South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project The University of

Interview

with The Honorable

Matthew J. Perry, Jr.

University Libraries University of South Carolina

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 2

Interviewer:

Dr. Robert J. Moore Robert J. “Bob” Moore is a native of West Tennessee, attended Lambuth College, and received his Ph.D. from Boston University. He taught history at Columbia College in Columbia, SC for thirty-nine years. He was Chair of the Department of History and Political Science for twenty-three years and held the Charles Ezra Daniel Chair in History. Active in the in South Carolina, Dr. Moore became friends with Matthew and Hallie Perry in the early 1960s, and that friendship continued until Judge Perry’s death. He became interested in pursuing research on Judge Perry’s life and service in the 1990s. He delivered a paper on Judge Perry at the Southern Historical Association and wrote the two biographical chapters in the 2004 book, Matthew J. Perry, The Man, His Times, and His Legacy, published by the University of South Carolina Press. Dr. Moore is now [2011] engaged in writing a textbook on South Carolina History for eighth-graders for Clairmont Press in Atlanta.

Dates:

Dec. 14, 1995 (tape 1), Dec. 27, 1995 (tapes 2-3), Jan. 3, 1996 (tapes 4-5), Jan. 19, 1996 (tapes 6-7), Jan. 23, 1996 (tapes 8-9), Jan. 30, 1996 (tapes 10-11) and Feb. 6, 1996 (tapes 12-13)

Location:

Judge Perry’s Office, Columbia, SC

Transcriber:

Larry Grubbs

Synopsis:

Columbia native Matthew Perry (1921-2011) chiefly discusses his life, legal career, and involvement in the civil rights movement in South Carolina. Perry graduated from Booker T. Washington High School. He served in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946 and saw duty in England, France, Belgium and Germany. He received both his B.S. degree, 1948, and law degree, 1951, from South Carolina State College. In 1951, he associated with the law firm of Jenkins, Perry and Pride and soon became one of the key NAACP attorneys promoting civil rights in South Carolina. In 1974, Perry became the first black in the twentieth century to win the Democratic nomination for a seat in Congress, but failed to unseat incumbent Congressman Floyd Spence. In 1975, Senator nominated Perry to the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, to which he was appointed the following year. In 1979, Senator nominated Perry to serve on the U.S. District Court. He was appointed to that court by President Jimmy Carter.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 3

[Session 1, December 14, 1995, Tape 1 begins]

Moore: Judge, I'd like to start with you just telling me something about your early life, your family, your memories of early childhood.

Perry: I was born Matthew James Perry, Jr. on August third, 1921. My father was a tailor by trade. He was a World War I veteran. During my early years, he was hospitalized at the veterans' hospital in Tuskegee, Alabama. Later, he died, when I was twelve years old. I was the oldest of three children. My mother brought me, my sister, and brother to the home of her father and stepmother. From about age twelve, or shortly before that, I lived in the home of my maternal grandfather, along with my mother, my brother, and sister, until I went away to college.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 4

Moore: And where was that house located?

Perry: On Washington Street. Twenty-two-sixteen Washington Street here in Columbia, South Carolina. My early childhood was in that setting. My mother was a woman who wanted the very best for us. She required that we go to school, and that we develop good manners, good living habits. My grandfather, in whose home we lived, was a strict disciplinarian who was not a well-educated man at all, but who required the young people around him to conform to the strict standards that he had developed. He was a Baptist. He went to church regularly. In fact, he was a church deacon. He required that we go to church. Sundays were spent, almost the entire day, in church, from Sunday School, to the regular church service, to a later afternoon involvement in the church, which as I recall was the BYPU (Baptist Young People's Union), or something of that sort. [laughter] He would stay there for the Sunday evening service, and we had to stay there, too. We spent all day Sunday at church.

Moore: [And] Wednesday evening prayer service?

Perry: Oh, yes, absolutely. My grandfather worked as a brakeman on the Southern Railway Company. We kids had chores to perform around the house. I had to do the yard work. I had to help chop the wood, bring in the firewood and coal. We didn't have central heat back at that time. The house was heated by wood and coal. When there was housecleaning, such as scrubbing the kitchen floor [or] the bathroom floor, I was designated to do those chores. My sister did the dishes, and I would have to help sometimes by wiping the dishes, and by doing other chores within the house. I began at an early age working at the school, and did so throughout my school life. There was no time for just loitering. Let me also point out this about living in the home of my grandfather. He was a strict disciplinarian who condemned the ways of the world, you might say. He abhorred smoking, drinking, dancing, all of the things that young people might be attracted to. And you had to be in the house by sundown. As I grew older and became a teenager, I was given some leeway. I could go out as long as it was to the school or to someplace that everybody knew about, somebody's house, the school, or to the church, of course.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 5

Moore: Did you have any early memories of discrimination, or awareness of segregation?

