courts) in noncriminal proceedings. On June 6, i960, the four State training schools had a total student population of 1,056, - 8 sentenced by criminal courts and 1>048 (or 99-2/l0#) committed to them in Juvenile courts.

165

The very statutes which established the Maryland j i

Training School for Boys, the Cheltenham School for Boys ,

(since renamed Boys' Village), the Montrose School for Girls j

and the Barrett School for Girls and which refer to them as !

"public agencies for the care and reformation of the inmates,'|

specifically designated these institutions as schools by name.

Any suggestion that a "reform school" or "Reformatory" cannot'

be at the same time a full-fledged school is clearly a non ; • !

sequitur. In addition, jthe Maryland Training School for Boys,1

i the Montrose School for Girls and the Barrett School for j

i

Girls were by statute specifically made a part of the general educational system of the State,

"The Maryland School for the Deaf, incor- | porated under the Acts of 1867, Chapter 247, the Maryland Training School for Boys, organized under the authority of the Acts of~19l8, Chapter 300 (Art. 27, Sees. 707- ! 718), and the* Montrose School for Girls I organized under the authority of the Acts 1

of 1918, Chapter 303, (Art. 27, Sees. 720-728), are each on January 1 , 1923 placed in and shall thereafter exercise their functions as parts of the Department of Education. Each of said institutions shall continue under the management of their respective Boards..............under the general supervision of the State Superintendent of Schools." Acts of 1937, Article .41, Sec. 142 (Annotated Code of Maryland 1939) Italics supplied.

23 166

;| Chapter 70 of the Acts of 1937, which set up ,1

Cheltenham School for Boys did not place it or its Board of

! Managers under the supervision of any State Department, but i

within a year (in 1938-39) the State Department of Education,

at'the request of State officials, made a thorough survey of

ji the educational program of Cheltenham. The State promptly implemented the recommendations of the State Department of

i • Education, provided an enlarged program of education at this

1 school be patterned after that In the other public schools *

j of the State. The Court of Appeals notes in Jones v. House

of Reformation, supra, at page 45 that the per capita cost

in 1935 of educating boys at the Cheltenham School was $200

per annum. Today the per capita cost is $2,800, an Increase Of l400#.

The proof is overwhelming that the State estab

lished these public training schools as schools. They are a

\ part of the State's public education system. The Supreme

Court's decision in the School Segregation Cases, supra,

are therefore controlling.

In the century-old legislative history of the

State's private training schools and public training schools

167

which succeeded them, several milestone dates mark sweeping |

changes, all of which gave tremendous impact and momentum to

their evolution from primitive schools to fully equipped,

modern schools, with full staff of trained, accredited school!

teachers: - j

1869 The Maryland Court of Appeals spoke out in Roth v. House of Refuge, supra. |

i

1,902 First juvenile court in Maryland established, -three years after the first juvenile court in the United States was set up in Cook County, Illinois.

1943 New juvenile court law in Maryland for Baltimore City enacted an Equity Court succeeded old Magistrate's Court with jurisdiction in juvenile causes.

1945 Statewide law (several counties exempted themselves)reintroduced Juvenile courts at the Circuit Court level.

1948 State training schools were placed in 1943 under newly created Bureau of Child Welfare of the State Department of Public Welfare, Art. 88A, Ann. Code, 1957. In 1948, Division of Training Schools was created within this Bureau. The transfer of supervision to this Bureau from the Department of Education reflected no step backward in the status of training schools as schools. The Report of the Governor's Maryland Commission on Juvenile Delinquency and its sweeping recommendations resulted in this and other statutory changes. The reasons urged for this change were logical. The State Department of Public Welfare already

168

had a backlog of successful experience in its broad child welfare program embracing dependent j and neglected children committed to it by ' juvenile courts. Pear was expressed that in j the Department of Education's vast and com- ; plicated programs for 300,000 Maryland school children, the comparative handful of court-committed delinquents (less than 1,000 per j annum) could well become a "stepchild" and \ be overlooked. The change in State policy has accelerated the educational program of doubled), the training schools, teachers salaries have/ap-ipropriations for needed facilities have skyrocketed and modern school buildings have multiplied.

1945 Reformatory for Males of 16 to 26 years (a penal institution) established. The resulting change in themake-up of the training school populations, with the ! siphoning off of hundreds of young criminal offenders, formerly committed to the training schools, has been a genuine metamorphosis. It has lessened old problems and tensions, lowered the average age and the size of the classes, and advanced the progress of these insti-tutions as schools for younger, more tract-able children. j

The case of Nichols v. McGee, 169 F. Supp. 721, '

(appeal dismissed, 361 U, S. 6) in which segregation in state ,

prisons is upheld, i3 rejected as wholly inapplicable. That

case dealt with a state prison and not a school. There is

simply no more resemblance between a training school and a

prison than there is between delicate brain surgery and an

26 169

ax murder. The Court in the Nichols case fully recognized

this fact when it stated:

"The Brown case rationale cannot be extended to State penal institutions, where inmates and their control, pose difficulties not found in educational systems."

Counsel for the Defendants contends as an alter

native proposition that a public training school, if neither

strictly prison nor school, is at least a hyphenated or

hybrid institution combining features of both, and therefore

the Supreme Court's decisions in the School Segregation Cases

are not relevant.

Plaintiff's Exhibit #3, prepared by the Superin

tendent of the Maryland Training School for Boys, provides

concrete and convincing evidence that our four training school's

are basically schools, and not custody-centered institutions,

with education secondary. The well-balanced, over-all

educational program at the Maryland Training School is not

an academic facade, - and it is substantially equal to the

instruction and courses provided at the other three State

training schools, as the parties have stipulated.

Even the training schools' responsibility for

170|

• i

i

custody Is discharged, and the number of naways kept within j

control, by keeping the youths usefully at work in the well- • l

rounded and diversified educational program provided in i

the classrooms, the vocational workshops, the dormitories I

and cottages and on the campus. As Raymond Manella, !

Director of the Bureau of Training Schools of the Department |

of Public Welfare testified, our training schools are

"neither maximum security nor minimum security institutions.

They have an open program." None of the routine paraphernalia

of the prison --- locked doors, cell blocks, prison guards,

and fences surrounding the institutions topped by barbed

wire — is present. The Courts, representing the State as

parene patrice in performing the parental role imposed by !

the Juvenile statutes, do not send their young wards there !

to be placed in cold storage, but to be educated and trained

in good citizenship. The purpose of such statutes is

"preventive and not punitive."

Respect for authority and for the personal and

property rights of others, conforming to socially acceptable

standards of behavior, good work and study habits, and the

importance of re-forming anti-social traits and respecting

171

all laws are emphasized in all phases of, and are an in

grained part of, the well-rounded training school program,

curricular and extra-curricular, just as they are in all

schools. In this fashion the Schools rehabilitate and re

form the delinquent youth and safeguard society from his

recidivism at the same time. Courses in Civics, Good

Citizenship and Problems in Democratic Living are taught in

the classrooms. Training school youths are taught to "play

by the rules" in the school gymnasiums, cottage game rooms

and on the athletic fields. They are taught how to get along

with other people in their cottages, under the supervision

and instruction of trained cottage personnel. All of these

activities are component, coordinated and complementary parts

of the unified school program, and are not to be thought of

as competing and separate objectives of a training school.

Without: the School and its educational program, the Insti

tution could be likened to the play without Hamlet.

The program at the Maryland Training School for

Boys (Plaintiff's Exhibit #3), substantially equal to that of

the other three state training schools, is carried on in

three schools:

172

1. The Junior School with grades for the primary

group (8, 9, 10 and 11 years old) and through

the ninth grade for boys 12, 13 and 14 years

old;

2. The Senior School; and

3. The Junior-Senior High School with grades up

to the 12th. The curriculum includes algebra,

geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, physics,

Vocational shops are: automobile, machine shop,i

printing and carpentry. I

The training school curriculum is so closely \

patterned after that in other public schools that a child,

committed on December 6th or on March 2nd, for instance, can j

enroll in and keep up with his regular class, and when his

scholastic grades and credits are earned, can usually return j t <

to his former school in his neighborhood for the opening of

the fall semester, or even in mid-semester, without academic

world history, United States history, Problems

of Democratic Living, and Civics.

The school day runs from 8:30 a. m. to

12:00 noon, and from 1:00 p. m. to 4:30 p. m.

1 7 3

difficulty.

The public records of every juvenile court in j

i Maryland contain additional convincing proof that our State [

training schools are bona fide schools. Court records reveal j

that even the responsibility for custody is met by means of j

the Schools' coordinated educational program. The vast !

majority of children at our training schools are there on ,

indeterminate commitments. The length of stay at the institu-j

tion (the average is about eight months) is determined by the !

boys and girls themselves in passing their school work and t

earning their academic grades. Detailed and informative :

Progress Reports are sent regularly to the committing judge j

at the close of each of two Semesters, just as report cards i

are sent to parents periodically by other schools. Not' only !

do the youths in our public training schools visit their homes '

for a week at Christmas, and for several weeks during the \

summer vacation, but as a reward for good school progress

and obedience to school rules of conduct, are allowed period

ically to visit their homes for week-ends. This has been

going on for more than ten years in Maryland, and the negli

gible number of boys and girls who fail to return (and have to

1 7 4

be called for) at the end of their home visits is much

smaller than the number who escaped in the old days when

these schools, to prevent escapes, used the austere and

repressive methods associated with standard prison life.

Counsel for the Defendants argues in his Brief that

the equal rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment could

hardly apply to youths in a training school because:

"It is hardly a fundamental civil right of a

citizen as a member of society to have himself incarcerated in

one of the State's correctional training institutions; nor is

it a civil right for one so incarcerated to dictate the terms

under which he may be rehabilitated. The purpose of his

confinement is the antithesis of freedom and liberty, and

while we may not view the Juvenile offender as a criminal

in the classic sense, it is clear that he is removed from

society for the protection of society, and restrained of

his liberty until such time as his fledgling criminal and

antisocial tendencies can be checked and remedied by insti

tutional confinement."

In considering this contention, the Court reaches several conclusions:

175

The child committed to a training school

loses no civil rights. A citizen may have

no fundamental civil right to be confined

in a public correctional school but the Court

has no right to abridge the monor's consti

tutionally guaranteed right to due process

at every stage of the Court proceeding

including the Court's selection of a training

school.

The word incarcerated, defined in standard

dictionaries as imprisonment, is derived from

the French root word career which means

prison. It is Incorrectly applied to training

schools.

Although the court-committed youth cannot dic

tate to the judge the institution to which he

is to be sent, the proper legal question or

Constitutional criterion Is, - Can the juvenile

court judge, in selecting the Institution,

systematically exclude all Negro delinquents

from the Montrose School for Girls and the

3 3 176

Maryland Training School for Boys, and system

atically exclude all white delinquents from •

the Barrett School for Girls and Boys' Village?

The corollary to that question is this: Can

the Maryland statutes which require the

juvenile court Judges to do that very thing

be upheld as constitutional in the face of the

decision of the Supreme Court of the United

States in Boiling v. Sharp, 347 U. S. 497, that

such denial of a youth's right to attend a

non-segregated school is per se a depri

vation of his liberty without due process of

law?

If, arguendo, the Courts should hold that the

Supreme Court's decisions in the School Segregation Cases do

not apply to training schools and that Maryland statutes

requiring segregation In them do not violate the Equal Rights

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution,

- these segregation statutes do nevertheless violate the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Boiling v. Sharp, supra, segregation in the

3 4 177

public schools of the District of Columbia was held to be in

violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Court there said:

"We have this day held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. The legal problem in the District of Columbia is somewhat different, however. The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The 'equal protection of the laws' is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than 'due process of law', and therefore, we do not Imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.,

"Although the Court has not assumed to define 'liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective. Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.

178

"In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. We hold that racial segregation inthe public schools of the District of Columbia Is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."

The rationale of the Supreme Court Opinion in

Boiling v. Sharp, supra, would apply much more forcibly to

the present case than it did to the District of Columbia

case. The District student's loss of liberty without due

process of law lay solely in the denial of his right, the

Supreme Court decided, to attend a non-segregated school

while living in his home and community. In this case, the

Court Commitment, coupled with the Maryland segregation

statutes,not only requires his forced attendance in a

segregated school against his will, but during several months

of forced detention he experiences, In addition, an actual

loss of his liberty in the conventional sense.

When a citizen's constitutional rights are abridged

he goes to the Courts for redress and for enforcement of

those rights. The Courts in their own proceedings are hardly

179

under less obligation to observe the constitutional right to

due process of all parties before the Court than a District

of Columbia School Board or other administrative agency in

pupil assignments.

For the reasons set forth, the Court holds that

those parts of the statutes (Sections 657 and 659-661 of

Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition) which

require separation of the two races (Negro and white) in

the four State training schools violate both the Equal Right

and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment

of the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore

unconstitutional.

An Order will be entered in conformity with this

Opinion.

/a/ Chas. E. Moylan ^

July 1, i960 Judge

fag** Jt

^ / • 2 > * & U 4 u * ± /9t>o

P - > ^ C O P T

October 21, 195?

Hon. C. Ferdinand Sybert Attorney Oeneral of Maryland 1201 Hathleeon Building Baltimore 2, Maryland

Dear Oeneral Sybert t

Under Section 32 of Article 98A of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Maryland Traininr School for Soya, the Montrose School for Qlrls, Boys' Village of Maryland, and the Barrett School for Qirla exercise their corporate functions under the supervision, direction and control of the State Department of Public Welfare.

Two of the schools are for the care of boys and two for g i r l s , one of each for white and one of each for Megro. (Sections 7'i? to ?l*8, inclusive, of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland.) The school for Megro g i r l s (Barrett School for Qlrls) I s an expensive operation because of the small number of children in custody s t sny one time. The State Department of Public Welfare has recommended to ths State Planning Commission that the Montrose School for Oirls be enlarged to permit earing for both white and Megro g i r l s , provided any necessary legis lat ion authorising th is be enacted. The g i r l s at Barrett School for Oirls would be transferred to Montrose, and Barrett would be either closed or used for some other purpose. This recommend-ation was predicated on the bel ief that substantial ssvinrs to the State would result ths re from.

Caring for Megro g i r l s at Montrose rather than at Barrett raises the question s s to what, i f any, effect ths recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, In the public school eases, have with reenact to the Maryland State training schools. Specifically, do the Supreme Court cases invalidate the Maryland statutory requirement thst the Montrose School for Oirls l imit I t s care to white g i r l s duly committed to the School under the laws of Maryland?

lour opinion on these questions would be helpful to the State Department of Public Welfare and to the training schools in nlmining for the future.

Respectfully yours,

\

WTK.Jr.iF

c c i Mr. Murphy

c c : Mr. Hunt

W. Thomas Kemp, J r . , Chairman State Board of Public Welfare

S T A T E O R M A R Y L A N D

S t a t e L a w D e p a r t m e n t IO L I O H T S T W E C T

B A L T I M O R E 2 . MD.

January 1 1 , 1956

W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. Chairman - Board of Public Welfare 120 West Redwood Street Baltimore 1 , Maryland Dear Mr. Kemp:

You state in your recent letter that the State Department of Public Welfare has recommended to the State Planning Commission that Montrose School for Girls, which at present cares for white girls, be enlarged to permit care of both white and Negro girls. The Board of Welfare proposes to have the girls at Barrett School, which at present cares for colored girls, transferred to Montrose, so that Barrett will be available for some other use. In the event Barrett is not required for other Department of Public Welfare use, it would be closed. You state that in the opinion of the Department, substantial savings will result to the State from this consolidation of the two schools.

You have inquired whether the legislative designation of these institutions as schools for white and colored girls prevents such a consolidation, in light of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the public education cases. Specifically, you inquire whether the Supreme Court decisions have the effect of invalidating the Maryland statutory provisions which confine Montrose School to the care of white girls and Barrett to the care of colored girls. Since the training schools for boys are likewise set up on a segregated basis your inquiry, although directed to the girls* schools, is of general applicability.

The statutory provisions with respect to the various Houses of Reformation in the State of Maryland are found in Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Ed. and 1955 Supp.). The particular institutions under the Department of Public Welfare are: Boys Village (for colored boys), Maryland Training School (for white boys), Montrose School (for white girls), and Barrett School (for colored girls) Section 743 of Article 27 (1955 Supp.) deals with Boys Village and reads as follows:

W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. - i d - January 1 1 , 1956

"There shall be established in the State an institution to be known as the Boys* Village of Maryland. Said institution is hereby declared to be a public agency of said State for the care and reformation of colored male minors committed or trans-ferred to its care under the laws of this otate. The appointment and powers of the board of managers of said institution shall be governed by article 88A, §e )2 to 35, both inclusive, of the Code." (Emphasis supplied.)

Maryland Training school for Boys is aealt with in Section 746, which reads, in part, as follows: "From and after the acquisition by the State of Maryland

from the Maryland School for Boys, a corporation of this State, of the property heretofore held, conducted and managed by said corporation as a reformatory institution for the care and training of white male minors committed thereto under the provisions of the laws of this ^tate, the same shall continue under the name of the Maryland Training School for boys to be conducted as a public agency of this State for the care and reformation of white male minors now committed thereto, and who may hereafter be committed thereto under the laws of this State. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)

Montrose School for Girls is treated in lection 747, which reads as follows:

"From and after the acquisition by the State of Maryland of the property of the Maryland Industrial School for Girls the same shall continue as a reformatory under the name of the Montrose School for Girls to be conducted as a public agency of this State for the care and reformation of white female minors now committed thereto, and who may hereafter be committed thereto under the laws of this State, ''he appointment and powers of the board of managers of said institution shall be governed by article 88A, §§ 32 to 35, both inclusive, of the Code." (Emphasis supplied.)

Barrett School for Girls is covered by Section 748, which reads, in part, as follows: "There shall be established in this State, an institution

to be known as the Barrett School for Girls. The said institution is hereby declared to be a public agency of this State for the care and reformation of colored female minors committed or transferred to its care under the laws of this State. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)

Examination of these statutes shows that in each instance thf Code specifies whether colored or white are to be received by the institutions.

97

W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. - 3 - January 11, 1956

9S

By the provisions of Article 8BA of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Ed.), Sections 3 and 32, supervision, direction and control of the institutions above mentioned are committed to the Department of Public Welfare.

The history and legal effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Public Education cases were considered in our opinion of June 20, 1955, addressed to Dr. Thomas G. Pullen, Jr., State Superintendent of Schools. We held in that opinion that all constitutional and legislative provisions of this State which require segregation in the public schools are unconstitutional and hence must be treated as nullities. We stated that the law laid down by the Supreme Court with respect to public education is clear, and that differences of mechanics of relief did not in any way limit the present existing legal compulsion on the school authorities to make a "prompt and reasonable" start toward the ultimate elimination of racial discrimination in public education.

Since the General Assembly specified in the statutes creating the various training schools whether white or colored are to be there received, your present inquiry raises the issue of the constitutional validity of each of the several Acts of the General Assembly. Before proceeding to a detailed consideration of the problem posed, some statement of the basic principles which must guide our actions in the matter seems appropriate.

The fundamental concept upon which the Federal Government and that of the States of the United States is based is that our State and Federal Governments depend for their existence upon the will of the people expressed through Constitutions duly adopted. The basic theory of our State and Federal Constitutions is that the powers given by the people to the governing body break down into a tripartite division. The three coequal branches, executive, legislative and judicial, serve the people, and are themselves restrained from despotic or arbitrary exercise of power by the internal system of checks and balances. This principle is so well established as to require little discussion.

The judicial branch of the Government of the United States and of the State of Maryland is, under our system, the interpreter of the Federal and State Constitutions. The existence in the judiciary of this important power and duty is one of the most vital of the internal system of checks and balances protecting our people against the arbitrary exercise of executive or legislative authority. The landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison. 1 Cranch (U.S.) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60, stands as a monument to the judicial recognition of this vital principle. Inherent in the power to interpret the Constitution of the United States and the various States, which is vested in the judiciary,is the power to pass on the constitutional validity of laws passed by the legislative branch of the Government.

;V. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. _4_ January 1 1 , 1956

It would be contrary to the theory of our government to permit the Executive Department to arrogate to itself this purely judicial power. Attempts to invade this exclusively judicial power have been resisted by the courts in the past. This is as it shouiibe. Even the theory that the executive's oath to support the Constitution entitles such an officer to decide questions of the constitutional validity of statutes passed by the legislative branch has been rejected. 11 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, Section 3 7 , p p . 7 1 2 - 7 1 3 ; II Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, lection 205, p. 9 0 7 .

As a corollary to the exclusive right of the judiciary to determine constitutional questions, ana in order properly to protect the Legislature and its prerogatives as against executive action nullifying legislative will, we indulge in the presumption that every law found on the statute books is constitutional until declared otherwise by the courts.

The Maryland Constitution expressly recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers in Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights, which provides:

"Tha*- -ne Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other; and no person exercising the functions of one of said Departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other."

Substantially this same provision has been found in our Constitution since the earliest days of Maryland. Unlike the Federal Constitution, where separation of powers must be found by reading the entire document, Maryland has always so provided. Niles on Maryland Constitutional Law, at p. 19, in commenting on this provision, made the following statement:

"The language of our Maryland Declaration of Rights * * * is clear and explicit; and our courts have been alert to oppose even the first steps toward usurpation by one department of the powers or duties of either of the others * * *."

Our Maryland view was clearly laid down by Judge Earle in the case of Crane v. taeginnis, 1 G.&. J.463, decided in 1829, where the court made the following comment:

"The Constitution of this State composed of the Declaration of Rights, and Form of Government, is the immediate work of the people in their sovereign capacity, and contains standing

1 evidences of their permanent will. It portions out supreme power, and assigns it to different departments, prescribing to each the authority it may exercise, and specifying that, from the exercise of which it must abstain. * * * When they transcend defined limits their acts are unauthorized, and being without warrant, are necessarily to be viewed as nullities."

11

W. Thomas Kemp, J r . , Esq. - 5 - January 1 1 , 1956

The court then went on to point out that the judicial power of the to interpret the Constitution is the check upon legislative I s b r ^ c h t s T 6 • n c r o * c h » « " »*™ ^ righta of S i S i t S * o ? c £ q u I l

The o f f i c e of Attorney General i s created by A r t i c l e V of the Const i tu t ion , Sect ions 1 through 0. The Attorney General i s head of the Department of Law, one of the executive and administrat ive departments of t h i s S t a t e . A r t i c l e 41 , Sect ions 2 and 171, Annotated Code of Maryland. By A r t i c l e 32A, oec t ions 1 through 12 , the general powers and dut i e s of the Attorney General are s e t out.

The place of the Attorney General in the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t ruc ture of our £>tate i s such that t h i s o f f i c e must be circumspect t h a t , as an arm of the execut ive , i t does not encroach upon d u t i e s and prerogat i v e s of the j u d i c i a l or l e g i s l a t i v e departments. Chancellor Bland, in The Chancel lor's Case. 1 Bland 595, 672, pointed out the ob l iga t ion of the various departments one to another, when he s a i d :

"The Declaration of Rights dec lares ' that the l e g i s l a t i v e , execut ive , and j u d i c i a l powers of government ought to be forever separate and d i s t i n c t from each o t h e r . ' This d i v i s i o n and separat ion i s the pecul iar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and great exce l l ence of our government, i t i s the grand bulwark of a l l our r i g h t s , and every c i t i z e n has the deepest i n t e r e s t in i t s meat sacred preservat ion. Each of these several departments should be kept, and should f e e l i t to be i t s h ighest honor, to keep s t r i c t l y within the const i tut iona l boundaries assigned to i t . The Legis lature should not encroach upon the jud ic iary , nor upon the execut ive , nor should e i ther of those departments trench upon each other or upon the l e g i s l a t i v e . "

h i s t o r i c a l l y , the Attorneys General of Maryland have observed the injunct ion not to encroach upon j u d i c i a l or l e g i s l a t i v e prerogat ives . In the exerc i se of the Attorney General 's duty t o act as advisor to the Governor, t h i s o f f i c e has rendered opinions t o the Govanor as to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of Acts pending for s ignature before the Governor. 2G Opinions of the Attorney General, 2o6; 7 Opinions of the Attorney Gene r a l , 239; 21 Opinions of the Attorney General, 272; 36 Opinions of the Attorney General, 129; 38 Opinions of the Attorney General, 150. Other opinions may be c i t e d and the l i s t here contained i s not intended to be exhaust ive . As t o e x i s t i n g laws, however, a f ter passage by the Legis l a t u r e , the Attorney General should exerc i se care to observe the d i v i s ion of powers. This o f f i c e must scrupulously avoid invasion of the j u d i c i a r y ' s powers ana d u t i e s . We w i l l always seek to g i v e jus t and proper e f f e c t to every dec i s ion of the courts of t h i s State and of the Supreme Court of the United S ta te s on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l matters . However, we are constrained to denounce an e x i s t i n g law as v i o l a t i v e of State or Federal c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarant ies only in those s i t u a t i o n s where a f a i r interpretation of a court dec i s ion i n d i c a t e s a challenged law i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n v a l i d . In the absence of c lear ind ica t ion that a dec i s ion

Joe

W. Thomas Kemp, J r . , Esq. - 6 - January 1 1 , 1956

of our courts or of the Supreme Court of the United Spates covers and i n v a l i d a t e s a given s t a t u t e , we must, under our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s t r a i n t s withhold condemnation of the law.

The inquiry then must be whether t h i s i s such a case . In our opinion, i t i s not a c lear case within any dec i s ion of the United S ta te s Supreme Court or of the courts of t h i s Btate , such as would warrant our express ing a view of the i n v a l i d i t y of the training school laws un le s s the matter be resolved by proper act ion of our judic iary or our Leg i s l a t u r e . I t i s not our function to make pol icy in t h i s f i e l d .

The unique pos i t i on occupied by the training schools here under d i scuss ion i s evident from the f a c t that they are primarily i n tended as [ l a c e s to separate erring minors from the corrupting inf luence of improper circumstances aid a s s o c i a t e s . B a s i c a l l y , the State i s re moving the ind iv idua l s there confined from soc ie ty for the protect ion and welfare of the ind iv idua l . The theory that, every minor should re ce ive education as part of the process of "reform" introduces the element of doubt. But for t h i s aspect of tra in ing schoo l s , they would be purely c o r r e c t i o n a l .

Very many of the past d i s c u s s i o n s of t ra in ing schoo l s , found in the reported Maryland cases and in the opinions of the Attorneys General, i n d i c a t e the nature of the problem. For example, in an opinion of Attorn General Robinson, reported in 9 Opinions of the Attorney General, 16&, in d i s cus s ing the Maryland Training School for Boys, the Attorney General s a i d :

"As i t s name and pos i t i on among the State Departments would seem to imply, the Maryland Training School for Boys was intended for the education of male minors along economical and p r a c t i c a l l i n e s . "

In the same opinion, Attorney General Robinson made the fol lowing comment

n * * * i t (the Maryland Training School) was e s tab l i shed primarily for the care and reformation of such white male minors, who, through misfortune, environment or the e f f e c t s of crime, are , in the opinion of the J u s t i c e s of the Peace or Courts of the State or County, bet ter off within i t s wal la ." (Emphasis suppl ied . )

Again, at page 170 , the Attorney General commented:

"I r e a l i z e that your i n s t i t u t i o n was not intended to be a place of punishment. I t was organized as a place of reformation."

(Emphasis suppl ied . )

The Court of Appeals, in Baker v. s t a t e . 205 Md. 4 2 , had before i t the question of whether the Escape provis ions of the criminal law (Art i c l e 2 7 , s ec t ion I 0 4 , 1951 Ed. of the Code) applied to Boys V i l l a g e . The appe l lants contended Boys Vi l lage was not within the criminal law Escape s t a t u t e . Judge Henderson, at page 4 5 , sa id :

JO/

W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. -7- January 11, 1956

"The appellants further contend that boys Village is not a 'reformatory * * * or other place of confinement' witnin the meaning of Section io4. This argument overlooks the fact that the statute creating boys Village states that it is a place for 'care and reformation•."

The court held that Boys Village was a "reformatory" within the meaning of the statute.

furtner lack of clarity is indicated by the fact that the statutes creating the institutions in question are codified in Article 27 of our Code. This Article is, of course, the criminal law Article. However, for many years, these institutions exercised their powers under the supervision 0 1 the State Superintendent of Schools; the instructors have been included in the Teachers Retirement System, and they have to a degree been considered "eaucational institutions". They have not, however, in our opinion been included within the term "public education" in the sense that that term has been used in the Supreme Court opinions.

As heretofore set out, one of the ways in which the various institutions seeks to reform the inmates is by education. However, the distinguishing characteristic of such institutions, to our mind, is that inmates are there under legal compulsion and are denied the privilege of leaving the school. The inmates are, in other woras, confined to these institutions. This is a situation different from that' whicn was before the oupreme Court in the Bubiic School cases, in that educational equality was the problem before the court. Here, desegregation "of the institution, contrary to express legislative intent evidenced by the statutes creating the institutions, could have the effect of enforcing social as well aa educational association among the inmates for twenty-four hours a day.

We are aware that compulsory school attendance laws may make it obligatory upon parents who wish their children to attend the public schools to accept and abide by a system of public education from which racial discrimination has been eliminated, consistent with our opinion of June 20, 1955, interpreting the application of the Supreme Court decisions to the iviaryland public education scene. We believe it is important, however, to consider the freedom of choice which inheres in parents under our compulsory school attendance law. Section 223 of Article 77 of the Code (Public Education Article), provides, in ^art as follows:

"Every child residing in Baltimore City and in any county in the State between 7 ana 16 years of age shall attend some cay school regularly as defined in Section 226 of this Article * * * unless it can be shown that the child is elsewhere receiving regularly thorough instruction during said period in the studies usually taught in said public schools to cnildren of the same age * * (Emphasis supplied.)

It*

rJ. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq. - 8 - January 1 1 , 195o

It will be noted that parents are free to demonstrate that a child is receiving regular instruction in private schools. This retains the necessary element of freedom of choice in the field of public education and is consistent with the social views of the citizens of the State of i-*aryland that the elimination of discrimination in the fields of public action should not carry over into and destroy the historic view of our people that separation of the races in social matters is the accepted norm and has been the established policy and practice through the years. See Williams v. Zimmerman. 172 Md. 5o3, 567, 192 A.353, 355.

One further point is worthy of mention. Basically the argument in the public eaucation cases turned on the issue of whether to retain or reject the "separate but equal" doctrine laid down in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 41 L.Ed. 256. We are not aware 01 any instance in which the doctrine of "separate but equal" has been applied to the field of correctional institutions such as those here under discussion. Even though the effect of the public education cases is to abolish the doctrine in all fields to which it was heretofore applicable (which has been questioned), we do not believe it can be fairly said the effect would be carried over into still other fields of activity never heretofore included within the doctrine.

Judge Hammond, while Attorney General, had occasion to write an extended opinion on the constitutional validity of a personal property tax on "stock in business". 37 Opinions of the Attorney General 424 at 439. After he had concluded that the courts of our State would probably hold the Act valid and constitutional, even though he had some doubt in his mind as to its constitutional validity, he made the following comment, which we believe exactly appropriate in the instant case:

"* * * Our doubts are not so strong as to warrant this office taking the extraordinary action of advising the State Tax Commission to ignore an Act of the General Assembly.

In our opinion, the present case is not such a clear one as to warrant our taking the "extraordinary action" of advising your Department to ignore the express will of the Legislature.

Attorney General

CFS:MH KPH

N0rman P. Ramsey} Deputy Attorney General

/03

P - z . C

J «

Hon. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director State Dept. of Public Welfare 120 W. Redwood St. Baltimore 1, Md. Dear Judge Waxter:

This will acknowledge your letter to this office dated June 21, 1957, stating that you have received informal advice from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City for Juvenile Causes that they expected petitions to be filed requesting that a colored de-

, linquent be sent to a training school designated for white. After receiving your telephone advice on Friday

afternoon to this effect, I conferred with Mr. McDermott concerning the suggested procedure of having the Department intervene on a voluntary basis. I told Mr. McDermott that I did not think it was proper for us to enter the proceeding as volunteers. He tended to agree with me and suggested that I confer with Judge Moylan.

I conferred with Judge Moylan and Mr. McDermott this morning in chambers. After advising Judge Moylan that I had serious doubts as to the propriety and jurisdiction of the court in the matter, I suggested that in any event the movants be required to file a formal petition, and that the Department and the school bp joined as respondents under a show cause order. In light of the importance of the question and the constitutional problem involved, I do not believe that the matter can be handled in the somewhat summary and informal manner I originally contemplated. Judge K.oylan has the matter under advisement ani is aware of the fact that I will be out of town the balance of the week.

I shall keep you advised of developments.

C Ad : M H

* ' 1 Omut * i,INL*tL

STATE or MARYLAND S t a t e L a w D e p a r t m e n t

IO L I O H T S r n e t T

Baltimore 2. Md.

June 24, 1957

c C. Ferdinand Sybert Attorney General

(STATE SEAL) Stedman Prescott, Jr. Deputy Attorney General 0

? State of Maryland Y STATE LAW DEPARTMENT

10 Light Street Baltimore 2, Md, September 10, 1959

Mr. Thomas J. S, Waxter, Director State Department of Public "elfare State Office Building 301 Vest Preston Street Baltimore 1, Maryland

Dear M r . Baxter:

Receipt is acknowledged of your recent letter requesting our present view as to the constitutionality of Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition).

These statutes relate to the State training schools, namely, Boys 1 Village, Maryland Training School, Montrose School, and Barrett School, and provide that such institutions are public agencies for the care and reformation of minors committed thereto under the laws of this State. The statutes further provide that Maryland Training School shall be for white boys, Boys' Village for colored boys, Montrose School for white girls, and Barrett School for colored girls.

The precise constitutional issue presented in your letter is whether the legislative mandate requiring operation of Maryland's training schools on a racially segregated basis violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

By ODinion dated January 11 , 1956 (Ijl Opinions of the Attorney General 120) we considered this same question in light of judicial decisions as of that time, particularly the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 1*93 (195U), holding segregation of children in public schools solelv on the basis of race to be unconstitutional. We there held, in pertinent substance, that a ^resumption of constitutionality attaches to each act of the Legislature and that the Office of Attorney General, as an arm of the executive branch of our government, was constrained to denounce an existing law as violative of state or federal constitutional guarantees only in those situations where a fair interpretation of a court decision indicates that a challenged law is constitutionally invalid. We then noted th?.t the training schools were primarily intended as places to separate erring minors from the corrupting influence of improper circumstances and associates and that these institutions were both legislatively and judicially declared to be reformatories. While we fully recognized that education was a part of the process of reforming the individuals committed to the training schools, and that to a degree the institutions have been considered as educational institutions, it was our view that they did not fall within the purview of the term "public education" in the sense that such term was used by the Supreme Court in the Brown case. Specifically, we said:

"... the distinguishing characteristic of such institutions (training schools), to our mind, is that inmates are there under legal compulsion and are denied the privilege of leaving the school. The inmates are, in other words, confined to these institutions. This is a situation different from that which was before the Supreme Court in the Public School cases, in that educational equality-was the problem before the court. Here, desegregation of the institution, contrary to express legislative intent evidenced by the statutes creating the institutions, could have the effect of enforcing social as well as educational association among the inmates for twenty-four hours a day."

)0£

Mr. Thomas J. S. Maxter, Director September 10, 1959

"One further point is worthy of mention. Basically the argument in the public education cases turned on the issue of whether to retain or reject the 'separate but equal' doctrine laid down in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 111 L. Ed. 256. We are not aware of any instance in which the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has been applied to the field of correctional institutions such as those here under discussion. Even though the effect of the public education cases is to abolish the doctrine in all fields to which it was heretofore applicable (which has been questioned), we do not believe it can be fairly said the effect would be carried over into still other fields of activity never heretofore included within the doctrine."

We have found nothing in the present law as it has developed since our opinion of January 11, 1956, which is at variance with our earlier views, and we consequently reaffirm the same, restating herein our ultimate conclusion in that opinion as follows :

"... the present case is not such a clear one as to warrant our taking the extraordinary action of advising your Department to ignore the express will of the Legislature."

We think that the opinion of the United States District Court in Nichols v. WcGee, 169 F. Supp. 721 (N. D., Calif., 1959) bears sufficient relationship to the present question to include a reference thereto in this opinion. In that case the petitioner, an inmate of a State prison, contended that his constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law was denied him in that he was required to join an exclusively Negro line formation when proceeding to his assigned cellblock for daily lockup and to the prison dining hall, and that he was required to eat in a walled-off and exclusively Negro compartment in the prison dining hall. He contended that such systematic segregation caused him a loss of self-respect, thereby making it difficult for him to effect the same degree of rehabilitation possible for unseg-re-ated prisoners of other races. He relied principally on Brown v. Board of Educa-tion, supra. The Court there held: "By no parity of reasoning can the rationale of Brown v. Board of Education be extended to state penal institutions where the inmates, nB—liTTeTr'^orVtrcTPp'ose difficulties not found in educational systems. Federal courts have long been loath to interfere in the administration of state prisons".

Very truly yours,

/s/ C Ferdinand Sybert

C. Ferdinand Sybert Attorney General

/s / Robert C. Murphy

Robert C. Murphy Spec. Asst. Attorney General

CFS RCM/k

-2

^.a-Outf"*1^* ^ n . ^ 9

- y-oossh>2>

F - > INFORMATION ON THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AT

i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS, 2UOO Cub Hill Road, Baltimore, 3U? Md. •

Requirement :- All boys under 16 years of age must attend at least a half S a. a day of academic classes. Boys over 16 have the opportunity

to attend academic classes if they so desire.

JUNIOR SCHOOL Here all boys are in the academic program a full day. These are the younger

boys who live in the junior cottage area. The regular public school curriculum is followed. In addition to content subjeets,these boys get three hours per week of physical education and three hours per week of arts and crafts* There are twelve regular classroom teachers, physical education teacher, arts and crafts teacher, and a building principal* All are college graduates, some are fully certified and licensed by the State of Maryland, while others are in the process of getting certified which will require completing certain required courses in neighboring colleges*

Boys are placed in classes according to level of reading ability, intelligence quotient, and previous school experiences as well as physical and social maturity level* Following is the breakdown of classes as of November, 1959.

Teacher #1- Primary Group - Grades 1 and 2 — 8, 9, 10, 11 years old Teacher #2- Primary Group - Grades 1,2, and3 — 12,13, 14,15 years old

Teacher Third grade — Ages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Teacher Fourth grade — Ages 9, 10, 11, 12 Teacher Fourth grade - Ages 13, 14, 15

Teacher#S - Fifth grade - Ages 10, 11, 12, immature 13 Teacher #7- Fifth grade - Ages 13, lU, 15, immature 16

Teacher #8- Sixth grade - Ages 12, 13, lU, and 15* Less aggressive. Teacher #9— Sixth grade - Ages lU, 15, immature 16. More aggressive.

Teacher #10— Seventh, eighth, ninth,etc. grades. Generally 13, 14, 15,

and less mature 16 year olds*

Teacher #11- Physical education for all grade levels. Teacher #12- Arts and crafts for all grade levels.

The average size of these classes for the Fall of 1959 is about 15* Some days they are less and other days more, all according to the population* At this writing the smallest group is 11 and the largest is 18* However, we have known these groups to be never less than 18 and as high as 26 and 27 or more.

The building has ten classrooms, arts and crafts shop, administrative offices, staff lounge, staff lavatories, boiler room, medical and general use room, and was completed in April, 1957* It is in within easy access of all junior cottages.

Academic continued

SENIOR SCHOOL

Here all boys under 16 years of age are in classes at least a half day. Boys of 11th and 12th grade levels attend all day* In addition to the content subjects all boys get at least three periods of physical education per week. All teachers are college graduates and all but two are fully certified, and these two will be certified by June, I960, Most severely retarded reading cases receive special correctional instruction.

The program is two-fold. Boys from pre-priraer through sixth grade (poor level) remain with the same teacher each day for 3§ hours, except for physical education periods. The other half day they are in the vocational and maintenance programs.

Teacher #1 -

Teacher #2 -

A.M. P.M.

A.M. P.M.

Pre-primer,primer, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades. Fourth grade.

Fifth grade. Sixth grade. (Low level)

JEaxt-two, is known as the Junior-Senior High School section where there are seven groups, each reporting to home rooms and rotating among five subject specialista, including physical education.

Group 1 — Advanced sixth grade Group 2 — Seventh grade Group 3— Eighth grade Group H— Advanced ninth grade Group 5— Regular ninth grade Group 6— Tenth grade Group 7 Eleventh and" Twelfth grades

Half day academic and half day vocational

— - All day academic

Group 1 Arithmetic History Geography Language Arts Science Health Physical Education

Group 2 oup t Arithmetic Civics Geography Language Arts Science Health Physical Education

Group 3 Arithmetic History Geography Language Arts Science Health Physical Education

Groups U and $ Algebra or Pen. Math. Citizenship Science Health Language Arts Physical Education

Group 6 Algebra or Gen. Math. Biology " World History English Physical Education

Group 7 Algebra, Geometry, Trig, or General Math. Chemistry, Physics, or Senior Science U.S. History English Problems of Democratic Living Job Information Physical Education Study Hall

Academic continued — Senior School

Teacher #1- All mathematics areas, study hall, teacher aid Teacher #2- Science, health, biology, chemistry, physics, problems of

democratic living Teacher #3- Civics, U.S. and World history, citizenship, job information,

geography, direction in art Teacher #4- English, reading, spelling, literature, study hall.