Perry: Yes. At an early point in life, as we moved from the surroundings of our own home and went out into the broader community, you came to realize that there were places where, if you were black, you were not allowed to go. There were separate water fountains and separate restrooms. In the case of movie theaters, there was segregated seating, with the blacks having to go into the upstairs. [laughter] On buses, you had to position yourself in the back. They would permit you to come in the front door to pay your fare. You would leave out the front door, walk around, and enter the rear door.

Moore: You pay your fare up front, and then walk around and enter the rear door?

Perry: That's right. Or sometimes, if there weren't many white people up front, you could walk through the center aisle towards the rear. So there were all kinds of signs that I became aware of during an early point.

Moore: Was part of this etiquette that your mother taught you and your grandfather insisted on? Segregation etiquette, how to not offend white people?

Perry: Yes. Now I can't directly attribute it to my grandfather or to my mother, but let's put it this way. They knew the rules and they conformed. I guess by the example that they conveyed by their conduct, I'd go through the back door also without questioning it, until over the years, as I became more educated and more inquisitive, I began to wonder why these practices existed.

Moore: And it was then you got right uppity?

Perry: Yes. [laughter]

Moore: In your teen years, it was the middle of the Depression, right?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 6

Perry: Yes.

Moore: I wonder what memories you have of that. You said you had an after-school job. Were times hard? Your grandfather kept his job at the Southern Railway Company, so he was better off than most.

Perry: Yes. My grandfather's employment was steady. As a brakeman on the railroad, he was constantly employed, but it was not a substantial wage that he earned. It was a living wage. He had a modest home and he was very careful. He kept it up, he saw to it that the lawn was kept up, and that the house was in good repair. He added to it as the family needs dictated. He always kept an automobile, which I was permitted to wash and keep clean, and which I would perhaps sneak around to drive around the block. [laughter]

Moore: You must have been among some of the best-off black families in Columbia then, other than schoolteachers and the families of morticians.

Perry: It's difficult to compare our status and the quality of our lives with others, but there were any number of blacks who enjoyed fairly decent standards of living.

Moore: Better than yours?

Perry: Oh, yes.

Moore: Do you have any memories of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, and whether that impacted on the community?

Perry: I do. Let's see. President Roosevelt was elected when, in 1932?

Moore: '32.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 7

Perry: I would have then been eleven years of age, and so I do indeed remember his election. I had not yet become politically sophisticated. The election of this very eloquent man, who we later learned had suffered polio and couldn't walk. . . when you saw pictures of him, they showed him standing behind a podium. It was some time before we realized that he couldn't walk. But I do remember his election. I remember, for example, the great programs that he espoused, including the Social Security Act. What a grand and eloquent, highly-respected man he was. Yes, I do remember that.

Moore: What about the war years? You were coming into your maturity at that time, World War II. What are your memories of World War II, and what was your service during the war?

Perry: On December 7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, I was a college student. I was a sophomore.

Moore: Where?

Perry: At South Carolina State College. I received my papers to go into the army, I think it must have been in either late November or December of 1942. I went into the army in response to that draft notice, in early January of 1943, and stayed in the army for three years, until January of 1946. I served in a couple of bases in the United States, and in England, France, Belgium, and briefly in Germany.

Moore: Do you have any particular memories there about the relative treatment of blacks and whites in the army?

Perry: Yes, I do. We were in a racially segregated army outfit. Indeed, the military services generally were racially segregated, with blacks being assigned to certain units reserved for blacks, with whites being otherwise assigned. The officers in my army outfit were white. We did our basic training in Mississippi at Camp Van Dorn, which is no longer in existence. It was a World War II army camp that was just outside the little Mississippi town called South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 8

Centerville, not far from Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi. The racial climate was hostile to blacks. I can remember when I was still at Camp Van Dorn, in 1943, when the first prisoners of war began coming back into the United States, having been captured in North Africa or Italy. They were either Italians or Germans; I'm not sure which they were. I can recall on one occasion, I was traveling by train back from Columbia, South Carolina back to my army base in Mississippi. I for some reason got off the train in Alabama, around Birmingham. The railroad terminals were racially segregated. They had restaurants in the railroad terminals but a black couldn't go in. So I went to one place, and there were these prisoners of war, either German or Italian, who were going to some camp here in the United States. They were being served inside the restaurant. The waitresses, of course, were serving them with smiles and literally flirting with them. I and the other black soldiers had to stand outside a window to place our orders and get the food passed out through the window. Of course, there were other instances, many of which I have long since forgotten. The water fountains, the constant reminder that there were places that you were simply excluded from. It had started occurring to me, even before I went into the army, I would think before I graduated from high school, that there was something wrong with a system that sanctioned such different treatments of people simply because of race. I wasn't sure that this could be sustained against the attacks of reason and rationality. I wasn't at all sure, however, what might be done, or whether I had the capacity to do anything about it. I knew that something ought to be done about it, and as I began contemplating my own career choices, I had in mind that I ought to do something that would be both useful and productive to my own needs and to the needs of my family, but that it would be good if I could think of some way of coming to grips with some of the problems that I had discovered.

Moore: And that's what drew you into the law?

Perry: Yes.

Moore: Do you remember when you made that decision? When you left the army, I assume you came back to South Carolina State College.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 9

Perry: By the time I left the army, I had decided I was going to study law. I think I had decided that by the time I went into the army. I wasn't exactly sure how I might bring it about. You see, you couldn't go to a law school in South Carolina. There were considerations that I had to bring to bear. As a young person considering career choices, you develop a whole lot of ambitions, the things you want to do. Sooner or later, you discard some and keep your eyes fastened one way or the other. But I think I had generally made the decision before I went into the army, without developing a plan of how best to bring it about.

Moore: When you got out of the army, you came back to South Carolina State and finished there?

Perry: Yes. When I got out of the army in January of 1946, the school year was well underway, so I had to wait to go back to school. The thought didn't occur to me to try to go back for the second semester. Instead, I went to work, and in general, got with some of my other buddies who likewise returned from their service in the army. One or two months after I got back, there were two cases brought to trial here in Columbia, in the federal courthouse. One of them was the case of Wrighten v. the University of South Carolina.

Moore: Tell us about that.

Perry: John Wrighten, a young black man, wanted to study law and had applied to the law school at the University of South Carolina, which had refused his admission. Through the assistance of the national NAACP, he brought a lawsuit, seeking to be admitted as a student. The presiding judge was J. Waties Waring. That case, and the other case that I will tell you about, Elmore v. Rice, were tried in back-to-back non-jury trials, right over there in the old federal courthouse on Laurel Street. I and one or two of my buddies went to see what was happening. Here was this tall, erect, brilliantly-spoken black lawyer, and a couple of his colleagues, and Harold Boulware. Bob Carter was with him. Bob is now a colleague of mine, in senior status as United States District Judge in New York. Here was this battery of lawyers on the other side, who were South Carolina's contingent—the attorney general of South Carolina and various outstanding South Carolina lawyers of that period. Christie Benet South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 10

was one of them. In that case, by the way, it was ultimately decided that South Carolina should either admit John Wrighten to a state-supported university, or provide for him and others similarly situated, a separate but equal education in some other institution. That was the state of the law at that time. The Supreme Court of the United States had decided, first in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that created the separate but equal doctrine. The doctrine was established with respect to separate railroad car seating in a case that arose down in Louisiana. In 1938 the Supreme Court applied that doctrine with respect to separate education in a case called Gaines v. Missouri. Lloyd Gaines, a black man, wanted to study law at the University of Missouri, which excluded him because of race. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Missouri had to either admit him to its state-supported university, or provide for him a separate but equal education in an institution within Missouri. Before that time there was no requirement that they provide it within the state. That principle was applied in the Wrighten v. University of South Carolina case here. As I said, Thurgood Marshall argued that case here. Thurgood Marshall and his predecessor, Mr. [Charles Hamilton] Houston, had argued Gaines v. Missouri in the Supreme Court.

Moore: It's my recollection that Judge Waring gave them a third option, to not educate anybody.

Perry: That's correct.

Moore: To shut down the USC law school.

Perry: That was the other option, that's right. The other case decided back to back was the effort of George Elmore and other blacks to register and vote in primary elections. At that time, of course, the only meaningful elections in South Carolina, and this was true in other southern states, were primaries conducted by the Democratic Party. These elections were known as the Democratic white primary elections. Blacks could vote in general elections, provided you passed the many obstacles that were erected in front of you. But the only meaningful elections were the Democratic white primaries. George Elmore and others sought the assistance of the NAACP. That suit was brought against the officials of the Democratic Party and certain state South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 11

officials charged with the conduct of the election process. Judge Waring decided that there was indeed state action involved. The fourteenth amendment prohibits discrimination by persons acting under cover of state law. The party officials had claimed that they were not operating a state-operated function, that in fact it was a private club. [laughter] Therefore the fourteenth amendment, in their view, did not apply. The Supreme Court had already decided in 1944 in Smith v. Allwright, with respect to the challenge against the Texas primary, that there was indeed state action by Texas officials. In this case, Judge Waring was able to find that there was state action with respect to operation of the elections in South Carolina, and ordered that Elmore and others similarly situated be permitted to register and vote in that primary election. As I say, I attended both of those trials.