Teacher #5- Physical education (for these groups as well as the two lower levels mentioned at top of Page 2)

In addition to these programs there is a part-time correctional reading teacher who classes are made up of boys from the academic pre-primer, primer, first, second, and third grade group as well as boys in the all^day vocational program. Classes are one hour and thirtjy-f ive minutes per day and meet four days per week.

The average size of classes in the Senior School in the Fall of 1959 is about 13 to 1U« At this writing the smallest group is 8 and the largest 16. However, we have known the smallest to be 16 and the largest 28.

The boys are placed in classes according to reading level (based on standard achievement test results and performance) and public school experiences. As much as possible we attempt to place them in a group somewhat like they would be attending in public school - — providing their reading ability is equal to average reading level of the group. If a boy from a public school 7th grade reads on a 3rd grade lewel then we place him with the 3rd grade group and provide as much correctional and remedial work as possible. However, if he comes to us from a tenth .grade in public school and can perform on a fairly good tenth grade level then we place him in such a group. We look at the I.Q. and decide whether or not he has the ability to progress in the grade level group to which we contemplate assigning him. Standard achievement tests and intelligence tests are guides for us but not the final determining factor in placement.

The senior building was first occupied in 1931. It contains (academically) seven classrooms, rest rooms, and administrative suite. Furnishings are fairly new, building has been re-painted several times, and general conditions are above average for a building 28 years old. We are asking to have present ceiling lighting replaced with modern fixtures. Across the corridor in the east wing are recently completed library facilities (for which there is no librarian) and unusually adequate staff lounge area.

SALARIES

Teachers I - Five years of more experience and college degree ^ d S ' O ( r O S ~ &

Teachers II- Less than five years of experience and collgge degree

HOURS 8:30 A.M.- 12 Noon and ltOO P.M. to 4:30 P.M. Mondays through Fridays

September^^^ough^end pf June. All legal holidays observed. No provision.for Thanksgiving Friday, Christmas-to-New Years, and

Easter holidays^Wtftr'as in public school. M

-u-

Academic continued

RETURN TO PUBLIC SCHOOL

At least thirty days before a boy is to return to public school we prepare a "Training School Educational Report" form and send it to the Pupil Personnel Supervisor in the county where the boy will live. In Baltimore City the form goes to Mrs. Vivian Washington in the Division of Special Services at educational administration on 2 5 t h Street. This form makes recommendations, gives previous school placement, current family situation, record of achievement and intelligence tests, transcript of work done at training school, scholarship record, interests, attitudes, problems which may affect school adjustment, and recommendation for placement in public school. Also, current date concerning physical defects, summary of adjustment, and special help boy received at training school.

Public school authorities, for the most part, are quite cooperative and follow our recommendations wherever possible. In the senior high school area credits in the various subject areas are recognized and accepted and the boy can proceed for the most part without too much loss. Since we offer nothing in foreign languages, commercial subjects, and in some other elective areas there is sometimes a little difficulty in adjusting a program for the boy upon his return to public high school.

VOCATIONAL

Currently, our strictly vocational shops are automobile, machine shop, printing, and carpentry. Vocational-maintenance units are general repair, sheet metal, farm building maintenance, dairying, dry cleaning, electricity, farming, garment repair, foods, laundering, masonry, painting, plumbing* These are housed in the senior school building or in outlying buildings. Strictly maintenance are building sanitation, clothing issue, disposal plant, office messengers, hospital ward work, power plant, stores, delivery truck, and grounds maintenance. This program involves only the senior size boys. Boys over 16 have the privilege of attending vocational or maintenance programs on an all-day basis.

At the present time those boys in automobile, machine, carpentry, printing, general repair, sheet metal, farm building maintenance, electricity, masonry, and pluttbing attend "related subjects" classes three hours per week under the instruction of a certified teacher in this field. Here shop history, mathematics, drawing, and spelling related to the particular trade are stressed. There is a second related subjects position vacant due to our inability to find a trained person to fill it. Modern and most adequate classrooms are available in the east wing of the senior school building for this instruction.

Most shop areas have recently been renovated in one manner or another. Many are as up-to-date as those in the best vocational schools.

A study is now under way by the Industrial Education Department of the University of Maryland to show us how tt> improve our vocational program.

Vocational continued

Sizes of shop classes vary according to the trade. Where the work is mostly of a maintenance nature the groups are quite small, but where most of the instruction takes place within the shop or locale of the trade the groups range from 8 to 12 in size.

Some vocational instructors have completed,or are now taking courses toward, certification requirements as licensed vocational teachers. Those who are licensed work a thirty-five hour week while the non-licensed are required to put in a flfirty hour week. Salaries are as follows:

The main purposes of the vocational program are to provide exploratory experiences for the boys. They are not at the training school long enough to complete a real course of study or become too proficient even as apprentice-learners. Assignments are made mostly according to the interests of the boys. In many cases the psychologist will make definite recommendations in light of his testing. Some boys do become fairly proficient in the elementary phases of various trades and are able to secure post-training school employment as the result of the training received here.

///

S T A T E D E P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C W E L F A R E

DIRECTOR

Thomas J. S. Waxter 301 West Preston Street Baltimore 1, Maryland

Institutional

Faci l i ty

Needs

BOARD


Calhoun Bond Dr. Sanford V. Larkey Mrs. Ralph 0. Dulany Howard H. Murphy Sam Eig Herbert R. O'Conor, Jr. Gen. Henry C. Evans Mrs. John L. Sanford

F O R E W O R D

The'Department of Public Welfare, after consulting with the Superintendents and Boards of Managers of the various State institutions for delinquent children and recognized authorities in the field of delinquency, has prepared this working document for the purpose of providing a current.and future plan uith respect to State institutional facilities far delinquent children in Maryland. Included are certain decisions and assumptions which must he made uhen projecting a ID-Year Development Program. Periodic revision will be necessary should future experience invalidate the basic assumptions. This ID-Year Development Program has been officially approved by the State Board of Public Welfare and gives the State of Maryland a plan for the economic and the efficient treatment of delinquent children ordered to State institutions until they can be released. It sets up specific objectives based Dn facts and estimates both capital and operational costs to the taxpayers.

The population data presented are based upon a careful review and analysis of past population experience, future expectation with respect to the size of the juvenile age population in the State of Maryland, the expected rates of admission to State institutions, and other important variables such as the length of stay or movement of children through the various facilities.

The Department, in projecting this ID-Year Development Program, was guided by its own experience with respect to the institutions' care and treatment of delinquent children in Maryland and by the solicited advice of a number of individuals and agencies in the field of delinquency central. The Department, although carefully evaluating facility needs as such in terms of building only, attempted. tD place the building program in its proper perspective as a segment or part of a total picture of the State program for the care and treatment of delinquent children. The years ahead for this State program may present more difficulties with respect to the recruiting and selection of qualified staff necessary tD creative programming, than to any other single factor. Buildings alone cannot guide delinquent children back to good citizenship.

Basic tD the success of this entire program is the need to improve and strengthen the operation Df the Four State training schools in order to sharpen their effectiveness as treatment resources far delinquent children removed from the community by the Courts.

T A B L E D F C O N T E N T S

Introduction 1

General Summary and Institutional Population Data . . 3

Analysis of Institutional Population Data and Population Projections 12

Institutional Staff Tabulations . . . . . . 19

History and Legislative Authority of Department, Department Institutions,

and Training Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Present Programs DF Department, Department Institutions, and Training SchDDls . . . . 25

New Statement of Responsibilities, Objectives, and Programs 31

Plat Plans and Inventory Listings -

State Department of Public Welfare Institutions 38

Plat Plans, Inventory Listings, and Acreage Analyses - Training Schools . . . . . . . 46

Recapitulation of Schedule of Needs for Funds by Totals 73

Capital Project Schedule far ID-Year Development Program . . 74

Effects of Capital Projects Upon Annual Operating Budgets 78

us

I N T R D D U C T I D I M

The Department of Public Welfare has prepared this ID-Year Development Program in accordance with Planning Instruction No. A (7), as drawn by the Maryland State Planning Commission in April, 1958. The Maryland General Assembly, on March 29, 1957, directed that, "the various State Departments and Institutions shall each prepare a ID-Year Development Program which shall be submitted TD the State Planning Commission within the next two years." *

The ID-Year Development Program submitted herewith enables the State Department of Public Welfare to discharge its responsibility for immediate and long-range capital improvements planning for the various State institutions serving delinquent children which the Department either administers or supervises. This document provides a formal and official means of informing the community as to the State's present and future institutional programs for delinquent children. The document further reflects certain changes in the program resulting from the accumulation of new facts and experience in the operation of State institutions far delinquent children. The 10-Year Development Program provides the State with the necessary tools and a frame of reference for anticipating, for planning and providing for the meeting of capital needs on a coordinated basis. This document, in certain respects, provides the State with a blue print as a basis for action by the responsible State agencies.

The Department has attempted in the preparation of this document, with the help of consultants and other responsible State officials and agencies, to accomplish the following:

1. To review carefully the present use of existing facilities;

2. To identify those factors which determine the population base far which service must be planned and assess the impact of these factors upon the program;

3. To analyze trends, methods, and techniques;

k. To develop policies to guide projections and future planning;

•Planning Instruction No.A (7) — Preparation of Agency Long-Range Development Program, Maryland State Planning Commission, April, 1958.

- 1 -

5 . To synthesize the above to estimates D F need For the Department and the various sub-units.

Below are listed the sources and the guiding principles tD which the Department turned in the Formulation oF this document:

1. The Guides and Goals for Institutions serving Delinquent Children as drawn by the U. B. Children's Bureau;

2. Standards set by the National Probation and Parole Association For the detention • F children and youth;

3. Standards recommended by the American Psychiatric Association For training schools;

Consideration oF the most economical means Far achieving the ends oF the Department's program with speciFic emphasis nn initial costs as related to maintenance •r operating costs;

5 . The use D F standard designs For certain buildings, such as cottages, to reduce cost;

6. The needs oF staFF individuals using the buildings with respect to work per-Formance;

7. The saFety and protection of children, staFf, and community;

8. The rcle oF the physical plant as one of the important and essential elements in the total rehabilitation program D F the institutions;

9. The assumption that buildings in themselves represent means and not ends, and that bricks and mortar alone cannot guide children back tD good citizenship.

in

GENERAL SUMMARY AND INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION DATA

The number of children in Maryland involved in delinquent acts who mere admitted to the State training schools increased from 1,276 in fiscal 1950 to 2,3D6 in fiscal 1959, as shown in Table I. This 81% increase in admissions has placed severe pressure from overcrowding upon the physical plant which the State operates for the institutional care of delinquent children.

It has been statistically estimated by census authorities that the juvenile age population-in Maryland which is made up of all children ID years of age and through 17 years of age, will increase 60% from 387,880 in 1960, to 620,163 in 197D. Charts I, II, and III, show actual admissions and average populations for the institutions as well as projected admissions and daily average populations for children between 196D and 1970.

There are about 1,DDD beds available for the institutional care of delinquent children by the State of Maryland in the form of four State training schools, three forestry camps for boys, and the Maryland Children's Center. This figure would include the kU-hed Southern Regional Detention Center which the Department expects to place under construction in 1960.1

Chart I reveals that 1,533 children on a daily average will require care in State institutions by 197D, if the statistical forecasts are accurate. Based upon a careful study of population data as presented in the various Charts and Tables which folloWj and other important considerations such as average length of stay, the Department proposes in this 10-Year Development Program that a total of 589 beds be added to the present number of 1,DDD beds available for the institutional care of delinquent children. These 589 beds, in the form of additional cottages, new training schools, forestry camps, and expanded detention facilities, are listed below as specific capital projects. Each project is.discussed separately and in greater detail elsewhere in the document.

1 T h e rated capacities for the two boys' training schools which are presented in this document are statistical rather than program capacities. The Department does not believe that more than 25 boys should be cared for in a single cottage since successful rehabilitation of delinquent boys in institutions depends to a great extent upon the smallest passible cottage grouping. A standard of 25 boys per cottage would result in a program capacity of 35D for the Maryland Training School for Boys, and 25D for Boys' Village of Maryland. These capacities would include a new Admission Cottage at each training school, for which the 1959 Maryland General Assembly appropriated construction funds.

- 3 -

k50 Additional Beds for Boys 200 Bed Training School for Older Boys 100 Beds — Four Boys' Forestry Camps 150 Bed Elementary Training Schnnl for Boys

83 Additional Beds far Girls 33 Beds - New Barrett School for Girls 50 Beds - 2 Cottages - Montrose Schoal far Girls

56 Additional Beds for Detained Children 56 Beds — Maryland Children's Center

Far purposes af clarity the fallowing explanatory comments are made with respect to the use of the Charts and Tables:

1. There are two types of children sent by Courts to training schools. Group I is made up of children who are sent far long-term care and are legally defined as committed children, while Group II is composed of children who are sent far short-term temporary care, prior to a final Court ajudication or disposition, and legally are defined as detained children. Tables I through IU set forth the statistical data with respect tD the heavy increases of both committed and detained children during the 1950-1959 fiscal year period. Daily average population data are also presented, as well as data with respect to the State Forestry Camp Program for older boys.

2. In assuming that the differing rates nf admissions to the training schools will remain constant until 197D, the estimated increase in admissions of almost 10D% in Chart I against the 60% increase in the juvenile age population alluded to above appears to be inconsistent. The explanation for this apparent inconsistency is the fact that the State Department of Public Welfare, with the opening nf the Southern Regional Detention Center, will assume responsibility for the institutional care of hundreds D F detained children not previously served in State facilities.

3. In Charts I and III, the disparity between the percentage increase in total admissions and the smaller percentage increase in daily average population is explained by the fact that an average length of stay of approximately 21 days for all detained children is assumed as against the actual experience of 30 days in recent years.

- 4 -

//<?

Numb.Br

45D0

CHART I - TOTAL ADNISSIONS. AMD DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION FOR STATE JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS FOR 1955-1959

AND PROJECTIONS FOR 1960-1970 -U390

1+000

3500

3000 to'

/

250D

2000

1500

1000 (970).

Total Daily _ _ —

_ — — 1533

500

Actual ProjBcted

in in in c -m en

co in cn ON in

• vo cn vo cn CN vo cn

vo. cn -3" VO cn

in vo cn vo VD

vo cn oo vo cn

cn vo cn CD

cn

http://Numb.Br

Number

1800 I

CHART II - DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION (COMMITTED) AND TOTAL NUMBER DF CHILDREN COMMITTED TO STATE JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS FOR 1955-1959 AND PROJECTIONS FOR 1960-1970

1600

14D0

1200

1620

^ - 1 0 8 0

1000

800

600

VP**

400 Commitments (Girls) 377

. — 314

200 DAP (Girls)

DAP based on: 8 months length of stay for boys 10 months length of stay for girls

Actual Projected

in in CTl

VD in (Ti

o in cn co in cn

cn in cn a VD CTl

vo cn CM VD cn

vo VD cn cn <H r-f

in VD cn

va vo cn VD CTl

co VD cn VD a

Detentions 2<*Oo|

CHART III - TOTAL DETENTIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION FOR STATE JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS FOR 1955-1959

AND PROJECTIONS FOR 1960-1970

Daily Average Papulation

,'2393

S

139 /

/

t\ve pop'

ti°2-

Actual ~~ Projected

Daily Average Population based an a length of stay of 21 days

b.20

LLOO

A / V W \A\A/I

80

in in cn vo in cn

i> co m in cn cn cn • in vo cn cn vo cn

CM vo

vo cn VO cn

in vo cn VD VD cn

VD cn

co vo cn m VD cn

• cn

TABLE I

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION - ALL CHILDREN - TRAINING SCHOOLS

All State Specified Training School i r a i n i n g Fiscal Year Schools Barrett Boys' Village MTSB Montrose

Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP

1950 1,276 771 17D 94 364 238 592 297 150 142 1951 1,615 862 135 89 475 262 838 354 167 157 1952 1,398 810 107 67 428 288 703 326 160 129 1953 1,528 777 94 65 419 264 850 330 165 118 1954 1,530 793 89 51 46D 267 812 360 169 115 1955 1,823 892 86 65 591 3DD 965 425 181 102 1956 2,050 825 120 64 680 288 1,037 354 213 119 1957 2,107 925 1D5 62 7D3 315 1,087 425 212 123 1958 2,140 916 114 65 717 3D2 1,052 433 257 116 1959 2,306 9D2 142 74 862 315 1,032 384 270 . 129

- 8 -

TABLE II

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION - COMMITTED CHILDREN - TRAINING SCHOOLS

All State Specified Training School Training

Fi9cal Year Schools Barrett Boys' Village MTSB Montrose

Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP

195D 652 724 85 88 170 224 314 275 83 137 1951 834 79D 67 83 239 244 428 314 1D0 149 1952 760 747 67 63 227 271 369 290 97 123 1953 762 699 59 61 191 242 412 288 100 108 1954 772 72D 69 49 221 243 387 322 95 106 1955 946 8D1 77 63 299 272 457 377 113 89 1956 1,D80 737 79 62 361 260 526 3D6 114 109 1957 1,096 839 74 59 354 288 568 382 1D0 110 1958 1,141 833 66 61 377 273 552 391 146 108 1959 1,244 813 80 69 460 284 550 342 154 118

- 9 -

TABLE III

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION - DETAINED CHILDREN - TRAINING SCHOOLS

All State Specified Training Schnal i raining

Fiscal Year Schcnls Barrett Boys' Village MTSB . Montrose

Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. ! DAP

1950 624 47 85 6 194 14 278 22 67 5 1951 781 72 68 6 236 18 41D 40 67 8 1952 638 63 4D 4 201 17 334 36 63 6 1953 766 78 35 4 228 22 438 42 65 10 1954 758 73 20 2 239 24 425 38 74 9 1955 877 91 9 - 2 292 28 508 48 68 13 1956 97D 88 41 2 319 28 511 48 99 10 1957 1,011 86 31 3 349 27 519 43 112 13 1958 999 83 48 4 34D : 29 50D 42 111 8 1959 1,062 89 62 5 402 31 4B2 42 116 11

- 10 -

195

TABLE IV

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION - STATE FORESTRY CAMPS FOR BOYS

All State Green Ridge LonacDning Meadow Mountain

Fiscal Year Forestry Camps Forestry Camp Forestry Camp Forest ry Camp

Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP

1955 10 10 — — — — 1956 108 20 108 2D — — — — 1957 125 28 125 28 — — — — 1958 255 •*• 169 28 Ik 25 12 6 1959 30k 68 117 27 112 2k 75 17

DAP not computed because two camps were open only a part of the year.

- 11 -

ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION DATA AMD POPULATION PROJECTIONS

The following tables further examine admissions and daily average populations in the four existing training schools over the past six years and show age and legal status categories. They also project future admissions and daily average populations through 197D in support of Charts I, II, and III. As indicated earlier, these projections assume that the differing commitment rates to the four training schools experienced over a period of the past several yBars will remain relatively constant through 1970. The number of boys and girls against which these ratios are applied, increase throughout the period covered. Average length of stay assumptions are presented in Charts II and III.

Table V shows the number of boys committed to the two boys' schools and average daily populations from 1953 through 1959, and also projects similar data for the period 1960r-1970. The future projections of committed boys are broken down by age grouping as well as race since this added factor will at some point become an important one in institutional groupings.

Examination of the Table reveals that the greatest immediate pressure is for added space for Negro boys. Three hundred beds are now available at Boys' Village and in the Camps. The expected daily average population for I960 exceeds this number and^Boys' Village will be called upon to provide care for some detained boys until the Southern Regional Detention Center is in operation.

If the Maryland Training School for Boys is able to use one-half of the Camp beds, enough space for white boys would be provided through 1963 if all detained boys could be removed from the school, a goal which cannot be achieved until the Southern Regional Detention Center becomes an operating facility.

Whether the existing training schools continue to bB racially segregated or are shortly integrated, the obvious fact, should the forecasts hold, is that more space for committed boys will be seriously needed befors it can be provided, even if additional construction is under-taksn at the very earliest possible date.

To meet this problem, the Department, in cooperation with the Department of Public Improvements and with a $20,ODD appropriation from the 1959 Maryland General Assembly, is planning a new 200-bed training school for older boys under 18. In addition to the obvious need for additional beds for boys which this new training school would provide, there are other reasons which the Department believBB are equally important as a justification for its construction. These include the necessity for diversifying the State institutions for delinquent boys in order

/3n

- 12 -

TABLE V

TOTAL ADMISSIONS.AMD DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION - COMMITTED BOYS

Serfior Boys Junior Bays

Fiscal All Boys White Bays Negr a Boys (16 yrs & over) (Under 16 yrs of age)

Year Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP

1953 6D3 530 412 288 191 242 1954 608 565 387 322 221 243 1955 756 649 457 377 299 272 1956 887 586* 526 3D6 361 260 1957 922 698 568 382 354 288 1958 929 692 552 391 377 273 1959 1,010 694 550 342 46D 284 1960 1,034 69D 562 375 472 315 631 421 403 269 1961 1,088 725 578 385 510 340 662 441 426 284 1962 1,148 765 605 4D3 545 362 696 464 452 3D1 1963 1,216 811 633 422 583 389 736 491 480 32D 1964 1,275 85D 654 436 621 414 770 514 5D5 336 1965 1,330 886 668 445 662 441 . 8D4 535 526 .351 1966 1,417 945 691 461 726 484 853 569 564 376 1967 1,479 986 717 478 762 508 888 592 591 394 1968 1,534 1,022 743 495 791 527 921 613 613 409 1969 1,578

1,620. 1,052 761 5D7 817 545 447 631 631 421

1970 1,578 1,620. 1,080 776 517 844 563 97D 647 650 433

Data for 1956 and following years include boys in the Department's Forestry Camps.

- 13 -

to strengthen and improve the entire institutional system^ A specialized institutional program for older boys near or beyond the compulsory school attendance age is seen as a vital need in the Maryland delinquency program. A further justification of this project would be related to the accumulated experience with respect to the size of institutions and their affective management. Smaller institutions are considered by authorities to be much more effective as re-educative centers than are large mass custody institutions.

In addition to the 200-BBD training school for Dlder boys, the Department includes in this ID-Year Development Program, four additional forestry camps for boys, each with a capacity of 25, which would provide 1DD additional beds. Depending upon population and operational experience in the next several years, these camps would be programmed on the basis of broader criteria for selection of boys than presently formulated. It may be wise to experiment with school forestry camps for boys under the compulsory school attendance age or to plan the use of one or two of the future camps as experimental institutions utilizing group treatment methods, similar to the Highfield's project in New Jersey. These added facilities should provide care for the daily average population of committed older boys expected by 1970, and for peak populations. As indicated above, the Maryland Training School for Boys could provide sufficient space for junior boys through 1966. The Department is opposed to further expansion of this plant since the capacity already exceeds the most desirable and effective size. In order to provide added beds for junior boys, the Department proposes the construction of a new, 150-bed institution for the youngest and least mature committed boys by the year 197D, identified elsewhere aB an Elementary Training School for Boys.

If the boys' training schools are still racially segregated through 197D, the present 26D-B B D capacity of Boys' Village combined with 10D beds of the 2DD-bed facility for older boys and about 1DD camp beds, would provide room for about 46D committed Negro b o y s — a g a i n s t a projected daily average population of 563 N e g m boys by 1970. The 385-bed capacity of thB Maryland Training School for Boys plus about 8D camp beds would provide a total capacity of 465 beds for white boys, enough through 1966, but not 197D when the daily average population may reach 517. If the training schools are racially segregated beyond 1966, the new small integrated training school for younger boys proposed above should still be constructed. Neither the Maryland Training School for Boys nor Boys' Village of Maryland should befurthBr enlarged, nor any more than four additional camps constructed.

Table VI provides similar past and projected training school commitments for girls. On the averags, girls stay in training schools longer than boys and the following table rsflscts longsr avsrags stays.

- 14 -

TABLE VI

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE PDPULATIDN - COMMITTED GIRLS

Senior Girls Junior Girls

Fiscal All Girls White Girls Negro Girls (16 yrs & over) (Under 16 yrs of age) Fiscal All Negro (16 yrs & over)

Year Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP

1953 159 169 1DD 108 59 61 1954 164 155 95 106 69 49 1955 19D 154 113 89 77 65 1956 193 171 114 109 79 62 1957 174 169 1DD 110 74 59 1958 212 169 146 108 66 61 1959 234 187 154 118 80 69 I960 245 204 162 135 83 69 154 128 91 76 1961 257 214 166 138 91 76 161 134 96 80 1962 272 227 174 145 98 82 171 143 101 84 1963 287 239 182 152 105 87 18D 150 107 89 1964 3D0 25D 188 157 112 93 188 156 112 94 1965 311 259 192 160 119 99 193 161 118 98 1966 328 273 199 166 129 1D7 203 169 125 1D4 1967 343 285 2D8 173 135 112 213 176 130 109 1968 357 297 216 180 141 117 221 184 136 113 1969 368 307 222 185 146 122 228 . 190 14D 117 1970 377 314 226 188 151 126 232 194 145 120

- 15 -

/ 3 o

As was indicated earlier, the Barrett plant is tD be abandoned. By 1970, the State will require space for an average daily population of about 314 girls, 126 of whom will be Negro girls.

To develop programs which can be used effectively in either a racially segregated or integrated system, the Department, in cooperation with the Department of Public Improvements and with an appropriation of $15,ODD from the 1959 Maryland General Assembly, is preparing preliminary plans and specifications for a new, lOD-bed Barrett School for Negro Girls. In a desegregated system this institution would be used for junior girls as set forth in the Department's Classification Scheme on Page 33.

Table VI reveals that serious overcrowding may occur at Montrose before 1963. To remedy this situation, the Department proposes the construction of two additional 25-bed cottages at Montrose, one in 1963 and the other in 1966. This would raise the capacity Df Montrose to 180. Montrose, as a 180-bed girls' training school, would become the State facility for older delinquent girls as shown on Page 33.

Montrose and the New Barrett would provide a total capacity for about 280 girlsj and this number is less than the estimated number of 314 on a daily average by 1970. Since projections of future training school admissions of girls are based upon fewer numbers than those of boys, they are believed to be subject to greater possibility of change. The Department prefers, therefore, to postpone making any further decision on facilities for girls pending a review of these projections in the light of its experience during the next several years, particularly with respect to length of stay. Montrose should not be expanded beyond 180 bed's.

Table VII shows past and future numbers of boys and girls detained annually. The projection for Southern Maryland includes a number of boys and girls presently detained in jails and other facilities. The Maryland Children's Center, located in Baltimore County, is a study and diagnostic facility. A maximum stay of four weeks has been set by Law for this purpose. The Southern Regional Detention Center will not be geared to intensive study but to pre-hearing custodial detention, and a two-week average stay is projected for this facility. It is hoped that the average lengths of stay can be reduced for both institutions. Many of the cases coming to the Southern Regional Detention Center will be for quite brief periods of detention.

The present capacity of the Maryland Children's Center is 56 and it is proposed that it be doubled to 112 in 1966. These 112 beds, plus the 4D beds which are represented by the Southern Regional Detention Center, will provide a combined capacity of 152 for the detention and study of children against an estimated average number of 139 by 1970 as projected in Table VII for detained children from all areas of the State. The Department has not evolved a final plan for

/ 3 <

- 16 -

detention of children on a State-uide basis. Further revisions of the Department's ID-Year Development Program will include more specific proposals with respect tD detention facilities. It may be necessary tD plan the construction of small detention centere on the Eastern Shore and in Western Maryland in the event that the Department's findings in the next several years justify such construction, The Department believes that the estimated daily average population Df 139 children for 1970 may be low. Wo allowance was made for the removal of detained girls from the Houses of the Good Shepherd, nor was the Department able tD procure reliable detention statistics for various sections of the State.

The expansion of the Maryland Children's Center to 112 beds may permit the use of a part of this institution for children from the Baltimore Metropolitan area requiring detention care only. Separation of children requiring custodial detention from those who require detention for study is seen as essential to the effective use of professional clinical services which are an important part of every diagnostic institution for delinquent children.

- 17 -

TABLE VII

TOTAL ADMISSIONS AND DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION - DETAINED CHILDREN

BALTIMORE AREA SOUTHERN MARYLAND. ALL AREAS Average Length of Stay Average Length of Stay

Fiscal Year 4 weeks 2 weeks

Adm. DAP Adm. DAP Adm. DAP

1953 766 78 1954 758 75 1955 877 91 1956 970 88 1957 1,011 86 1958 999 83 1959 1,062

1,400 89

I960 1,062 1,400 87 825 64 575 23

1961 1,480 91 866 67 614 24 1962 1,569 96 906 70 663 26 1963 1,664 1D0 949 73 715 27 1964 1,762 106 982 76 78D. 30 1965 1,853 111 1,019 79 834 32 1966 1,961 116 1,059 82 9D2 34 1967 2,060 122 1,100 85 960 37 1968 2,179 129 1,143 9D 1,036 39 1969 2,286 133 1,182 91 1,104 42 197D 2,393 139 1,220 94 1,173 45

- 18 -

INSTITUTIONAL STAFF TABULATIONS

Adminis Custodial Dietary Plant & Clinical Educ. s Vac. Farm tration Care Service Mainten. Services Recre.& Rel. Oper. Total

BARRETT 196D 7 16 3 4 6 9 4 49 1959 7 16 3 4 6 9 4 49 1958 7 15 4 4 6 9 4 48 1957 6 14 4 3 6 9 4 47 1956 > 6 14 4 3 5 9 4 46

BOYS' 1960 9 87 6 18 20 27 5 172 VILLAGE 1959 9 89 6 18 2D 26 5 173

1958 9 87 6 18 19 26 5 170 1957 9 87 6 18 18 26 5 169 1956 8 76 6 17 16 25 5 153

M.T.S.B. 1960 14 95 6 22 24 37 6 204 1959 14 96 6 22 25 37 6 206 1958 14 91 6 21 23 33 6 194 1957 14 91 6 21 21 31 6 190 1956 13 84 6 19 18 29 4 173

MONTROSE I960 7 19 11 5 ID 14 7 73 1959 7 19 12 5 ID 17 •7 77 1958 7 2D 12 5 ID 16 7 77 1957 7 21 12 5 10 15 7 77 1956 7 21 12 5 8 15 7 75

BOYS 196D 3 19 22 FORESTRY 1959 3 19 22 CAMPS 1958 3 19 22

1957 2 10 12 1956 1 5 6

MARYLAND 196D 4 16 3 2 8 5 38 CHILDREN'S 1959 3 3 CENTER

Taken from Fiscal Operating Budgets as approved for the last five fiscal years by the Maryland General Assembly

- 19 -

)3<t

HISTORY AMD LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY DF DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT INSTITUTIONS, AND STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

A. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Under various sections of Article 88A of the General Laws of Maryland, the State Department of Public Welfare is given responsibility for the supervision, direction, and control of four State Training Schools, and the direct administration and control of the Maryland Children's Center and the State Forestry Camps for Boys.

The Department is also responsible for other delinquency control services in the areas of prevention and treatment and is the central State agency which develops a coordinated, over-all plan far new institutions, facilities, or services affecting the care of delinquent children at the State level.

The Department also provides consultation and assistance tD Juvenile Courts in developing probation services, works with law enforcement and other State and local agencies, and develops guides and other informational materials for agencies and workers involved in work with problem and delinquent children.

B. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTIONS

1. State Forestry Camps for Boys - Combined Rated Capacity of Three Camps - 8D Boys

The Department of Public Welfare, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Forests and Parks, and with the approval of the Governor and a $20,000 capital appropriation from the Maryland General Assembly, opened the first Forestry Camp for Boys in the Green Ridge State Forest in Allegany County on May 2, 1955. Subsequently, two additional forestry camps were constructed and placed in operation in Garrett County. Boys' Forestry Camp-Lonaconing, began operating in the Fall of 1957, while Boys' Forestry Camp-Meadow Mountain was placed in operation in the Spring of 1958.

Since the first camp opened, over 80D ment to the camps from the two State training

Boys are selected for transfer on the and a reasonably acceptable adjustment to the

boys have been transferred by the Welfare Depart-schools for boys.

basis of age, physical size, educational status, training school program. Known arsonists and

- 2D -

bnys having a history of serious emotional maladjustment are not selected for transfer. The statutory authority for the forestry camp program is contained in Section 39, Article 88A of the Annotated CodB of Maryland.

2. The Maryland Children's Center - Rated Capacity - 56 Children

Table I reveals that the number of children admitted to the training schDDls for detention has increased during fiscal 1959 to a new high of 1,062 children, which is 1Q% more children admitted for detention than the 624 received during fiscal 1950.

For a number of years, the Courts of the State have been obliged to use the training schools for detention purposes because of the lack of suitable facilities in the local communities. The constant passage of detained children through the training schools has seriously handicapped the training schools, which are primarily treatment or re-educative institutions. The aims of detention are different from those of treatment, and it is undesirable to care for committed and detained children in the same institution.

The Department of Public welfare has been concerned with the use of the training schools by the Courts for detention purposes, and in cooperation with the Courts and with other responsible State agencies, has been successful in receiving from the Maryland General Assembly construction fund appropriations for two detention facilities which will provide 96 beds for the care of detained children and which should make it possible to effect the removal of most of the detained children from the training schools by 1962.

The daily average population of detained children in the training schools during fiscal 1959 was 89 children. The peak population of detained children, reported for dune of 1959, was 138 children. Both on an average daily and on a peak basis, detained children have contributed to some of the serious overcrowding which the training schools have experienced in recent years.

The first State institution for the detention and study of children was opened on October 21, 1959, and received the legal name of the Maryland Children's Center by an act of the Maryland General Assembly which is now Section 39A of Article 88A of the Annotated Code of Maryland.

The Maryland Children's Center is intended to provide a residential program of care and study for children adjudged delinquent by Courts of proper jurisdiction. The law further provides that the Center return each child admitted to the Court of jurisdiction with proper recommendations as'to disposition within a 30-day period.

- 21 -

/3C

3. The Southern Regional Detention Center - Rated Capacity - 40 Children

Since the Maryland Children's Center with a capacity of 56 beds cannot remove all the detained children from the State training schools and also provide pre-hearing detention service to the south-central counties, the Department proposed to the Governor, and the 1959 Maryland General Assembly appropriated General Construction Funds in the amount of $455,ODD for a Southern Regional Detention Center of 4D beds. The General Assembly also appropriated $35,000 for site acquisition expense and the Department is currently making a strenuous effort to locate a suitable site for this new State institution for detained delinquent children.

C. STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

There are four State training schools for delinquent children, each of which began its service to delinquent children as a private institution. Under Articles 27 and 88A of the Annotated Code of Maryland, each of these State institutions has been assigned a legal name and a general function with respect to the care of delinquent minors. There is also a specific provision in each Section under Article 27, which deals with each training school, that the powers and appointments of the Boards of Managers of each training school are governed by Sections 33-36 of Article 88A of the Code.

Each of the institutions,* prior to assumption of responsibility by the State, was managed by an independent Board. For a time, the two white training schools were under the nominal supervision of the State Department of Education. In 1943, by an act Df the Maryland General Assembly, all four training schools were placed undBr the Department of Public welfare with the proviso in Section 33, Article 88A, that the four State training schools "shall exercise their corporate functions under the supervision, direction, and control of the Department of Public welfare." Section 33, however, further provided that "each of said institutions shall, nevertheless, remain under the general management of their respective Boards Df Managers, subject to the limitations herein set forth."

Since 1943 administrative control of the training schools has been divided between the Department of Public Welfare and the four Boards of Managers of the four training schools.

1. Barrett School for Girls - Rated Capacity - 67' Girls

First known as the Industrial Home for Colored Girls at Melvale, and founded in 1882 as the first institution for Negro delinquent girls in the United States, Barrett became a State institution in 1931, and was moved from its location in Baltimore City to the present site near Glen Burnie in Anne Arundel County in 1933.

)2>1

- 22 -

Under Section 661 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code, Barrett School for Girls "is hereby declared to be a public agency of this State for the care and reformation of colored female minors committed or transferred to its carB under the Laws of this State." Girls are also received from Courts on orders Df detention.

2. Boys' Uillaqe of Maryland - Rated Capacity - 26D Boys

The first institution for colored children in the State of Maryland uas known as the House of Reformation and Instruction for Colored Children. It was founded in 187D by a group of Quakers and was located at Cheltenham, Maryland, in Prince George's County.

The State of Maryland assumed responsibility for the institution in 1937 when the name of the institution was changed to the Cheltenham School for Boys. Subsequently, the name of the institution was again changed tD the present name of Boys' Village of Maryland, Incorporated. Under Section 657, Article 27 of the Annotated Code, Boys' Village is "declared to be a public agency . . . for the care and reformation of colored male minors committed or transferred tD its care under the Laws of this State."

Boys under 18 years of age are received from the Juvenile Courts on orders of commitment or detention. A few boys are admitted each year on orders from the Youth Court of Baltimore City.

3. Maryland Training School for Boys - Rated Capacity - 385 Boys

First known as the House of RBfuge, a private institution for the care of boys and girls, and located on the Did Frederick Road in Baltimore City, the Maryland School for Boys came into existence when the Male House of Refuge was moved in 191D from Baltimore City to Loch Raven, in Baltimore County.

In 1918, the school was acquired by the State of Maryland and the name changed from the Maryland School for Boys to the Maryland Training School for Boys. Under Section 659 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code, this institution received white male minors committed thereto under the laws of the State. Boys are also admitted for detention care and there are a few boys admitted each year on orders from the Youth Court of Baltimore City. The management of the school is as outlined above with the same proviso in Section 659 that the appointment and powers of the Board of Managers shall be governed by Article 88A, Sections 33-36, both inclusive, of the Code.

- 23 -

J38

k. Montrose School For Girls - Rated Capacity - 130 Girls

The Montrose School For Girls is a successor to the Female House oF ReFuge which was established in Baltimore City in 1866. The Female House oF ReFugB remained under private auspices until 1918, when it was taken over by the State oF Maryland. Montrose was known as the Maryland Industrial School For Girls until 1918 when the name was changed tD Montrose School For Girls. In 1922, Montrose was moved to its present site near Reisterstown, Maryland, in Baltimore County.

Section 66 under Article 27 oF the Annotated Code provides that MontroBe is to be conducted as a public agency For the care and reFormation oF white FemalB minors committsd under the laws oF thB State. Girls are also received on orders For detsntion. Ths appointment and powers oF the Board oF Managers oF said institution are governed by Article 88A, Sections 33 through 36, both inclusive, oF the Code.

- 2k -

PRESENT PROGRAMS DF DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT INSTITUTIONS. AMD STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

A. STATE DEPARTMENT DF PUBLIC WELFARE

The Department of Public Welfare is directly responsible for the supervision of the four State Training Schools^ the administration of the three Forestry Camps for Boys, and the Maryland Children's Center, as well as being responsible for the Dver-all coordination and planning of the institutional services for delinquent children. The Department is also responsible under Law, for setting standards for the training schools; for establishing policies of admission, transfer, and discharge; for the development of program in each training school; and for the provision of after-care supervision for children released from the training schools. The State Department approves annual fiscal budget estimates and annual capital improvement requests submitted by the training schools and the other juvenile institutions within its jurisdiction. The Department sets minimum qualifications for certain classes of employees within the State juvenile institutions and has assumed other responsibilities in the area of personnel. Finally, the Department is responsible for policy formulation for the State juvenile institutions and for presenting annual estimates of capital and operational appropriation needs to the fiscal authorities of the State.

Supervision of the State training schools is effected by the Bureau of Child Welfare, through the medium of a Division of Training Schools with Department personnel in continuous contact with the schools. Department staff are also directly responsible for the management of the State Forestry Camps for Boys and the Maryland Children's Center.

The Department utilizes all the known managerial techniques in working constantly to improve and strengthen the day-to-day operation of the various State juvenile institutions. Attached is an Organization Chart for the.State Department of Public Welfare. In addition to the State juvenile institutional services, there are other important children's services For which the State Department carries responsibility.

The Division of Prevention and Consultant Services in the Bureau of Child Welfare is playing a major role in working with the Courts and law enforcement officers and agencies in the broad field of delinquency prevention and community organization. This Division staffs the Maryland Commission for the Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency, conducts special studies, training institutes, etc., and provides consultant services to the Courts and other agencies in the juvenile delinquency field.