Moore: Both of them?

Perry: Yes. This was exactly the kind of thing I think had emerged within me. I knew that something needed to be done about the things that I perceived [were] wrong with our society. I wasn't at all sure what I, or anybody, could do about it. I had come to feel, once I decided that I wanted to study law, that perhaps the practitioner of the law would be best equipped to address the issue. Here I saw an illustration in the persons of these great lawyers at work. That solidified it.

Moore: That solidified your becoming a lawyer. What's this about your possibly becoming a singer? [laughter]

Perry: Even now, I suppose I still claim to be a baritone, confined now only to the bathtub. [laughter] As a high school student and during my early college years, I used to get on the stage. I sang with the choir in church and with glee clubs in high school and then in college. I even tried my hand at solos occasionally. You know how the school newspaper designates someone as the best this or the best that. When I graduated from high school, I was designated the best male singer. I hit South Carolina State as a college freshman convinced that I was the new kid on the block, and I was there to illustrate my prowess. I soon found out that there were people there who could do it much better than I. [laughter] But I did sing on the college choir, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 12

among the baritones. I still love music in that regard. In high school I even performed in a couple of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. I was a ham in my army outfit. The fellows would hear me holding forth. In my outfit, there was a fellow named Palmer, and he was one of a group of brothers. Now why they didn't call themselves the Palmer Brothers, I will never know. They called themselves the Cavaliers. The Cavaliers performed before World War II with Cab Calloway. That's when they became nationally famous. They were quite a group. Palmer in my outfit was the tenor of the group. When he found out that I called myself a singer, he and I struck up a friendship, and it lasted during our period in the service. His brother the baritone was in another army outfit in the Pacific, and he was killed during the war. After the war, after we all were discharged and went back to our respective communities, the Cavaliers tried to re-form. There were either three or four brothers, and they had one or two other fellows as drummers and people who performed with them. But now, they needed to fill the spot of the baritone who had gotten killed. So the tenor said to his friends and brothers, "I know a fellow. He was in the army with me. He's down in South Carolina. If he would come and join us, I believe he could fill the spot"—of the brother. He called me. I was back in Columbia, waiting to go back to school, and generally contemplating my new freedom from military service. I was flattered at the call, and I did indeed go to New York. I met them and listened to them perform, and I did indeed join them in rehearsal. We did indeed conclude that, were I so minded, that I might be able to fit in. Now I had the dilemma, because I had already decided to go back to school. I wanted to complete my education and go into law. I now had the GI Bill of Rights. That gave me the financial wherewithal to think about studying law, but I had to get this undergraduate work out of the way. So I said to the fellow, "I've got to go back home." There was something pressing that dictated that I return to Columbia, and I said, "I'll be in touch with you in a week or so." I came back, and this was really a dilemma for me. Ultimately, I decided on going back to school. They regrouped, and performed for a while around the New York area and perhaps elsewhere, but they fizzled out. They never again hit the big time. Query: what would have happened had I . . . ? [laughter]

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 13

Moore: You never know to what heights they might have risen, had you joined them. [laughter]

Perry: Or, whether having joined them, whether I might have been attracted to try some other form of entertainment. I've been blessed with a fairly good voice, and back then, I could really bellow out, you know. [laughter]

Moore: Have you ever regretted your move into the law, and thought "well, I might have become a famous actor"?

Perry: Or I might have become rich. Many entertainers did hit the big time and become affluent financially, but many did not. Many subjected themselves to ways of life that I'm very glad that I was able to avoid.

Moore: At about the same time as these cases, about '46 or '47, there was a case in South Carolina. A black veteran was traveling in South Carolina and was taken off a Greyhound bus, and beaten and blinded. Do you remember that case?

Perry: Yes, I do. I was astounded. I was reminded about the cruelty and the uncivilized approach that many whites, who hated blacks for no other reason than race, would go. That hit the headlines; particularly the black press really emphasized it. The Pittsburgh Courier, The Afro-American, and The Chicago Defender come to mind.

Moore: The Atlanta World.

Perry: Yes, that's right. Those newspapers really headlined and revealed the horror of that thing.

Moore: There was another case of a Willie Earle in Greenville. Do you remember that?

Perry: I do. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 14

Moore: One of the things I wanted to ask you about that is the role of John Bolt Culbertson in that trial.

Perry: John Bolt Culbertson was a well-known lawyer. He offered himself for the defense of people charged with offenses. In this instance, some of them got him to defend them. In general, John Bolt had more progressive leanings. He regretted very much the fact that he got himself involved in the defense.

Moore: Is that right?

Perry: Yes.

Moore: You've talked with him about it?

Perry: Yes. John Bolt and I were very good friends. I went to his funeral about ten or twelve years ago, and I've kept up with Mrs. Culbertson over the years. When I first came back to South Carolina after that brief stint in Washington on the Court of Military Appeals, John Bolt had a reception in his home honoring us. They've got a beautiful home that he built there. He was a fiercely independent man. A couple months ago, when it was announced that I was taking senior status, Mrs. Culbertson called me. She said, "Matthew, if John were still living, he would want to do this, and so I'm going to do it for him." She had a beautiful reception in her home for us about two or three weeks ago. As I stood in the room that has the painting of him over the mantelpiece, she came in. She invited all of the lawyers and people in that area of the state. She and I acknowledged that as his portrait looked as if it was looking down on us, we suspected that somewhere, he was looking down on us.

Moore: I was just terribly puzzled and troubled by what I read of that case, because of what I knew of him later.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 15

Perry: Yes.

Moore: Of course lawyers have to defend all sorts of unsavory clients. In this case he was defending, and ultimately helping to get off, a group of men, most of whom had confessed that they had lynched Willie Earle.

Perry: Absolutely.

Moore: They were exonerated by the jury. Rebecca West wrote a long article about this in The New Yorker. She says that Mr. John Bolt Culbertson's speeches were untainted by any regard for the values of civilization.

Perry: [laughter]

Moore: I'm glad to hear, and I assume, that he, in light of his later actions, and some of his earlier actions, didn't resonate with that position. I'm glad at least he felt apologetic about it later.

Perry: Yes.

Moore: Tell me about South Carolina State law school. It was formed right after the Wrighten case, and only for that reason. Tell me about the brief career of that school, and your experience there. Was it equal to the law school of the University of South Carolina, as the judge had required that such be?

Perry: We've already talked about the decision that Judge Waring made. As the result of that decision, South Carolina decided to establish a law school at South Carolina State. Now, by the way, South Carolina State College was not then officially named. . . .

[Tape 1, Side 2 begins] South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 16

Perry: . . . was known at that point by the name it had known since the date of its creation. There are some reports on its several beginnings. One of its beginnings came after the 1895 South Carolina constitutional convention, at which it was named the Colored Normal Agricultural and Mechanical College of South Carolina.

Moore: One historian called it the amply named college.

Perry: Yes. That's right. But, even during my early days there, it was always known as State College. When I entered South Carolina State in 1939, we called it State College. You learned that its correct name was the Colored Normal Agricultural and Mechanical College of South Carolina. When Judge Waring made his decision in 1946, they decided to create the [law] school. Now they needed to find professors. They looked about, and they hired a black man who was a professor at a similar school, North Carolina Central College at Durham, Benner Turner. Mr. Turner was brought to South Carolina to be the dean of the new law school. He was a Harvard law school graduate and he had a very fine mind. He assembled a group of professors, most of whom were young graduates of some of the major law schools in the country. These included Harvard, Columbia University, the University of Michigan, Iowa University, and one or two others—young black graduates of those schools who were brought in as the beginning cadre of teachers. Now they needed students. Meanwhile, I had returned to South Carolina State to complete my undergraduate work in the fall semester of 1946. Moving about the campus, I carried not a complete load, because I only needed a certain number of credits to get my degree in business administration. As some of these new professors were around, more or less canvassing the place, I learned that someone mentioned that there was "one of these veterans, a foolish young fellow named Perry, who claims he's going to study law, maybe you could talk with him." Sure enough, I did indeed receive a visit from one of the new professors, who inquired of my interests. I said, "Why, yes, I'm going to study law, but this school hasn't come into being yet. I'm going to Howard in Washington, or Boston." I cannot today tell you why I chose Boston as one of the schools that I had focused upon. Evidently, I had heard something about Boston's law school. These were my South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 17

two options. It was either going to be Howard University law school in Washington, or Boston University. So this young professor said, "Well, I can appreciate what you're saying. I don't blame you. But why don't you come and sit in on some of the classes while you are completing your other work, and see how you like it? This will give you a good opportunity to develop some knowledge. We can give you an introduction to the kinds of discipline that you're going to have to conform to." I did that. I ended up staying there at that law school. I graduated in the class of 1951, which was the second class that the school graduated.

Moore: The second?