- 25 -

ORGANIZATION CHART - December 1, 1 9 5 9 - MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

STATE BOARD

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WELFARE

CHIEF, BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

DIVISION OF TRAINING SCHOOLS

FORESTRY CAMPS

DIVISION OF CONSULTANT

AND PREVENTION SERVICES

DIVISION OF CHILD

WELFARE STANDARDS

DIVISION OF AUDITS AND

ACCOUNTS

DIVISION OF STATISTICS

AND ANALYSIS

DIVISION OF SUPERVISION OF LOCAL SERVICES

DIVISION OF STANDARDS FDR LOCAL SERVICES

DIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE! RESPONSIBILITY

Maryland Children's Center

Forestry Camps: Green Ridge Lonaconing Meadow Mountain

DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION

STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS Barrett School Boys' Village Df

Maryland Maryland Training

School for Boys Montrose School

LOCAL DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE Allegany Co. Anne Arundel Co, Baltimore City Baltimore Co. Calvert Co. Caroline Co. Carroll Co. Cecil Co.

Charles Co. Dorchester Co. Frederick Co. Garrett Co. Harford Co. Howard Co. Kent Co. Montgomery Co.

Prince George's Co, Queen Anne's Co. St. Mary's Co. Somerset Co. Talbot Co. Washington Co. Wicomico Co. Worcester Co.

- 26 -

After-care services to the Juvenile Courts are provided by some of the local Departments of Welfare in the 2k political sub-divisions, under the supervision of the Division of Local Services of the State Department. These local Welfare Departments also administer other children's programs, including those of Foster Care and Aid to Dependent Children.

The Division of Child Welfare Standards licenses 39 voluntary institutions and agencies giving care to children under 18 years of age which are extremely important to the entire State Child Welfare Program. Many of these institutions and agencies are giving service to predelinquent and delinquent children, thereby relieving the State of responsibility for the care in institutions of many children. The two voluntary institutions for delinquent girls, the Houses of the Goad Shepherd, located in Baltimore City, care for 140 to 15D girls on a daily average, and for years have been providing excellent institutional care for hundreds of delinquent girla who might otherwise have been ordered by the Courts to either the Barrett or the Montrose Schools.

B. STATE DEPARTMENT DF PUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTIONS

1. StatB Forestry Camps for Boys

The State Department of Public Welfare operates three forestry camps for boys in Western Maryland, namely, Boys' Forestry Camp-Green Ridge, in Allegany County; Boys' Forestry Camp-Lonaconing, in Garrett County; and Boys' Forestry Camp-Meqdow Mountain, also in Garrett County.

As shown in Table IV/, 304 boys were admitted to the three camps during the 1959 fiscal year and the daily average population in the camps totaled 68.

The Forestry Camps are specialized institutional facilities for selected adolescent boys 15? years of age or older, not able to profit from further formal schooling and in need of an active work experience prior to their final release to the community by the Courts. The purpose of the camps is not to train boya in the arts of forestry or woodsmanship, but to prepare boys for better citizenship through the inculcation of better work habits and attitudes. The boys are employed by the Department of Forests and Parks on a variety of conservation projects including timber stand improvement, tree planting, fire fighting, and flood control. The boys are reimbursed at the rate of 50g per day for their work with the Department of Forests and Parks. The Camps are seen as providing the State with an economical means of guiding older boys back to good citizenship while at the same time the boys are employed in the conservation of the State's natural resources, which, to a limited extent, helps reduce the cost of camp operation to the State.

- 27 -

2. The Maryland Children's Center

Placed in operation on October 21, 1959, the Maryland Children's Center serves the Courts of the State as a detention and study center for adjudged delinquent children. It is estimated that approximately 700 children will be admitted to the Maryland Children's Center in a given year and that the Center mill not only provide the Courts with valuable data enabling the- Courts to make a more effective disposition of cases, but that the Center will also relieve State training schools of a portion of the daily average population of detained children.

The Center, within a 30-day period, studies each child ordered for detention and study by the Courts, and prepares a report for the Court with recommendations for disposition. Most of the children returned to the Court from the Center uill be returned to the community under probation supervision or mill be placed in a. public or private facility best prepared to provide a suitable re-educative program. Until the opening Df the Southern Regional Detention Center, the Maryland Children's Center uill accept only boys for detention and study.

3. The Southern Regional Detention Center

It is expected that this 4D-bed institution for the detention care of delinquent children will be placed undBr construction in 1960 and uill receive the first children in 1961. As yet, a suitable site has not been found, but the Department has defined the function of the Southern Regional Detention Center as being different from the Maryland Children's Center in that children admitted uill require detention for custody, prior to Court hearing or Court disposition, rather than detention for diagnosis or study. The Southern Regional Detention Center and the Maryland Children's Center uill operate in a highly coordinated fashion and free transfer between the tuo institutions uill be proposed. The Southern Regional Detention Center, in addition to effecting the removal of a considerable number of children from the south-central Maryland counties now being detained in State training schools, uill also provide these counties uith a detention service for many children now being detained in jails, station houses, etc., prior to a formal charge being filed or prior to a Court hearing.

C. STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

1. The Barrett School for Girls

The Barrett School for Girls is located near Friendship International Airport on 160 acres of State-owned land near Glen Burnie in Anne Arundel County. In vieu of the planned expansion of the Friendship Airport, uhich would make continued operation of the school on the present site unwise, the Maryland General Assembly approved the Department's plan to re-locate the Barrett

- 28 -

School for Girls and appropriated $15,ODD for the preparation of preliminary plans and outline specifications.

The Department staff, in cooperation with the staff of the Department of Public Improvements, has prepared preliminary plans for a new Barrett School for Girls of 1DD beds with the recommendation that approximately 5D acres now owned by the State in the name of the Montrose School for Girls be utilized as a site location. The Governor included this project in his 1961 Fiscal Capital Improvements Program, and the Maryland General Assembly appropriated the necessary funds in the 196D General Construction Loan.

Barrett accepts for care both detained and committed delinquent Negro girls and provides a residential program of care in a cottage-type training school. Until further action of the Maryland General Assembly or the Courts, Barrett School will continue to be operated as a training school for delinquent Negro girls under the age Df 18, received do orders of commitment or detention from Courts of proper jurisdiction.

2. Boys' Uillage of Maryland

Boys' Village is a cottage-plan training school for Negro boys which has been virtually rebuilt at a cost of approximately $3,0D0,0D0. This State training school for Negro delinquent boys, as shown in Table I, has been seriously overcrowded for a number df years and the overcrowding would have been more serious during fiscal 1959 if 146 alder boys had not been transferred to the Forestry Camps in Western Maryland.

Boys' Village is located on a site of over 1,2DD acres and provides a program of residential care and training for delinquent male Negro minors on orders of detention dt commitment from Courts Df proper jurisdiction.

Until further action by the Maryland General Assembly or by the Courts, Boys' Village will continue to serve Negro delinquent male minors committed or detained by the Courts.

3. Maryland Training School, for Boys

The Maryland Training School for Boys, under Article 27 of the Code, serves white boys committed or detained by duvenile Courts and the Youth Court of Baltimore City. During 1959 it had an average daily population of 384 boys, including an average of 42 detention cases.

The daily average population during 1959 equalled capacity. Since population fluctuates to some extent, overcrowding occurred at peak periods. This overcrowding would have been severe had not 158 older boys been transferred during the yeafc to the Forestry Camps.

- 29 -

The Maryland Training School has its campus organized into junior and senior schools. The tuD schools are physically some distance apart, but some central services are provided. The senior school has a capacity for 210 boys, the junior for 175. The senior campus includes seven cottages, an academic building; and shops. A very modern and well-planned gymnasium-auditorium is used by both junior and senior boys.

Until further action of the Maryland General Assembly or the Courts, the Maryland Training School for Boys will continue to be operated as a training school for delinquent white male minors received on orders of commitment or detention from Courts of proper jurisdiction.

4. The Montrose School for Girls

The Montrose School, with an attractive, well-maintained physical plant, is located near Reisterstnwn, Maryland. Its present capacity is 130 and during 1959 its daily average population was 129, including an average of 11 detained girls. These figures mean that at peak loads, Montrose was overcrowded. Neither the Montrose nor the existing Barrett Plant is large enough to accommodate the enlarged numbers of girls whD must be cared for in the immediate future.

The Montrose plant includes cottages, a school building, a central office building, a chapel, shops and farm buildings. Its grounds and farm lands include 585 acres.

Until further action of the Maryland General Assembly or the Courts, Montrose School for Girls will continue to be operated as a training school for delinquent white female minors received on orders of commitment or detention from Courts of proper jurisdiction.

- 30 -

NEW STATEMENT DF RESPONSIBILITIES, OBJECTIVES. AMD PROGRAMS

In this 10-Year Development Program the Department is proposing that 589 additional beds in the form of different types of institutions, additional cottages and expanded detention facilities be provided by the State of Maryland at an approximate cost of $5,400,000. This is based upon the forecast of admissions and daily average populations for the period between I960 and 1970. One of the major contributing factors to the use of the training schools by the Courts for children of widely divergent age, physical, emotional and social characteristics, is the lack of other specialized resources for children, public or private, such as an institution for the care of emotionally disturbed adolescent boys and girls. A reduction in the number of institutional beds for delinquent children, as outlined in this program, might be planned if this type of resource were available.

It is the intent of the Department of Public welfare, within the framework of Law and the appropriations D f the Maryland General Assembly, to continue to discharge its responsibilities with respect to the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in the State of Maryland. Listed below are the specific objectives which muBt be achieved either by administrative, judicial, or legislative action or a combination of same which the Department feels are essential to the development of a more economical institutional rehabilitation program for delinquent children.

Administrative Control

It is the objective of the State Department of Public Welfare to create and operate a diversified system of institutions geared to the rehabilitation or re-education of delinquent children based upon their treatment needs rather than on the present unsatisfactory bases Df race or sex.

It is the intent of the Department to accomplish this by the formulation of uniform policies adopted by the State Board of Welfare and implemented by that Agency as a central authority. Such policy will be applicable to all the State juvenile institutions operated or supervised by the State Department of Public Welfare.

Physical Plant

The Department has taken considerable interest in the status of the physical plant available for the institutional care of delinquent children and, in cooperation with the Department of Public Improvements and the Department of Budget and Procurement, has reviewed the physical

- 31 -

plant facilities. The inventory listings and plot plans reflect the engineering and architectural judgments of these two State agencies which have the approval of the State Department of Public welfare.

More Effective Use of Training Schools

The Department, in planning necessary facilities for the next ten years because of mounting population pressures, includes in this program a 2DD-bed training school for boys, four additional forestry camps, and a 15D-bed training school for smaller boys, and expansion of the Maryland Children's Center.

In anticipation of the time when all of these institutional facilities will be in operation, the Department proposes that the following use of the present institutions be undertaken as an interim and immediate step, (See Classification Scheme, page 33.)

Proper Institutional Placement of Children Committed by Courts

Inasmuch as the ID-Year Program contemplates a diversity of institutional facilities for committed children, the Department intends to work toward a State plan which would have as its purpose the placement of committed children in the institution best designed to meet their individual needs.

Under this plan the Courts would commit children tD the State Department of Public welfare but would designate the initial institution to which a child would be delivered. The Courts would'retain jurisdiction for each committed child until final discharge and rescission. The success which the Department has experienced with the transfer of over 8DD boys from the two boys' training schools to the forestry camps would justify including in the plan a provision for the Department to transfer a child, where necessary, to another institution in the system These transfers, of course, could be authorized only within the framework of law and State Board of Public Welfare policy, as is the case with the forestry camps. Close cooperation between the Courts, the institutions, and the State Department of Public Welfare would be essential to the success of such a plan.

Length of Stay and Movement of Children

Because of the importance of length of stay as a variable in determining institutional populations and treatment, the Department intends to take more direct responsibility for the administration of the clinical programs within the institutions. It is the conviction of the

- 32 -

m

STATE JUWENILE INSTITUTIONS

CLASSIFICATION SCHEI1E FOR COrWITTED CHILDREN BOYS

COURTS

GIRLS

PITSB — Junior School Capacity - 175

Admission Criteria 1. Boys undBr l<t years of age unless very mature 2. Very immature 14 year old and older boys 3. Situational delinquents less emotionally disturbed k. Boys mho can profit from remedial education, handicraft, and/or lower grades 5. First offenders

HTSB Senior School Capacity - 210

Admission Criteria 1. 15 - year old and older boys of usual social maturity 2. Very mature 1<»-15 - year old boys 3. Boys who can profit from school program of vocational training, related subjects and/or higher (7-12) grades 4. Boys.who can benefit from good group supervision 5. Habitual recidivists

BOYS' FORESTRY CAFIPS Admission Criteria Capacity 80 1. Physically fit and socially mature boys 15J- years old

or older 2. Boys either near r e l e a s B or not in need of training

school regimentation 3. Boys who can no longer profit from academic education 4. Boys who are not chronic runaways 5. Boys uho are not known arsonists 6. Boys uho are not aggressively homosexual

BOYS' UILLAGE Capacity - 260

Admission Criteria 1. Boys unless either very socially mature (flTSB Sr) or immature (HTSB Jr) 2. Flore emotionally disturbed or socially mature boys under l<t 3. Boys uho can profit from clinical help* and individual relationship therapy <t. V/ery socially immature boys over 15^ uho cannot compete with boys of usual maturity 5. Boys uho can profit from industrial arts, pre-voca-tional) remedial education or elementary grades education 6. First' offenders

X

MONTROSE Capacity - 130

Admission Criteria 1. Girls 15 years and older plus girls of Ik uho are more sophisticated and "streetwise" 2. Program of vocational education and related general education. 3. Habitual recidivists

BARRETT Capacity - 67

Admission Criteria 1. Girls l*t and younger plus physically, socially, and emotionally immature 15 year olds 2. General education and remedial program crafts and elementary pre-vocational program 3. First offenders

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF COWIITTED CHILDREN BY CHRONOLOGICAL AGE ON JANUARY 1, 1959 IN

TRAINING SCHOOLS AND CANPS Girls Boys . Girls

Number Percentaqe Number Percentaqe Under 14 113 17 25 15 1<* Years 133 21 29 17 15 Years 175 27 63 38 16 and Over 230 35 51 30 Totals 651 100 168 1D0

TRANSFER: NOTE: Under this plan the State Department of Public Welfare

uould be responsible for effecting inter-institutional transfers uhere necessary.

33 -

Department that, although in recent years the average length of stay has been appreciably reduced, an even further reduction may be possible if clinical and other allied professional techniques are more effectively utilized in the screening of children prior to and after admission and for treatment prior to release.

Educational Programs

The Department is participating in a study with the State Department of Education, of the educational programs in the various State juvenile institutions. The majority of children admitted to the institutions are of compulsory school attendance age and question has been raised as to the over-all adequacy of the educational programs. Future revisions of this ID-Year Program will reflect proposed changes and trends in this vital area of service should the survey findings justify them.

In accordance with the principle of central administrative control and the Department's conclusion that institutional programs for delinquent children depend primarily for success upon the quality and the quantity of personnel employed to conduct operations D O a day-to-day basis, the Welfare Department intends to do everything necessary to improve and to strengthen the personnel service.

The Department has employed a Personnel Manager and is in the process of formulating overall policies with respect to recruitment, staff training, and staff development. In recent years the Department has been able to secure approval for inclusion in the operating budgets of the various institutions additional positions in both the professional and non-professional classes.

The Department is convinced that a pre-requisite to any delinquency control program is an adequate probation service. Certainly, without such services in every juvenile court in Maryland, any institutional program proposed would have difficulty being effective.

The number of juvenile offenders committed to institutions is directly related to the extent and quality of the probation services in juvenile courts, i.e. the less adequate the probation services, the mare youngsters committed.

Through its probation services the court can obtain social data which are necessary for

Personnel

Probation

- 34 -

proper planning For the offender and for the protection of the community. Through its probation services also, the court can know about and use most effectively community resources available through public and private agencies.

Perhaps even more important is the close rehabilitative supervision which can be given by qualified probation officers. Such probation supervision holds in many cases, particularly for the first offender and for the immature youngster, the greatest hope for the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the community.

These services, when available, keep many children who do not belong there out of insti-tuions. Many reports such as those of the Sobeloff Commission, of Dr. Preston Sharp, of Mr. Richard Clendenen, and the Bar Association of Maryland, and of the Maryland Commission for the Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency, have emphasized the urgent need for strengthening and augmenting the juvenile probation services of the State.

The Department, through its Division of Consultant and Prevention Services and in accordance with the recommendations in the above reports, has taken aggressive leadership in following through with delinquency control measures such as probation. It has worked cooperatively with judges and probation staffs at their requests to do studies on probation, to assist with recruitment and training of probation staff, and to help coordinate more closely the juvenile courts and the training schools, forestry camps, and agencies of this Department. The Department feels that considerable progress has been made in this area, but that just as the institutional programs need to be expanded to keep up with the mushrooming juvenile population, so do Maryland's juvenile probation services. As they stand now, these services are not adequate to do the job.

Dther states have been faced with the same problems and have chosen one of the following three methods:

1. The state can provide leadership through consultation to the juvenile courts with all responsibility for financing and operation probation services being left to the local units of government. This is the situation at present with the Welfare Department carrying the consultation responsibility.

2. The state can provide leadership not only through consultation but through subsidy to local units of government, so that existing probation services can be augmented or new services instituted.

As applied to Maryland this recommendation would be in harmony with the present

/STo

- 35 -

organization of the courts and with concepts such as that used in financing, other local services and other institutions. The Welfare Department proposed a small scale operation of this kind, but it was not included in the Governor's 1961 budget.

3. The state can provide probation services directly where such services are not provided. This plan for juvenile institutions is based on an increase in juvenile probation services and a stepping-up of the Welfare Department's leadership in the field. The institution population projections used are based on this assumption. If these services are not increased and strengthened, the figures for institutionalization of juveniles would be increased.

State Plan for Detention

The Department, through the use of the first State facility for detention and study, the Maryland Children's Center, and through the use of the Southern Regional Detention Center, will complete the first phase of its State plan for the detention and study of children for the courts, to meet the problems presented by the increasing numbers of children requiring institutional care for detention and study, the Department proposes in this Program an expansion of the Maryland Children's Center to 112 beds in 1966. This Program also provides for the courts to detain children in other facilities than the training schools.

After-Care Supervision

The Department will work toward the development of a more effective after-care program for children released from the State training schools and the forestry camps. The objectives of the after-care program include the rehabilitation of delinquent children and prevention of recidivism to the State institutions for delinquents. In order for such a program to function properly, the Department will take responsibility for providing that children will not be released prematurely from the institutions and that a proper program of after-care will.be arranged for each child prior to release. This may mean some revision in the current policies and practices of the After-Care Program.

Mew Programs

The Department is examining some of the newer and more experimental approaches to the institutional treatment of delinquency such as the Highfields' project for boys in Mew Jersey, and some of the hostels and half-way type institutions for both boys and girls that are operative in the United States and abroad. The forestry camps lend themselves to further experimental use and represent the first concrete program of diversification of the State's institutional facilities. Some of the newer methods of treatment, particularly those generally defined as the group methods, are under study and may be developed in the near future.

151

- 36 -

http://will.be

Research and Planning

- 37 -

/ 5 >

The Department is responsible for general research and planning uith respect to the operation of State juvenile institutions. Some progress has been made uith respect to accumulating statistical data and to the preparation D f statistical analyses on the characteristics D f the delinquent children under care in the various institutions. The Department is uorking cooperatively uith the Department of Correction in accumulating data uith respect to the recidivism of training school graduates to the State prisons.

Within budgetary and personnel limits, the Department plans to further define a research program as one means for improving present operations-and planning for the future.

INDEX OF PLOT PLANS AMD INVENTORY LISTINGS

STATE DEPARTMENT DF PUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTIONS

Boys' Forestry Camp - Green Ridge . .

Boys' Forestry Camp - Lonaconing . .

Boys' Forestry Camp - Meadow Mountain

Maryland Children's Center . . . . .

- 38 -

D//rr

O/rectorS 3

/ /' /

/' / / /

/ / / i

\

iJ 5. *4l | '

/«j> Dtree-fa, \

\ ' \ »

' \

r5

c o i/ A/ry

Sep^u

~7enms 4 &s«er-

\

Centra/ Sforije

\ I I

Mess tfa/f 4 sf,/c4e/i e.g. fbmfr—t //oase [_J

i PLor- ?L

BOYS FORESTRY CAMP

GREEN RIDGE, MARYLAND

Oct. 3o, /ff?

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / ( (7) / (8)

* > / ^

/ °

/ (9)

/4 G- 1 Kitchen (Shop) Cooking - crafts 1-34 1 1 218D —- 20 yrs.

G- 2 Recreation Hall Television, recreation, lounge 1-34 1 1 2275 2D yrs.

G- 3 Dormitory Sleeping, clothing 1-34 1 1 218D 30 boys 20 yrs.

G- 4 Bath House Showers, laundry,, toilets 1-34 1 1 96D — 5 yrs.

G- 5 Warehouse Storage, food, clothing, office 1-59 3 1 2430 — 25 yrs.

G- 6 Pole Shed Garage Vehicle storage 12-59 1 1 1D58 — 25 yrs.