Perry: Yes. The first class graduated in 1950. It had two persons in that class. My class had the grand number of five graduates. We were subjected to a rigorous program of study. Bear in mind, we had young professors who were themselves just out of law school, who knew that they were in a start-up school situation. The American Bar Association had not accredited the school. Its representatives had indeed visited, and had outlined the criteria that they expected the start-up school to make. So the new dean and the young professors set out on an ambitious path of trying to build a curriculum, build a school that would gain accreditation at the earliest practical time. They began to acquire a library. I believe we were given a place in the basement of the old Whittaker Library. The Whittaker Library was the college library, not the present library. If you've been to the South Carolina State College in recent times, they've got a new library that was built fifteen or twenty years ago. The old library then was just a fraction the size of what they have now. We were given a basement in there for the law library. The young professors began to lay out assignments for us. Now the question was, was it equal? I cannot tell you that it was equal, no. It certainly didn't have the financial support of the state. Any start-up school takes years to build a record of rankings in academia. The professors were young and ambitious, and they set out to demonstrate their prowess. I can say this. Over the years after I came out, I was considered a young Turk. There was no door that I considered closed to me, and I made it my practice to know the law, to know the facts of any case that I undertook, and to know the law that governed it. I always remembered the image of Thurgood Marshall, the manner in which he handled those trials, and I vowed that any time I walked in the courtroom that I was going to give it my best. I couldn't South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 18

bear the thought of any lawyer in the court knowing more than I did about whatever it was that we were talking about. To the extent that I had to stay up all night or that I had to really get in there and bear down, I did it. I can tell you that I did indeed have the occasion to beat some graduates of our universities.

Moore: Didn't one judge suggest that you were living proof that the segregated system worked?

Perry: [laughter] Yes, that was indeed suggested. It was suggested by any number of persons. I would never suggest that the school was equal to that of the University of South Carolina law school. I do think, however, as I have told any number of young people, that you bring out of any educational setting what you put into it, in the way of dedication and determination.

Moore: That you can get a good education in almost any institution, and you can get a poor education in the best of them.

Perry: That is exactly true.

Moore: You started law practice in Spartanburg. Why Spartanburg?

Perry: That's a good question. At the time I graduated from law school, there were only a half dozen black lawyers practicing in South Carolina. At some point during our conversation, I may be able to count them up for you. But I'm stating that there were approximately a half dozen. There might have been seven, eight, or nine. [laughter]

Moore: A handful.

Perry: A handful. There were around three or four of them in Columbia. Columbia was home. I was born and reared in Columbia. A thought was to just stay in Columbia. It so happens that I have relatives in Spartanburg. On a visit to Spartanburg, shortly after I graduated, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 19

a relative who was pretty well placed there operating a funeral establishment, suggested that Spartanburg would be an excellent place for me to start, since they had no black lawyers there, and since, in his view, that was a good place, that the people would be very receptive to it. For some reason, I followed that and I began my practice there. The lawyers of the community were, I think, good lawyers. As a young law school graduate, you don't come out of law school knowing how to go to the Supreme Court. It takes a while; you've got to build some experience. Certainly back at that time, the young law graduate came out of school hardly knowing his way into the courthouse door. Added to that was the fact that firms would not offer me any positions. There was no such thing as me being taken in with a group of lawyers as an employee or as an associate.

Moore: So you just had to hang out your shingle.

Perry: Exactly. As far as a judge offering me a clerkship, that was just out of the question. I opened up a one-room law office. I acquired a desk and an old typewriter. You remember, those old Underwood typewriters that you could look through, and you had to use carbon paper and everything. I had one of those. My wife had given me a briefcase for my graduation, not one of the attaché cases that we carry now, one of the old valise types. Now I'm set up. I'm admitted to practice, and I've set up a law office. Now I've got to go in and look like and act like a lawyer. I recall, during those early days, I'd get my briefcase; it had nothing in it but a pad. I'd put on my suit and my shirt and my tie. One of the things we were told in law school, a lawyer has to look the part. I go down here to the law school now, they don't teach that anymore.

Moore: They don't?

Perry: No. Our professors counseled us: "A lawyer wears a shirt and a tie; he conducts himself appropriately in public," and this kind of thing. I'd go down to the courthouse with my briefcase and I'd go in the courtroom, and pretend to have business there, and watch other lawyers try cases and go about the conduct of their business. I can recall this cousin, who South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 20