G- 7 Directors' Lodge Housing 1-34 1 1 842 .— 10 yrs.

G- 8 Staff Lodge Housing 1-34 1 1 77D 10 yrs.

G- 9 Pump House Water Pump 1-34 1 1 8D 10 yrs.

G-10 Tool Shed T D O I storage 9-57 8 1 24D — ID yrs.

r

C O N S T R U C T I O N C O D E T Y P E O F C O N S T R U C T I O N L I F E E X P E C T A N C Y

1 W O O D F R A M E B U I L D I N G 2 5 Y E A R S

2 L O A D - B E A R I N G M A S O N R Y W A L L S & R E I N F O R C E D C O N C R E T E F R A M E 5 0 "

3 L O A D - B E A R I N G M A S O N R Y W A L L S & W O O D C O N S T R U C T I O N 4 0 "

4 L O A D - B E A R I N G M A N S O N R Y W A L L S & S T E E L C O N S T R U C T I O N 5 0 "

5 S T E E L F R A M E C O N S T R U C T I O N & M A S O N R Y C U R T A I N W A L L S 5 0 "

6 L I F T - S L A B , R E I N F O R C E D C O N C R E T E 4 0 "

7 R E I N F O R C E D C O N C R E T E F R A M E & M A S O N R Y C U R T A I N W A L L S 5 0 "

8 Q U O N S E T S & T E M P O R A R Y S T E E L B U I L D I N G S 1 5 "

9 O T H E R C O N S T R U C T I O N V A R I E S

- 40 -

1*4

BOYS' FORESTRY CAMP S T A T E DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE GREEN RIDGE r w 0 H R r . R m h R r 1, 1959

BOYS• FORESTRY CAMP Location LONACONI IMG

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

D a t e December 1, 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) / (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

/r/jr / * V / */' AfJ& / / / o / ^ // L- 1 Director's Cottaae Office and housinq 11-57 1 1 1030 23 vrs.

L- 2 Staff House Housing 9-59 9 1 640 15 yrs.

L- 3 Kitchen-Recreation Bldq.

Laundry, crafts, dining, recreation 8-57 1 1 3752 23 yrs.

L- 4 Dormitory ShDuer, toilet, sleeping, clothing room 8-57 1 1 2660 25 boys 23 yrs.

L- 5 Storage Shed Food & tool storage 8-58 8 1 960 14 yrs.

L- 6 Shed Garage Vehicle storage 6-58 1 1 1000 24 yrs.

L- 7 Well House Water supply 8-57 9 1 300 40 yrs.

L- 8 Reservoir Water supply 8-58 . 9 1 600 40 yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

WOOD FRAME BUILDING LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS OTHER CONSTRUCTION

LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 42 -

i£L

\

1 Mess tf*//e K,+cAen

/Wo. /

I / ;

/ / oY

A W

Sef>//c | C°»c. I I SUA ~i

OCa/te. SJac* fumf Mouse

eAW*git+r- &£**3nat£-£> P*orts*to»AL.

PUT Pl»* BOYS FORESTRY CAMP

MEADOW MOUNTAIN, MARYLAND Oar 2*. /?J7

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES BOYS' FORESTRY CAMP STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

MEADOW MOUNTAIN rw» n R r . R m h R r 1 , 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / W / (5) J v (6) / <

A°> £i/ .c*» / ^-cT / * / A # / / / /// // / // / s & / / &

(7) / (8)

/ °

/ (9)

A N- 1

Kitchen-Recreation Bldg.

Cooking , dining , laun-r dry,crafts,recreation 12-57 1 1 3752 — 23 yrs.

N- 2 Dormitory Showers,toilets,laundry, clothing storage 12-57 1 1 2660 25 boys 23 yrs.

N- 3 Staff House Staff housing 3-59 9 1 960 — 15 yrs.

N- 4 Director's House Housing and office 11-59 1 1 8DD — 25 yrs.

N- 5 Shed Garage Vehicle storage 8-59 1 1 1000 — 25 yrs.

N- 6 Pump House Water supply, water pump 9-57 9 1 3D0 — 40 yrs.

N- 7 Reservoir Water storage 8-58 9 _ — 40 yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION LIFE EXPECTANCY

1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS

2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 "

3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 "

4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 "

5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 "

6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 "

7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 "

8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15

9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VARIES

INDEX OF PLOT PLANS, I Ml/EM TORY LISTINGS, AMD ACREAGE ANALYSES

STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

Barrett School for Girls kl

Boys* Village of Maryland 52

Maryland Training School for Boys 60

Montrose School for Girls 67

- kS -

\ U V X ADMINISTRATION BLDG. - WRIGHT EAST c o n AGE - FERNANDES W E ST COTTAGE • FIELDS W I U I A M S COTTAGE STAFF BLDG. - GEORGE COTTAGE "ARM • SUPERINTENDENT'S DWELLING ARM - SUPERINTENDENT'S GARAGE ARM - IMPLEMENT & EQUIPMENT STORAGE •ARM - N E W GARAGE ARM - FEED STORAGE

- SWEET POTATO HOUSE : ARM • STORAGE 61DG. ADJ. T O POTATO HOUSE ARM • SMOKE HOUSE

:ARM - O N E CARE GARAGE

BARN CORN CRIB LAYING HOUSE No BROODER HOUSE LAYING HOUSE No

N E W INCINERATOR TENANT DWELLING STORE HOUSE CHICKEN COOP

SOIL POND SEWAGE SYSTEM INFIRMARY ANNEX

BARRETT SCHOOL Location Dorsey Road, Gl

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES FOR GIRLS STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE en Burnie, Md. n n t p December 1, 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / (

pif // / // . (7) / (8)

/ 1v £ V ° / (9)

1 Administration Building - Wright

Administration,clinical service, education 1938 2

2, attic, basement 26,553 — 29 yrs.

2 East Cottage -Fernandas Living quarters 1935 2 2, attic 12,651 25 girls 26 yrs.

3 West Cottage -Fields

Living quarters, kitchen 1935 2 Basement 12.651 25 oirls 26 vrs.

4 Williams Cottaoe Living quarters, laundry, infirmary 1948 2

2, attic, basement 4.718 12 oirls 39 vrs.

5 Staff Building Georqe Cottaqe Staff living Quarters 1947 7

2, attic, basement 6.935 38 vrs.

6 Farm - Superintendent's Duelling Living quarters Unknown 1

2 basement 2,640 5 yrs.

7 Farm - Superintendent's Garage Housinq for car Unknown 1 1 236 5 yrs.

8 Farm - Implement & Equipment Storage

Housing for farm machinery & equipment 1944 3 1 1,824 _ _ 25 yrs.

9 Farm - New Garaoe Housing for five vehicles 1956 3 1 l r232 37 vrs.

10 Farm - Feed Storage Storing feed 1954 3 1 8D0 35 yrs.

11 Farm - Sweet Potato House

Storing sweet potatoes 1951 3 2 948 _ 32 yrs.

12 Farm - Storage bldg. ad/j. to Potato House

Storage, farm implements, baskets,chicken 1951 3 1 720 32 vrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9

crates TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION


LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 48 -/C3


Locotion BARRETT SCHDDL FDR GIRLS D g t e December 1, 1959

13 Farm - Smoke House Curinq & smokinq hams 1951 3 1 192 32 yrs.

14 Farm - 1-car Garage Irrigation equipment Unknown 1 1 288

15 Farm - Barn Shelter for one mule Unknown 1 2 14D4 5 yrs.

16 Farm - Corn Crib Storing corn Unknown 1 1 433 5 yrs.

17 Farm -Laying House #1 House chickens Unknown 1 1 64D 5 yrs.

18 Farm -Brooder House House chickens Unknown 1 1 6DD 5 yrs.

19 Farm -Laying House #2 House chickens 195D 3 1 1DDD 31 yrs.

2D New Incinerator Burninq rubbish 1952 2 38 43 yrs. 21

Farm -Tenant Duelling Living quarters Unknown 1 2 1462 2 yrs.

22 Farm - Store House Coal storage Unknown 1 1 42 5 yrs.

23 Farm - Chicken Coop Did storage and old accumulations Unknown 1 1 81 2 yrs.

24 Soil Pond Irrigation 1956 _ _ 1 acre 2D yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15-VARIES

- 49 -


Location BARRETT SCHDDL FDR GIRLS r)nt(» December 1. 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / <

Ah/ / ^ / / . V A / *° A < / / / / // /to*/gjff ////•<?

(7) / (8)

/ °

/ (9)

/

25 Sewage System Sewage disposal 1931 — _ - — 2 yrs.

26 Infirmary Annex Medical and dental care 1957 2 1 8DD 25 yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9



LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 50 -

ACREAGE ANALYSIS — BARRETT SCHOOL FDR GIRLS

TOTAL NUMBER DF ACRES OWNED BY SCHOOL

NUMBER OF ACRES IN BUILDINGS . . . .

NUMBER OF ACRES UNDER CULTIVATION . .

NUMBER OF ACRES IN WOODLAND

NUMBER OF ACRES IN PASTURE . . . . .

- 51 -

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES BOYS' VILLAGE OF MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) / (6) / (7) / (8) / (9)

/ / * £ A J # W ° / A / / // /<^AW&/W / / / *

1 Superintendent's Residence

Single family residence 1939 3 3 2856 1 family 20 yrs.

2 2-Family BunqalDu Two family residence 1945 3 1 1264 2 families 26 yrs.

3 Boiler House Central oil heating plant 1955 5 2 2160 46 yrs.

4 Paint Shop Paint storage and work shop 1880 3 2 256

To be razed

5 Pump House Deep well pump house 1956 3 1 144 37 yrs.

6 Abandoned House Old pump house -not used 1919 3 1 121

To be razed

7 Pump House Auxiliary deep well pump house 1948 •3 1 121 29 yrs.

8 Hospital Infirmary 1939 3 2 4700 20 yrs. 9

Condemned Garage Structure Storaqe 1939 1 1 400 5 y rs.

10 Condemned Garage Structure Storage 1939 . 1 1 4D0 5 yrs.

11 Pump House Not used 1953 3 1 121 40 yrs. 12

Sewage Disposal Equipment Room Housing equipment 1955 3 1 8D 40 yrs.


1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 " 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15 " 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VAPIFS

- 53 -

Location Cheltenham, Maryland December 1, 1959 • • D a t e *


Location BOYS' VILLAGE OF MARYLAND rw» December 1. 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / O) / <4> / <5> J V

(6) / < A^7 A / *v / */ A J A <

/// / // / /JTFTF// /&* (7) / (8)

7 °

/ (9)

A 13 Lane Building

Uentrai kitchen, dining shops, sch.classroom 1951 2 2 17,802 -- 42 yrs.

14 McGuire Cottage Dorm for boys, 2-family residence 1958 2 1 8,936

25 boys 2 families 4D yrs.

15 Neal Cottage Dorm for boys 2-family residence 1958 2 1 8,936

25 boys 2 families 40 yrs.

16 Gymnasium Recreational, chapel, assembly, classrooms 1939 2 2 12,096 —— 40 yrs.

17 Colbert Cottage Dorm for boys 1-family residence 1953 3 1 8,328

25 boys 1 family 35 yrs.

18 McKeldin Cottage Dorm for boys 2-family residence 1955 3 1 8,936


19 Moylan Cottage Dorm for boys 2-family residence 1955 3 1 8,936


20 Geodetic Survey Bldg Storage 1949 3 1 24.0 — ID yrs.

21 Geodetic Survey Bldg Housing 1942 1 1 400 1 Staff man 10 yrs.

22 Geodetic Survey Bldg Storage 1940 1 1 8DD — ID yrs.

23 Geodetic Survey Bldg Storage 1940 1 1 400 — 10 yrs.

24 Geodetic Survey Bldg Storage 194D 3 1 441 — ID yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 54 -


Location BOYS' VILLAGE OF MARYLAND n n t A December 1, 1959

/ 0 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

/// ft / a /MMff} /j£/ / /£ 25 Geodetic Survey Bldq Empty - condemned 19D1 1 1 12 D 10 yrs.

26 Geodetic Survey Bldq Storage 19D1 1 1 612 10 yrs;

27 Geodetic Survey Bldq Housing 1943 1 1 5,174 4 Staff men 10 yrs.

28 Geodetic Survey Bldg Housing 1901 1 1 153 1 Staff man 10 yrs.

29 UJhyte Cottaqe Dorm for boys, 2-family residence 1954 3 1 8,936


3D Henry Cottage Dorm for boys, 2-family residence 1954 3 1 8,936


31 Rennie Cottage Dorm for boys, 2-family residence 1957 3 1 8,936


32 Cornish Cottaqe Dorm for boys, 2-family residence 1958 2 1 9,087

25 Boys 2 families 49 yrs.

33 Henson Cottaqe Dorm for detained boys 1877 3 3 9,309 35 boys 2 yrs.

34 Administration Bldg Office and storage 1958 2 2 8,0D0 40 yrs.

35 Staff Apartment Building Housing (ID families) 1944 3 3 9,309 10 families 25 yrs.

36 Staff Dormitory Housing (single staff) 1959 2 2 14,384 48 persons 40 yrs.


1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 " 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 " 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 " 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 " 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VARIES

n o


Location BOYS' VILLAGE OF MARYLAND Date. December 1, 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / <

/// / // /Mf/mf //./&* (7) / (8)

- / ^

7 °

/ (9) // 37 Turkey House House for turkeys 1938 1 1 40D — 5 yrs.

38 Poultry House House for chickens 1938 1 1 4DD — 5 yrs.

39-47 Poultry Houses Houses for chickens 1938 1 1 4D0 5 yrs.

48 Poultry House Poultry killing and cleaning 1938 1 1 5D0 5 yrs.

49 2-Family Quonset Apartment Temporary residence 1945 8- 1 1176 10 yrs.

50 2-Family Quonset ' Temporary residence 1945 8 1 1176 — ID yrs.

51 ^-l-amiiy Quonset Apartment Temporary residence 1945 8 1 1176 — ID yrs.

52 2-Family . Quonset Apartment Temporary residence 1945 8 1 1176 10 yrs.

53 2-Family Quonset Apartment Temporary residence 1945 8 1 1176 ID yrs.

54 2-Family Quonset Apartment Temporary residence 1945 8 1 1176 ID yrs.

55 Lumber Shed Storing Lumber 1936 1 1 12 5 D ID yrs.

56 Brick Mason Shop Vocational training, maintenance shop 1936 1 1 412 -- 10 yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 56 -

11/


L o c a,io n BOYS' VILLAGE OF MARYLAND Dnte DecembBr 1. 1959

/ . ( 1 ) / (2) / 0) / (4) / (5) J (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

57 Carpentry Shop Vocational training, maintenance shop 1936 1 1 24D 10 vrs.

58 Carpentry Shop Vocational training i

maintenance shop 1936 1 1 1,872 10 yrs.

59 Potato Storage House Potato storage 1956 3 1 864 40 yrs.

60 Hay Barn Fertilizer, hay storage 1956 3 1 5,16D 40 yrs.

61 Bull Barn Feed, storage, house for bulls, calves 1910 1 3 10,814 10 yrs.

62 Dairy Barn Milking cows, processing milk 1932 1 1 4,748 10 yrs.

63 Cattle Shed Shelter 1932 1 1 180 10 yrs;

64 Cattle Shed Shelter 1956 1 1 1,920 25 yrs.

65 Farm Shed Implement storage 1958 3 1 1,386 4D yrs.

66 Quonset Shed Temporary implement storage 1945 8 1 1,176 5 yrs.

67 Quonset Shed Temporary implement storage 1945 8 1 1,176 5 yrs.

68 Corn Crib Corn storage 1958 1 1 384 25 vrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 57 -


BOYS' VILLAGE DF MARYLAND rw» December 1. 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / ( /jf & / # MAW&M (7) / (8)

7 °

/ (9)

//* 69 Farm Shop Shed Implements, service 1958 3 1 2,912 —— 4D yrs.

7D Seed House Storage of seed, etc. 1928 1 2 2,626 5 yrs.

71 Hog House Shelter 193D 1 2 4,136 _ 5 yrs.

72 2-Family Frame House Living residence 19DD 1 2 2.63D

2-family 4 each 2 yrs.

73 Abandoned Shed None 191D 1 1 256 2 yrs.

74 Water Storage Tank - Did Water storage 1942

Steel 9 ID yrs.

75 Water Storage Tank - New Water storage 1957

Steel 9 _ _ _ 4D yrs.

76 New Education Bldg Education 196D 5 2 _ 3DD students 4D yrs. 76A 77

Annex,New Educ.Bldg Gen.Maintenance Bldg

Chapel, Auditorium MT shops

—— 4D yrs. 4D yrs.

78 Admission Cottage Boy housing 196D 2 1 15,158 25 boys 4D yrs.

79-9D Staff Houses (Proposed) Staff housing' 1 1 96D 1 family 4D yrs.

91 New Greenhouse (Proposed Greenhouse -— 2 1 1,000 — 15 yrs.


1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 " 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 " 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 " 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 " 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VARIES

- 58 -/72>

ACREAGE ANALYSIS -- BOYS' VILLAGE DF MARYLAND

TOTAL NUMBER DF ACRES DLINED BY SCHOOL . . . . . . 1,265

NUMBER OF ACRES IN BUILDINGS . . 40

NUMBER OF ACRES UNDER CULTIVATION 375

NUMBER OF ACRES IN WOODLAND 675

NUMBER DF ACRES IN PASTURE 175

- 59 -

o

V©

. R I G G S H A L L B A L T I M O R E C O T T A G E

. W A S H I N G T O N C O T T A G E

. C A L V E R T C O T T A G E

. K E N T C O T T A G E

. C A R R O L L C O T T A G E

. H O W A R D C O T T A G E

. C H A R L E S C O T T A G E

. G A R Y H A L L

. S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S H O M E

. S U P T ' S . G A R A G E i A P T .

. G A R A G E

. G A R A G E I. P O W E R H O U S E i. G A R A G E .. G A R A G E S S T O R A G E B L D G . '. G A R A G E I. P A I N T S H O P >. M A S O N S H O P ). O I L H O U S E

:I N D tX :

2 1 . PR . G E O R G E C O T T A G E 2 2 . A N N E A R U N D E L C O T T A G E 2 3 . W I C O M I C O C O T T A G E 2 4 . M O N T G O M E R Y C O T T A G E 2 5 . C E C I L C O T T A G E 2 6 . A L L E G A N Y C O T T A G E 2 7 . T R A C T O R B L O G . 2 8 . U N D E R G R O U N D S T O R A G E 2 9 . C O R N C S I B 3 0 . F A R M S H O P 3 1 . I N C I N E R A T O R 3 2 . F A R M M A N A G E R ' S H O U S E 3 3 . G R E E N H O U S E S & P L A N T B E D S

3 4 . T O O L H O U S E 3 5 . D W E L L I N G 3 6 . S W I M M I N G P O O L S F I L T E R P L A N T 3 7 . C A L F B A R N - H A Y S T O R A G E 3 8 . D A I R Y B A R N & H A Y B A R R A C K

3 9 . P A S T E U R I Z I N G P L A N T

4 0 . C E M E T E R Y

©c:

/

G A R A G E I M P L E M E N T S H E D W A T E R T A N K S P U M P H O U S E

. U P P E R P U M P H O U S E

. L O W E R P U M P H O U S E S E W A G E D I S P O S A L P L A N T

. SERVICE B L D G . A U D I T O R I U M - G Y M N A S I U M

. P I G H O U S E S ( 4 )

. JR. S C H O O L B U I L D I N G

. A S S I S T A N T S U P T ' S . H O M E

. P I G H O U S E

. D A I R Y M A N ' S H O U S E

S T A F F H O U S E S - P R O P O S E D

F A R M E R ' S H O U S E • P R O P O S E D A D M I S S I O N C O T T A G E • P R O P O S E D

PLOT P l A U < J r fcLOfc* I W D t X 1/AE.gyLAKJP TBA1U1MC SCHOOL K>^ V T K

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES MARYLAND. TRAINING STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Location SCHDDL FDR BOYS Date December 1, 1959

/ ^ / W / (3) / W / (5) J (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

ff // / // /M/Mff} My / /i l Riggs Hall

Ham. biag.. nospitai, chapel, apartment 1910 3 3 31,046 25 yrs.