suggested I set up there, signed some bonds for some people, so that gave me a case to handle. Some traffic offense, I forget what it was. Now I've got a case. It carries me into the courtroom. I recall I went into the courtroom on the first occasion on which they had General Sessions court. That's the criminal court. One the first day of court, many lawyers come. They have business all over the place; they're around chatting with each other. They are smiling and slapping each other on the back, and telling each other jokes, and when the judge comes in, they interact with the judge. Of course, nobody would do that with me. I sat up in front of the rail; every courtroom has a dividing rail. The spectators sit behind that rail, and the lawyers and the other court participants up in front. So I went up in front of the rail, and people looked at me as if I was some kind of a fool coming up there. Once again, you know, no door was closed to me. If I was there, and anybody had a problem with it, it was their problem, not mine. I sat down in a chair. I crossed my legs. I had my briefcase on my lap. People would walk by me, not even acknowledging my presence. You can begin feeling the pressure of being shut out, being ignored. Also, I had vowed that if it got to me, nobody would know it. And it did. It didn't feel good at all. I recall very vividly the man who was then the mayor of Spartanburg, himself a very fine lawyer. I had met him in his office before that term of court began. He came into the courtroom, and he was apparently a lawyer who was well-regarded by the other lawyers. When he appeared, it was as if one of the major stars had walked into the courtroom. He was dressed immaculately. He was really dressed sharp. Tom Whiteside was his name. He shook a few hands, and generally, he was a star. He spotted me sitting over there in my chair, and it was just as if he could sense my plight. He strolled over to my chair and extended his hand. It was really a wonderful thing that he did. It did so much for my self-esteem. Of course, it turned other lawyers to the point where they began to recognize that I existed. I stayed in Spartanburg for ten years. I handled any number of cases in the community. It wasn't long before somebody down in Union learned that I was in Spartanburg. They had a matter there that needed someone of my type of brass. I went to Union and undertook the representation of a young man. That gained me some fame in that area of the state. Soon, I and my boyhood friend Lincoln Jenkins began interacting with each other. He was practicing here in Columbia. James Hinton, who was then still the state president of NAACP, had begun using Lincoln Jenkins. Harold Boulware had started pulling back from his active handling of civil South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 21

rights cases, and so Lincoln Jenkins was called upon to represent a number of black citizens in Sumter, around 1954 or '55. He called and asked if I would come and help. The two of us went over to Sumter. Now the old reputation is starting to flow some. The newspapers are beginning to call the name.

Moore: That was Nash v. Sumter [Chapter of the NAACP]?

Perry: Exactly. [laughter] That's right. Also, somewhere around that same period, Lincoln had me to help try the case of a young woman who refused to leave the front of a bus. The back of the bus was full, and she wouldn't get off, and so the bus driver ejected her and called the police. We brought a lawsuit. This was the case of Sarah Mae Flemming Brown v. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. This case arose before refused to get up in Montgomery. We tried this case here before Judge [George Bell] Timmerman. We lost it here. The Legal Defense Fund handled the appeal in the Fourth Circuit, and we won it. This was before the Supreme Court reacted and decided the case, Gayle et. al. v. Browder [Browder v. Gayle]. So our case was the first in the country, but ours didn't get any notice.

Moore: Didn't get much notice, and didn't change SCE&G's practices much, did it?

Perry: No, I can't say that it did. Well, they took notice of it. After that case was won, we started sitting up in the front of the bus.

Moore: Is that right?

Perry: Yes. I wouldn't say that it was done widespread. It was in the late fifties.

Moore: One of the ironies of that case, it seems to me, is that Judge Timmerman turned you down because the Brown v. Board of Education decision applied to education, not transportation.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 22

Perry: That's right.

Moore: But he and other judges had applied Plessy [v. Ferguson], which was a transportation case, to education.

Perry: That's right. Judge Timmerman would have found some other reason if he hadn't had that one.

Moore: You want to go further with that commentary?

Perry: [laughter] Well, he was not a friend of our kind of thinking. He was quite resistant to the emerging changes in the law.

Moore: This Nash v. Sumter Chapter of the NAACP in 1956, I was puzzled about something there. As I understand the case, Nash was a white lawyer who accused the NAACP of libel for implying that he, as attorney of the school board, had helped word some letters that petitioners used to withdraw from their petitions, under economic stress. Am I right so far?

Perry: Yes. You're right. In Sumter, the citizens had filed a petition with the District Seventeen Board of Education for Sumter. I could be wrong about Seventeen; we sued so many school districts that somehow they merge. The petition went in, as indeed petitions were being submitted to school boards around the state. One of these petitioners in Sumter then publicly announced the withdrawal of his name from the petition, and, indeed, stated that he had never authorized the use of his name on the petition. This was viewed with great dismay by the local members of the Executive Committee of the Sumter NAACP, which included, by the way, I. DeQuincey Newman, who was then the district superintendent of the Methodist Church, serving in Sumter, [and] Frederick James, who was then the pastor of Mt. [Pisgah] AME church in Sumter. The Executive Committee then decided that it would react to Mr. Blanding's withdrawal of his name from the petition. I don't know who wrote the Executive Committee's response. It bears, however, great similarity to the eloquence of a man we all knew and loved so much.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 23

Moore: Lincoln Jenkins?