2 Baltimore Cottage Boys cottage 1913 3 3 9,587 25 30 yrs.

3 Washington Cottaqe Boys cottaqe 1910 3 3 9,587 25 30 yrs.

4 Calvert Cottage Boys cottage 1914 3 3 9,587 25 30 yrs.

5 Kent Cottage Same as above Sleepinq quarters (2) 1924 3 3 9,675 25 30 yrs.

6 Carroll Cottage Boys cottage apartments (2) 1910 3 3 9,587 25 30 yrs.

7 Howard Cottage Boys cottage apartments (2) 1914 3 3 9,587 25 30 yrs.

8 Charles Cottage Same as above sleeping quarters (l) 1931 3 3 9,900 25 30 yrs.

9 Gary Hall Vocational, 4 apartments, academic 1930 5 3 39,220 30 yrs.

ID Superintendent 1s Home Living quarters 1926 3 3 4,329 30 yrs.

11 Superintendent 1s Garage, apartment

2-car garage, apartment 1945 3 1± 1,250 _ 30 yrs.

12 Garage 2-car garage 1924 3 1 525 30 yrs.


1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 " 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 " 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 " 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 " 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15 " 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VARIES

Location

MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS


r>n f (> December 1, 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / ^ (7) / (8)

//f // / // /

/ (9)

/ / 13 Garaqe 7-car capacity 1953 3 1 2.2DD 25 yrs.

14 Power House Maint.Office, elec. boiler room,plumb.shp 1928 4 2 11,615 3D yrs.

15 Garage 3-car capacity 1934 3 1 875 _ 3D yrs.

16 Garage,storage bid. 18-car capacity 1933 3 1 4,500 3D yrs.

17 Garage 5-car capacity 1933 3 1 1,092 30 yrs.

18 Paint Shop Storage of paints, etc. 1959 3 1 960 IM 3D yrs.

19 Mason Shop Storage of masonary 1947 3 1 80D 30 yrs.

2D Dil House Storage, lubricants 1920 3 1 70D „ 3D yrs.

21 Prince George's Cottaqe

Boys living quarters, Staff apartments (2) 1952 3 1 9.145 25 boys 4D yrs.

22 Anne Arundel Cottage Boys living quarters, staff apartments (2) 1952 3 1 9,145 25 boys 4D yrs.

23 Idicomico Cottage Boys living quarters, staff apartments (2) 1952 3 1 9,145 25 boys 40 yrs.

24 Montgomery Cottage Boys living quarters, staff apartments 1952 3 1 9,145 25 boys 4D yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


WOOD FRAME BUILDING LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS OUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS OTHER CONSTRUCTION

LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 62 -

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES MARYLAND TRAINING STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Location SCHOOL FDR BOYS D g t B December 1, 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

/// // / # /M M/) M/ / M-25 Cecil Cottage

Boys living guarters, 2 apartments 1954 3 1 9,145 25 40 yrs.

26 Allegany Cottage Boys living quarters, 2 apartments 1954 3 1 9,145 25 40 yrs.

27 Tractor Building Storage of farm equipment 1942 3 1 3,200 ID yrs.

28 Underground Storage Storage of potatoes, etc. 1927 2 1 1,500 ID yrs.

29 Corn Crib Storage of oorn 1927 8 1 225 10 yrs.

3D Farm Shop Storage of farm implements and tools 1934 3 1 2,100 10 yrs.

31 Incinerator Incinerator _ _ 20 yrs.

32 Farm Manager's House Living quarters 1910 1 2 1.20D 10 yrs.

33 Greenhouse and plant beds Grouinq of plants 1910 9 1 5,750 20 yrs.

34 Tool House Storage of greenhouse supplies 1951 3 1 15D 20 yrs.

35 Duelling Living quarters 1949 3 1 768 20 yrs.

36 Suimming pool and Filter Plant Recreation 1949 4 _ __ 2D vrs.


1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 " 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 " 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 " 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 " 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VARIES

- 63 -

118

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / q (7) / (8)

/iff // / // /

/ ( 9 )

// 37

Calf Barn Hav Storaqe

Hay storage, feed house 1947 3 1 1.620 2D yrs.

38 Dairy Barn Milking,feeding cows 1942 3 1 5,075 20 yrs.

38A Hay Barrack Storage of hay 1942 3 1-2* 2,760 _ 2D yrs.

39 Pasteurizing Plant Pasteurizing milk 194D 3 1 1,350 . 20 yrs.

40 Cemetery Cemetery Unknown . _ _ — — 20 yrs.

41 Garage 1-car garage 192D 3 1 480 — 10 yrs.

42 Implement Shed Storage of farm equip, feed,fertilizer,etc. 1954 3 1 5,520 20 yrs.

43 Water Tanks Storage of water 1936 9 200,000 gal. 20 yrs.

44 Pump House Controls, mechanism 1948 3 1 100 20 yrs.

45 Upper Pump House Social activities 193D 3 1 40D 20 yrs.

46 L D u e r Pump House Abandoned 193D 3 1 1,200 2 yrs.

47 Sewage Disposal Plant Treatment of sewage 1949 2 1 27D 20 yrs.



- 64 -nl

MARYLAND TRAINING S T A T E DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE lomtion SCHOOL FDR BDYS RRNHINHHR 1 , 1959

MARYLAND TRAINING location SCHOOL FDR BOYS


D n t p December 1, 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

48 Service Building Main kitchen, clothing, laundry, D.D.R. 1954 5. 2 2D,992 40 yrs.

49 Auditorium-Gymnasium

Gym, offices, recreation rooms 1954 5 1 15,550 40 yrs.

50 Pig Houses (4) Housing of pigs 195D 1 1 192 2 yrs.

51 Jr. School Building School 1956 3 1 14,480 150 students 40 yrs.

52 Assistant Superintendent's residence Livinq quarters 1956 1 2 1,196 1 family 4D yrs.

53 Pig House Piggery 1956 3 1 60D 4D yrs.

54 Dairyman's House Livinq quarters 1958 3 2 1,196 1 family 40 yrs.

55-58 Proposed Staff Houses Staff houses 1 1 960 1 family 40 yrs.

59 Proposed Farmer's House Staff house 2 2 1,000 1 family 4D yrs.

6D Admission Cottage Boy housing 196D 2 2 15,158 25 boys 4D yrs.

CONSTRUCTION CODE

1

2 3 4 5

6

7 8

9



LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 40 50 50 40 50 15

VARIES

- 65 -

ACREAGE ANALYSIS — MARYLAND TRAINING 5CHDDL FDR BOYS

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OWNED BY SCHOOL - 365

NUMBER OF ACRES IN BUILDINGS . . . 42


NUMBER OF ACRES IN WOODLAND 150

NUMBER OF ACRES IN PASTURE 40

- 66 -

INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Location Reisterstown. Maryland n n t P December l r 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) J ^ (6) / Q (7) / (8)

/if // / # /M/W/}0/ / / (9)

1 Administration Bldq. Staff housing, administrative offices Unknown 1 11,127 15 yrs.

2 Cold Storage Bldq. Cold storaqe Unknown 3 1 1D0 15 yrs.

3 Smoke House Smoke house Unknown 3 1 15D 15 yrs.

4 Storaqe Building Storaqe Unknown 11 1 555 15 yrs.

5 Carpenter Shop Recreation hall Unknown 1 1 55D 5 yrs.

& Green House Green house 1956 2 1 450 15 yrs.

7 Sprinq House Sprinq house 1956 2 1 400 20 yrs.

8 Pump House #1 Pump house 1935 7 1 144 2D yrs.

9 Pump House #2 Pump House 1935 7 1 378 2D vrs.

10 Sewage Disposal Plant Sewage disposal 1936 5 11 8D0 20 yrs.

11 Meyer Cottage Dormitory 1933 2 2 * 9.450 25 3D yrs.

12 Guttmacher Cottage Dormitory 1951 2 2 9.190 25 4D yrs.


1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 25 YEARS 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 50 " 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 40 " 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 50 " 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 40 " 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 50 " 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 15 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION VARIES

- 68 -

/«3


Location MONTROSE SCHOOL FDR GIRLS n „ t g December 1 , 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) / (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

/// / / <f& faff/////£/ / /% 13 Band Cottaqe Dormitory 1924 2 24r 6 ,768 25 33 yrs.

14 . Putts Cottaqe Dormitory 1928 2 24r 6 ,450 25 30 yrs.

15 Field Buildinq School, gymnasium 1937 2 1 11 .358 40 yrs.

16 Gardiner Building School, infirmary 1931 1949 2 2£ 11 ,520 17. 40 yrs.

17 Wilson Cottaqe Dormitory 1928 2 2^ 13 ,350 25 30 yrs.

18 Garage and Open Cnal Storage 1-car garage 1938 3 1 264 _ _ 10 yrs.

19 Employees' Apts. Duelling Unknoun 1 1* 2 ,750 2 employees 10 yrs.

2D Garage 1-car garage 1938 1 2 20 yrs.

21 Chief Engineer's Duelling Duelling __ 1 2 1 ,200 1 family 20 yrs.

22 Apple House Fruit storage Unknoun 2 1 378 , 20 yrs.

23 Garage, Apartment Building Apartments 1926 1 2 * 2 ,400 2 families 2 yrs.

2k Maintenance Shop 1955 _ 2 1,500 25 yrs.

LIFE EXPECTANCY

25 YEARS 50 " 40 " 50 " 50 " 40 " 50 " 15 "

VARIES

CONSTRUCTION CODE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

1 WOOD FRAME BUILDING 2 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME 3 LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALLS & WOOD CONSTRUCTION 4 LOAD-BEARING MANSONRY WALLS & STEEL CONSTRUCTION 5 STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 6 LIFT-SLAB, REINFORCED CONCRETE 7 REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME & MASONRY CURTAIN WALLS 8 QUONSETS & TEMPORARY STEEL BUILDINGS 9 OTHER CONSTRUCTION

- 69 -


MONTROSE SCHOOL FDR GIRLS rw» December 1. 1959

/ (2) / (3) / . (4) / (5) J v ( 6 ) / <

//f // / // /////*

(7) / (8) / (9)

25 Old Dairy Storage Unknoun 1 1 225 ID yrs.

26 Old Barn Barn Unknoun 1 1-2 5,500 —— 2D yrs.

27 Corn Crib, Garage Corn storage.garage Unknoun 3 1-2 •1,910 ID yrs.

28 Farm Storage Implement storage Unknoun 3 1 1,200 25 yrs.

29 Brooder House Brooder house Unknoun 1 1 800 5 yrs.

30 Staff'Duelling Staff duelling Unknoun 1 ^ 2 2,100 ID yrs.

31 Dairv House Pasteurization plant, dairv 1955 2 1 896 2D vrs.

32 Cou Barn Dairy barn, feed storage 1955 2 1 2,808 20 yrs.

33 Bull Barn Bull barn 1956 1 1-1* 250 _ ID yrs.

34 Farm Manager's House Duelling 1920 1 2 1,250 1 family 20 yrs.

35 Farm Manager's Dffice Unknoun 7DD __ 10 yrs.

36 Chicken House #1 Chicken house Unknoun 1 1 1,186 10 yrs.




Location MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS r>nt» December 1. 1959

/ ( 1 ) / (2) / (3) / (4) / (5) / (6) / ( 7 ) / (8) / (9)

37 Chicken House #2 Chicken house Unknoun 1 1. 405 10 yrs.

38 Slaughter House Slaughter house Unknoun 2 1 1,476 10 yrs.

39 Old Chicken H O U S B Chicken House Unknoun 1 1 405 2 yrs.

40 Farm Implement Shed Storage 1958 1 1 2,400 3D yrs.

41 Chapel Church Unknoun •2 1-2 1,500 300 3D yrs.

42 Stone House Duelling Unknoun 1 2 1.3DD 1 family 10 yrs.

43 Utility House, Garaqe Garage Unknoun 2 1 225 ID vrs.

44 Water Storaoe Tank Water suoolv 1955 '5 300,000 oal. 25 vrs.

45 El. Water Storaqe Tank Water supply 1929 100,000 qal. ID yrs.

46 Future Cottage Dormitory 5 1 10,000 25 4D yrs.



- 71 -

ACREAGE ANALYSIS — MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OWNED BY SCHOOL 585

NUMBER DF ACRES IN BUILDINGS 65


NUMBER OF ACRES IN WOODLAND . 255

NUMBER OF ACRES IN PASTURE 200

- 72 -

RECAPITULATION OF SCHEDULE OF MEEDS FDR FUNDS, BY TOTALS STATE DEPARTMENT UF PUBLIC WELFARE

Fiscal Year

TOTAL OF FUNDS NEEDED FOR

Annual Totals Fiscal Year Land Planning Construction Equipment Annual Totals

1961 892,500 21,200 913,7D0

1962 1,100 2,348,000 44,400 2,393,500

1963 10,000 133,000 143,ODD

1964 75,000 13,600 88,6D0

1965 425,000 15,000 440,000

1966 33,000 33,ODD

1967 —

1968 100,000 15,000 75,000 190,000

1969 75,ODD 15,000 90,000

197D 1,500,000 15,000 1,515,000

ID-Year Totals 100,ODD 16,100 5,400,500 290,20D 5,806,80D

- 73 -

PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR 10-YEAR DEV/ELOPMENT PROGRAM STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Capacity Fiscal Year Funds Needed For

Project Capacity Year Needed Land Planning Construction Eguipmen t

For Use Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars

HEADQUARTERS Educational Facilities -Maryland'Children's Center 1961 1961 120,000

Site Improvements Maryland Children's Center 1961 1961 2D,ODD

New Barrett School for Girls 100 beds 1961 1961 400,000

Equipment -Southern Regional Detention Center 1961 1961 7,000

20D-Bed Training. School for Older Boys 2D0 beds 1963 1962 2,000,000 1963 110,000

New Bath House -Boys' Forestry Camp-Green Ridge 1964 1963 7,D0D

Addition to Maryland Children's Center 56 beds 1966 1965 200,000 1966 10,000

- 74 -

lit


Project Capacity Year Needed Land Planning Construction Equipment

For Use Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars

HEADQUARTERS Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 25 beds 1965 1964 75,000 1965 15,000 Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 25 beds 1966 1965 75,000 1966 15,000 Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 25 beds 1969 1968 75,000 1969 15,ODD Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 25 beds 19 7 • 1969 75,000 1970 15,D00 Elementary Training School for Boys 15D beds 1971 1968 100,000 1968 15,000 1970 1,500,000

HEADQUARTERS - TOTAL 100,ODD 15,000 4,547,ODD 187,000

BOYS' UILLAGE OF MARYLAND

Equipment and furnishings - Neu Admissions Cottage 1961 1961 7,100 Renovations to Lane Bldg.to enlarge Central Kitchen 1961 1961 20,000 1962 39,000 General Maintenance Building — 1961 1961 30.D00

- 75 -


Project Capacity Year Needed Land Planning Construction Equipment

For Use Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars-

BOYS' VILLAGE DF MARYLAND

Site Improvements — 1961 1961 15,ODD

Security Addition to SchoolHospital — 1961 1961 13,5D0

Development of Play Area for Ten Cottages and Dne Central Play Area — 1961 1961 12,ODD

Housing for Administrative Staff — 1961 1961 34,000 1962 5,400

Staff Housing -Replacement of Quonsets — 1961 1961 58,500

Greenhouse - Student Project — 1961 1961 6,DD0

Annex to School Bldg. Auditorium 40D seats 1962 1962 1,100 1962 107,D0D 1963 5,000

Staff Housing -Replacement of Quonsets — 1962 1962 91,000 1963 10,000

Renovations to Gymnasium — 1963 1963 3, ODD 1964 13,600

BOYS' VILLAGE OF PI ARYLAND - TOTAL 1,100 390,D00 .80,100

- 76 -

fil

Project Capacity Capacity

Year Needed

For Use

Fiscal Year Funds Needed For

Project Capacity Capacity

Year Needed

For Use Land Planning Construction Equipment Project Capacity

Capacity Year

Needed For Use Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars Year Dollars

MARYLAND TRAINING SCHDDL FDR BOYS

Equipment and Furnishings - Neu Admission Cottage New Roads Senior Recreation Field Staff Housing -Administrative Staff Housing

— 1961 1961

1961

1961 1961

1961 25,D00

1961 50,000

1961 34,000 1961 19,500

1961 7,100

MARYLAND TRAINING SCHODL FOR BOYS - '. OTAL 128,500 7,100

MONTROSE SCHODL FOR GIRLS Construction of Garage and Service Bldg.incl. 2 apts. for Farm Employees Additional Cottage Additional Cottage

25 beds 25 beds

1961 1963 1966

1961 35,000 1962 150,ODD 1965 150,000

1963 8,000 1966 8,000

MONTRDSE SCHDDL FOR GIRLS - TOTAL 335,ODD 16,000 STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE - I U I M L 100,000 16,100 5,400,5D0 290,200

- 77 -

EFFECT DF PROJECTS DM ANNUAL OPERATION EXPENSES STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

Project Staff

Technical and Special

Fees Operating Expenses

Initial Supplino

and Equipment Total

HEADQUARTERS Educational Facilities -Maryland Children's Center — — 1,500 — 1,500

Site Improvements -Maryland Children's Center — — — —

New Barrett School for Girls 30,000 1,800 2,000 8,000 41,800

Equipment -Southern Regional Detention Center — — —

200-Bed Training School for Older Boys 429,600 9,600 160,800 90,000 690,000

Addition to Maryland Children' s Center 57., 130 10,000 31,200 3, ODD 101,330

New Bath House - Boys' Forestry Camp - Green RidgB -- — — — —

Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 30,561 800 15,276 10,500 57,137

Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 30,561 8D0 15,276 10,500 57,137

Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 30,561 800 15,276 1.0,500 57,137

Additional Forestry Camp for Boys 30,561 800 15,276 10,5DD 57,137

Elementary Training School for Boys 322,200 7,200 120,6D0 67,500 517,500

HEADQUARTERS - TOTAL 961,174 31,800 377,204 21D.50D 1,580,678

- 78 -

Project Staff •

Technical and SpBcial


Initial Supplies

and Equipment Total

BOYS VILLAGE OF MARYLAND '. •Equipment and 'Furnishings - ;

NeD) Admission .Cottage — — — — — . — Renovations to Lane Building to Enlarge Central Kitchen —— — — — — General Maintenance Building — — 500 • — • 50D Site Improvements — — — Security Addition to School Hospital — — — — Development of Play Area for Ten Cottages and One Central Play Area : • —

Housing - Administrative Staff ; — — 500 ' 5DD Staff 'Housing - Replacement of i Quonsets 1 6D0 600 Greenhouse - Student Project 4, 290 . — — 4,290 Auditorium - Annex to School Building 3,320 1,000 4,320 Staff Housing - Replacement of Quonsets 6Q0 -— 600 Renovations to Gymnasium — — • — BOYS 1' UILLAGE OF MARYLAND - TOTAL 7,610 • 2,200 — 9,810

- 7 9 -

Project Staff

Technical and Special


Initial Supplies

and Equipment Total

MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS Equipment and Furnishings -New Admission Cottage New Roads Senior Recreation Field Staff Housing - Administrative Staff Housing MARYLAND TRAINING SCHDDL FOR BOYS TOTAL

1,000 1, DDD

2,DD0

i,onn 1,000

2,000

MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS Construction of Garage and Service Building, including Two Apartments for Farm Employees Additional Cottage Additional Cottage

MONTROSE SCHOOL FDR GIRLS - TOTAL

30,000 30,ODD

1,800 1,800

2,000 2,000

6D,00D 3,600 4,000

8,000 8,000

16,ODD

41,800 41,800

83,600

STATE DEPARTMENT DF PUBLIC WELFARE TOTAL 1,028,784' 35,400 385,404 226,500 1,676,088

- 8D -

/ 1 *

CHARACTERISTICS OF 860 COMMITTED CHILDREN IN THE MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOLS ON JANUARY 1, I960

BOARD


Calhoun Bond Mrs. Ralph 0. Dulany Sam Eig Gen. Henry C. Evans

Dr. Sanford V. Larkey Howard H. Murphy Herbert R. 0'Conor, Jr. Mrs. John L. Sanford

DIRECTOR

Thomas J, S. Waxter 301 West Preston Street Baltimore 1, Maryland

7 ? C

TABLE 1 - AGES OF BOYS AND GIRLS IN STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

January 1, I960

Age * Total Barrett School

for Girls Boys' Village of Maryland

Maryland Training School for Boys

Montrose School for Girls

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 860 100.0 89 100.0 331 100.0 328 100.0 112 100.0

8 years - - - - - - - - - -9 years 3 .3 - - 2 .6 1 .3 - -

10 years 11 1.3 - - 9 2.7 2 .6 - -11 years 28 3.3 1 1 .1 22 6.7 5 1.5 - -12 years U5 5.2 6 6.7 20 6.0 17 5.2 2 1.8

13 years 106 12.3 9 10.1 h$ 13.6 U3 13,1 9 8.0

1U years 183 21.3 20 22.5 72 21.8 63 19.2 28 25.0

15 years 2U6 28.6 28 31.5 96 29.0 96 29.3 26 23.2

16 years 166 19.3 23 25.8 h6 13.9 6h 19.5 33 29.5

17 years 63 7.3 2 2.3 19 5.7 31 9.5 11 9.8

18 years 8 1.0 - - - - 5 1.5 3 2.7

19 years 1 .1 - - - - 1 .3 - -* Actual age as of January 1 , I960

TABLE 2 - INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT OF BOYS AND GIRLS IN STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

January 1, I960

I. Q. Total Barrett School

for Girls Boys* Village of Maryland



Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 860 100.0 89 100.0 331 100,0 328 100.0 112 100.0

Below 60 10 1.2 7 7.9 2 .6 1 .3 - -60 - 69 39 U.5 8 9.0 lh U.2 7 2.1 10 8.9

70 - 79 130 15.1 19 21.3 k3 13.0 Ji8 lii .6 20 17.9

80 - 89 19h 22.6 15 16.9 71 21.5 73 22.3 35 3 L 2

90 - 99 >

1U0 16.3 10 11.2 30 9.1 73 22.3 27 2U.1

100 - 109 66 7.7 h li.5 16 k.8 3U 10. h 12 10.7

110 - 119 25 2.9 - - 2 .6 18 5.5 5 iw5

120 - 129 3 .3 - - 1 .3 2 .6 - -130 and over - - - - - - - - -Not reported 253 29.U 26 29.2 152 1*5.9 72 21,9 3 2.7

TABLE 3 - NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMITMENTS OF BOYS AND GIRLS IN THE STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

January 1, I960

Commitments Total Barrett School




Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Boys and girls committed by number of commitments

Total 860 100 oO 89 100.0 331 100.0 328 100.0 112 100.0

First commitments 638 7U.2 79 88.8 233 70. k 23U 71.3 92 82.1

Recommitments - Total 222 25.8 10 11.2 98 29.6 9h 28.7 20 17.9

One 156 18.1 10 11.2 6U 19.3 62 18.9 20 17.9 >

> Two 52 6.1 - 30 9.1 22 6.7 - -

Three or more 14- 1.6 - - h 1.2 10 3 .1 - -

TABLE h - NUMBER OF COMMITTED BOYS AND GIRLS IN ALL TRAINING SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND BY LOCATION OF COMMITTING COURT

January 1, I960

Place of

residence

Total number

of boys and

girls

Location of committing court

• H O

OJ U O

e •rl -P r H

ST CtO OJ

r H

r H OJ

•a

OJ C

c

o s

• H +3 r H

-p a>

o

OJ C

• H H O

O

r H H O f-i J-I t t f

O

• r l O OJ

o

(0 OJ

r H

co A O

OJ -p m OJ

o o n

o • H

U OJ

X ( OJ S-i

43 -p OJ

u O

o 43 c OJ

rH

1 C O

a

(0 © hD rH o OJ

OJ

o •rl f-H P-H

OJ c c c OJ OJ 0

cd

4 CO

OJ IN u 1 CO

+3 o

r H cd E-t

C O 43 bO C

•rl A

IN cd I s

o o • H

e O CJ

• H

f-i 0) 43 t o OJ

o o

Total

Baltimore City Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester

860

538 8

37 65

8 2

11 8 6 h

10 6

11 7 1

39 60

3 5 h 1

'1U 9 3

533

525

2 6

8 1

38

3U 1

69

11

57

11 11 39

11

10 7

1

1

1

38 1

58

1

1

1 55

ih

lU

TABLE 5" - NUMBER OF COMMITTED GIRLS IN BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS CLASSIFIED BY RESIDENCE AND BY LOCATION OF COMMITTING COURT

PLACE OF

January 1, I960

Place of

residence

Total Baltimore City Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester

Total number

of girls

89 63

2 li 2 1

1 1

1

1

1 2 6

1 1 1


•H O <D U O

-P H cd

PQ

"63" 63

cd bfl CD

U < CD

c

U O e

•H -p r-i cd pq

-P U

cd o

<D C

•H H O U cd o

o u cd o

•H o CD

CO cd

H cd

O

u CD •p co Q) A o u o p

o •H !h

T ) CD fa

+3 •P <D Jh cd

O

(-1 O

U cd

cd -P C CD

& CD e o bo

-P C o

bfl o CD O CD O c

0) c c < CD

s

co & ' cd

-P

-p CD W

u a o

CO

-p o

cd

O -P w I c

•H to cd

o o

•H e o o

u CD +3 CO CD o o

TABLE 6 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED BOYS IN BOYS' VILLAGE OF MARYLAND CLASSIFIED RESIDENCE AND BY LOCATION OF COMMITTING COURT

BY PLACE OF

January 1 , i960

Place of

residence

Total Baltimore City Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester

Total number of

boys

331

292

7 5 h

1

2

1

9 3 1

1 3

-p • H O <B U O

cd PQ 291

290

c CO

0) rH

OJ

T3

u

s c •a!

OJ U o 43 CO


43 OJ

rH CO

O

C • H r H O ?-» cd

O

O u u cd

O

• r l CJ OJ

O

CO OJ

cd X ! o

43 CO OJ

X ! o u o o

o • r l f n OJ

X ) OJ J-i Ft,

43 43 0) cd

O

u

u cd

T3 cd

o 43 c OJ

I o M I 43 c o s

o OJ

o OJ o c

• H

P-,

OJ

c c OJ OJ

c

cd

43 to

+3 OJ co

OJ

g to

43 o cd

en

c o 43 bO c

• r l x : CO cd

o 0 • H

g o • r l

OJ +3 10 OJ CJ u o •3

TABLE 7 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED BOYS IN MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS CLASSIFIED BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND BY LOCATION OF COMMITTING COURT

January 1, I960

Place of

residence

Total number of

boys


•H O o

-p

cd

Cd bo CD

H CD

•a

s c

o e •rl -P H cd _£9_

•P J-i co >

r-i Cd O

0 c •rl H O cd o

O cd O

rH •H O CD O

CO <D H U cd .£3 O

CO •p co

Jl o u o J 3 .

o •H U CD

18

•p

CO cd o

t3 o

cd

cd §

-p c CD

U CD bo -P C o

CD bO o o CD o c •rl

CO CO c c c CD <D

CO

cd

a -p CO

-p CD CO h 1

-p o

cd

C o •p b0| C •rl CQ cd

o o •H e o o •rl

CO -p in co o u o

Total

Baltimore City Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester

JL5 Frederick O Garrett V Harford

Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester

328

ll*l* 6

23 33

2 1 6 5" h 1 6 1* 7 5

20 1*1*

1* 1

U 3

ll*l

13U

2 5

23

20 1

36

26

20

19 1

1*2

1 39

TABLE 8 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED GIRLS IN MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS CLASSIFIED BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND BY LOCATION OF COMMITTING COURT

January 1, I960

Place of

residence

Total

Baltimore City Allegany Anne Arundel Baltimore Calvert Caroline Carroll Cecil Charles Dorchester Frederick Garrett Harford Howard Kent Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne 1s St. Mary's Somerset Talbot Washington Wicomico Worcester

Total number

of girls

112

39 2 5

23

5 2

3 1 2 2 2

E 7 2

8 1


-p • r l O

CD U O e

• r l - P H cd

pa

38 38

Cd bO <D

r H r H <

•3 c

s c

1

5

0)

o

-p H PQ

23

23

-p u CO

> cd

O

s • r l H O

cd O

H o cd

O

H • r l O CO o

CO <D H *4 CO Xi o

CO CD

o o

o • r l *, CO •n CD Sh fa

-p -p CO u u cd o

o *H CO PC

cd

I -p G

CD e o w> -p c o IS

-TO-

0) bO o CO o CO o c

• r l

10

0) C C < c CO CD

cd

«

CO

•p CD CO S i

I o CO

•p o H cd

EH

a o -p bO c

• r l X ! CO cd

O o • r l S O

o • r l

u CD

- P CO CD

o U O

•73

TABLE 9 - PARENTAL STATUS OF COMMITTED BOYS AND GIRLS IN STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

January 1, I960

O

Parental status Total Barrett School



Montrose School for Girls Parental status

Number Percent Number 1 Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total children 860 100.0 89 100.0 331 100.0 328 100.0 112 100.0

Living together 3h2 39.8 22 2U.7 110 33.2 159 U8.5 51 1*5.5

Mother dead Uh 5.1 7 7.9 23 6.9 9 2.7 5 ii.5

Father dead 85 9.9 7 7.9 35 10.6 31 9.5 12 10.7

Both parents dead 7 .8 1 1 . 1 k 1.2 2 .6 - -Parents separated 193 22.U 2h 27.0 123 37.2 37 11.3 9 8.0

Parents divorced 135 15.7 9 10.1 11 3.3 85 25.9 30 26.8

Parents unmarried U7 5.5 18 20.2 22 6.7 3 .9 U 3.6

Other 7 .8 1 1 . 1 3 .9 2 .6 1 .9

TABLE 10 - LIVING ARRANGEMENT OF BOYS AND GIRLS BEFORE COMMITTMENT TO STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

January 1, I960

Child living with Total

Barrett School for Girls

Boys' Village of Maryland



• Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 8 6 0 1 0 0 . 0 8 9 1 0 0 . 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 . 0 3 2 8 1 0 0 . 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 , 0

Both parents 3 2 7 3 8 . 0 2 0 2 2 . 5 1 0 U 3 1 .U 1 5 6 1*7.6 U 7 U 2 . 0

Mother 22k 26..1 3 2 3 6 . 0 1 1 9 3 6 . 0 5 9 1 8 . 0 . 1 U 1 2 . 5

Father 3 7 U.3 3 3 .U 1 7 5 . 1 1 U U . 3 3 2 . 7

Mother and stepfather 1 1 2 1 3 . 0 1 0 1 1 . 2 3 5 1 0 . 6 U 8 1 U . 6 1 9 1 6 . 9

Father and stepmother 3 0 3 . 5 5 5 . 6 U 1 . 2 1 6 U . 9 5 U . 5

Foster home U 6 5 . U 5 5 . 6 2 0 6 . 0 9 2.7 1 2 1 0 . 7

Other family home 69 8 . 0 1 3 l U . 6 3 2 9 . 7 1 5 U . 6 9 8 . 0

Institution 1 2 l.U 1 l.l - - 9 2 . 7 2 1.8

Other 3 .3 - - i - 2 . 6 1 . 9

TABLE 11 - COMMITTED CHILDREN IN ALL STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY AND POSITION IN FAMILY

January 1 , I960

Position in family Total Number of committed children with specified number of children in family

1 2 3 1* 5 6 7 8 9 or over Unknown

Total children 660 59 78 109 ll*0 110 111* 85 61 103 1

First 2l*3 59 LA 35 39 22 25 8 6 8 -Second 211 - 37 1*3 1*5 38 17 17 5 9 -Third 11.7 - - 30 37 17 23 20 9 11 -Fourth 93 - - 19 25 22 8 11 8 -Fifth 56 - - - - 8 17 11* 9 8 -Sixth 39 - - - - 10 5 8 16 -Seventh 25 - - - - - - 12 1* 9 -Eighth 17 - - - - - - - 9 8 -Ninth and over 26 ' - - - - - - - - 26 -Unknown 3 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1

TABLE 12 - TYPE OF OFFENSES OF COMMITTED BOYS Al© GIRLS IN STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS

January 1, I960

Type of offense Total

Number

Barrett School for Girls

Number

Boys' Village of Maryland

Number


Number


Number

Total offenses Arson Assault Automobile theft Breaking and entering Disorderly conduct Narcotics Robbery Sex offense Stealing Vandalism Being ungovernable Runaway Trespassing Truancy Violation of Probation Violation of after care

supervision Other

860 8

33 60

126 16

23 lh

181* 8

113 123

1 85 12

2

89

1 U 1*

37 19

13 5

331

3

20 9

67 7

lh 3

119 1

19 20

1 21*

7

2 15

328

5 10 51 58

8

8 2

58 7

20

3U

39

28

112

1

1

5 3

37 50

TABLE 13 - TYPE OF OFFENSE COMMITTED BY BOYS AND GIRLS IN STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS ON THE FIRST COMMITMENT

January 1, I960

Type of offense All Training

Schools Barrett School




Total 638 79 233 23U 92

Arson 7 3 h -Assault 23 2 13 8 -Automobile theft U5 - 5 ho -Breaking and entering 88 - 19 38 1 Disorderly conduct 13 1 6 6 — Narcotics - - - — — Robbery 17 - 10 7 — Sex offense 12 3 3 1 5 Stealing 131 h 86 38 3

Vandalism 6 - - 6 — Being ungovernable 92 35 1U 1U 29 Runaway 98 16 13 27 U2 Trespassing - - - — — Truancy 60 12 15 27 6 Violation of probation 9 3 6 - — Other 37 3 10 18 6

TABLE LU - NUMBER OF COMMITTED BOYS AND GIRLS IN STATE TRAINING SCHOOLS CLASSIFIED BY PREVIOUS SCHOOL GRADE AND BY ACHIEVEMENT

GRADES IN READING AND ARITHMETIC

January 1 , I960

Ach ievement grade Previous rotal Jnder 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ungrade 2 to to to to to to to to to to to to known

2.9 3 c 9 U.9 5 . 9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 known

Reading Total 860 87 86 78 119 9 U 7 5 5 3 U 6 17 11 9 1 I8ii

Grade 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 12 7 1 U U 38 13 11 5 8 1 5 5 1 7 10 10 11 5 1 7 6 8 5 10 7 1 5 19 Hi 7 1 12 7 183 11 18 1 5 2 U 30 22 11 7 1 UU 8 179 U 6 ll 22 23 27 21 1 5 2 3 U 5

9 110 1 1 3 1 5 13 10 1 6 13 5 2 2 29 10 61 1 2 1 1 3 8 9 5 6 2 5

11 13 1 1 2 1 1 7 12 2 1 1

Shop 20 5 9 3 1 2 Occupational 31 12 6 U 6 1 2 Vocational 28 U 7 6 U 3 2 1 1 Opportunity 2 U 9 6 2 2 1 U Other 9 2 1 2 1 1 2 Unknown 12 1 2 2 2 1 U

Arithmetic Total 860 5 5 6 U 1 0 U l 5 U 133 70 30 2 5 17 1U 5 1 188

Grade 1 1 1 2 1 l 3 12 7 1 3 l U 38 12 8 8 6 3 1 5 5 1 2 6 13 13 6 3 1 7 6 8 5 10 6 1 5 16 19 6 1 12 7 183 5 9 23 39 32 19 7 U 1 UU 8 179 6 11 3U UO 20 8 8 U 1 U 7

9 110 6 16 19 12 11 5 5 U 2 30 10 61 1 2 2 5 2 8 7 6 3 2 5

11 13 1 2 2 8 12 2 1 1

Shop 20 1 8 U 5 2 Occupational 31 7 9 1 10 2 1 1 Vocational 28 U 2 8 7 6 1 Opportunity 2 U 6 3 7 3 1 U Other 9 3 2 2 2 Unknown 12 2 1 2 3 U

TABLE 15 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED GIRLS IN BARRETT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS CLASSIFIED BY PREVIOUS SCHOOL GRADE AND BY

ACHIEVEMENT GRADES IN READING AND ARITHMETIC

January 1, I960

Achievement grade Previous

r o t a l Fnder 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Un2 to to to to to to to to to to to to known

2.9 3.9 h.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 Reading

Total 89 1 13 8 12 12 2 2 22

3rade 1

2 3 1 1 U 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 6 9 1 2 2 2 1 1 7 23 3 3 2 7 2 6 8 30 2 3 7 2 .7 1 8 9 11 1 ii 2 2 1 1

10 2 2 11 1 1 12

Shop 1 1 Occupational 3 1 1 1 Vocational 2 1 1 Opportunity 2 2 Other Unknown

Arithmetic

Total 89 1 U 7 28 16 8 2 23

Grade 1

2 3 1 1 h 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 6 9 2 3 1 2 1 7 23 2 9 U 1 1 6 8 30 1 11 7 3 8 9 11 1 2 3 2 1 2

10 2 2 11 1 1 12

Shop 1 1 Occupational 3 1 2 Vocational 2 1 1 Opportunity 2 2 Other Unknown

a//

TABLE 16 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED BOYS IN BOYS' VILLAGE OF MAFILAND CLASSIFIED BY PREVIOUS SCHOOL GRADE AND BY


January 1, I960

Previous grade Cotal

Achievement grade Previous grade Cotal Undei

2 , 2 to 2.9

3 to 3.9

A to A.9

5 to 5.9

6 to 6.9

7 to 7.9

8 to 8.9

9 to 9.9

10 to

10.9

11 to

11.9

12 to

12.9

13 to

13.9

Unknown

Total jrade 1

2 3 U . 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

Shop Occupationsil Vocational Opportunity Other Unknown

Reading Total

jrade 1 2 3 U . 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

Shop Occupationsil Vocational Opportunity Other Unknown

331 1 1 8

20 22 31 65 56 38 10 3

LU 2U 18 LU 3 3

80

1 6

13 7

10 10

A I

A I I

3 9 1

A7 1

5 3 A

10 A

6 5 A 2 1 2

A5

2 2 6 7

10 A 2 1

3 5 2 1

55

A 7

12 10 10

2 1

3 3 3

38

2 1

12 13

6 1 1

1 1

30

2 5

10 6 1

1 2 2

1

M

2 5 7

15

A 5 3 2 1

2

2

3

1 1 1

2

2

Arithmetic Total 331 52 50 69 77 A6 17 9 7 1 3

Grade 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 8 6 1 1 A 20 10 7 3 5 22 2 5 5 7 2 1 6 31 10 . A 10 3 A 7 65 5 7 17 19 13 A 8 56 A 9 18 I A 5 3 2 1 o 38 5 11 9 A 6 3

10 10 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 11 3 l 1 1 12

Shop I A 1 6 A 3 Occupational 2A 7 8 I 8 Vocational 18 A 1 6 A 3 Opportunity I A 6 3 A I Other 3 2 I Unknown 3 1 I I

TABLE 17 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED BOYS IN MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL FOR BOYS CLASSIFIED BY PREVIOUS SCHOOL GRADE AND BY


January 1 , I960

previous grade |Tota]jjnder!

2

Achievement grade 2

to 2.9

3 to 3.9

U to U.9

5 to 5.9

6 to 6.9

7 to 7.9

8 to .8.9

9 to 9.9

10 to

10.9

11 to

fLl.9

12 to

12.9

13 to

13.9 Readini

Total 328 6 26 22 39 36 2U 25 23 12 8 7 100

Grade 1 2 3 3 1 2 U 17 5 3 8 1

5 2U 6 3 6 3 1 5 6 35" 2 6 5 9 u 1 8

7 76 1 5- 2 8 10 10 8 3 1 28 8 6U 3 5 6 7 8 7 1 2 25 9 38 1 1 U 1 6 6 3 1 2 13

10 31 1 5 7 U U 10 11 3 l l 1 12 2 1 1

Shop 5" 1 2 2 Occupational U 1 1 2 Vocational 7 2 1 1 2 1 Opportunity 7 u 2 1 Other 5 1 1 1 2 Unknown 7 1 1 2 3

Arithmetic

Total 328 2 10 26 UU 5U 33 12 17 l U 10 u 1 101

Grade 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 U 17 1 l 5 6 3 1

5 2U 8 5 3 2 1 5 6 35 2 3 7 11 3 1 8 7 76 2 U 11 11 11 5 3 1 28 8 6U 1 1 U l U 7 l 6 U 26

9 38 3 3 U U 2 U 3 2 13 10 31 1 2 6 5 5 2 10 11 3 1 1 1 12 2 1 1

Shop 5 1 2 2 Occupational U 2 1 1 Vocational 7 1 1 2 3 Opportunity 7 3 2 1 1 Other 5 1 2 2 Unknown 7 1 1 2

i 3

c 3 / 3

TABLE 18 - NUMBER OF COMMITTED GIRLS IN MONTROSE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS CLASSIFIED BY PREVIOUS SCHOOL GRADE AND BY


January 1, I960

Previous grade

Achievement grade

[rota% n d e i j

2 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

to to to to to to to to to to to to 2.9 3.9 U.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9

Unknown

Total Grade 1

2 3 U 5 2 6 10 7 19 8 29 9 23

10 18 11 6 12

Shop Occupational] Vocational Opportunity Other Unknown

Total Grade 1

2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

Shop Occupational Vocational Opportunity Cther Unknown

112

1 1 1 2

112

2 10 19 29 23 18 6

1 1 1 2

Reading

12

2 5 17 Arithmetic 12

1 3 3

U 5 U

1 3 5 2 1

1 u

1 1

court of appeals of maryland

Documents