Perry: No. I. DeQuincey Newman. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a little bit of I. DeQuincey Newman in this statement, in which the Executive Committee charged that Mr. Blanding was in error. That he had indeed authorized the use of his name, and that the fact that he now comes forth with this evidence, that either he has permitted himself to be cowed by others, or that some officials connected with the school board have. . . This is where Shepard Nash gets his allegation of libel from. He said that this statement was a statement of and concerning him, which tended to damage him in his professional reputation as an attorney at law, and he sued for libel. The NAACP got Lincoln Jenkins, and he took me to Sumter with him. We did not prevail on the demur that we filed, which is today known as a motion to dismiss. We went to trial. Lincoln Jenkins was lead counsel. During the trial, members of the local community and Mr. Hinton of the state NAACP decided that they should settle the case because of the potential of suffering a massive financial judgment. So it was settled for, I think, somewhere around ten thousand dollars.

Moore: That was my understanding, and I was puzzled about it, and you've helped me to understand why they settled. He might have gotten a much bigger judgment.

Perry: Yes, that was the fear. As I say, I was not involved in the discussions about settlement. They used me to examine some witnesses, and apparently I got some praiseworthy remarks out of the manner in which I handled some of the witnesses. It was during the next year or two after that, when Mr. Hinton was beginning to back away and lose interest in leadership in the NAACP. Others, including I. DeQuincey Newman, were coming to the fore. They had a convention of the state NAACP down in Charleston. I. DeQuincey Newman was elected the state president. I believe that might have been around 1957. I think that his first act, after he became the state president, was a call to me, asking that I serve as the state chairman of the legal committee. It is in that role, chairman of the state legal committee, that I served until the early 1970s. The newspapers called it "the chief counsel."

Moore: Chairman of the legal committee. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 24

Perry: Yes. [laughter]

Moore: May I ask, was that a paid position, or were you paid according to cases?

Perry: Largely, we were not paid at all. But every now and then, we managed to get some costs, here and there. You'd be surprised. Some of the greatest victories we won in the state were cases for which I was not compensated at all, and indeed, my own monies went in to paying some of the underlying expenses. I mention one as an example, the case that resulted in the reapportionment of the state House of Representatives into single-member districts, which has to be one of our finer victories. Not only was I not paid a fee, but the expenses of discovery entailed by the court recorders I paid myself. To be sure, there were cases that came my way from which I did make a dollar or two from time to time, and probably they came because I was known in this regard.

Moore: Before we leave the mid-fifties, I want to get your comment on the economic boycott in Orangeburg. As I understand it, some petitioners filed for desegregation of the schools in 1955 in the wake of Brown [v. Board of Education]. Some white business people cut off credit and boycotted those petitioners. The black community apparently mounted a counter- boycott, and the tension went on for about a year. You were familiar with Orangeburg. . . .

Perry: During the mid-fifties, now, I'm a young lawyer practicing in Spartanburg, and had not yet started representing cases of statewide importance. That is a matter that occurred during a period when I was certainly not active in the state organization. I'm hardly privy to what went on. I do know that there came this period during which, not only in Orangeburg, but in various other parts of the state, there were economic reprisals visited against blacks who had in some way involved themselves in the process of desegregation. Certainly, that happened in Clarendon County. It happened in Sumter County, Orangeburg, and in many places around the state. It lasted for varying periods of time. You see, you had the growth of this Citizens' Council movement in the state. Reportedly, Sumter, and to a somewhat smaller extent Orangeburg, was the great bastion, where the great leadership of the white Citizens' Council movements existed. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 25

You had a Klan movement also. The Klan was still riding. But respectable whites now were pulling back from ostensible active involvement in the Klan and involving themselves in the more respectable movement in the white Citizens' Councils.

Moore: Before we get you out of Spartanburg, talk a little bit about the segregated nature of the bar. I believe you were inadvertently sent an invitation to one of their functions.

Perry: [laughter] The bar was racially segregated.

Moore: Of course, you were the only black lawyer.

Perry: That's right. You see, the state bar had not yet started what we call the integrated bar, and that does not mean in the racial sense. Today, when a person becomes a member of a bar, that person automatically becomes a member of the state bar association. Every lawyer is automatically a member of the state bar association. That was not the case in 1951, and did not become the case until the sixties.

Moore: So the bar was composed of any lawyer in South Carolina. The bar association was a more social organization.

Perry: The bar association was a social group. There was a South Carolina Bar Association, but we were not permitted to join. By the same token, we were not members of the American Bar Association. To get into the American Bar Association, you had to be vouched for by a member of your state bar association. Those of us who began to crop up in the various communities, were not, for the most part, admitted into the local county associations. The [black] lawyers here in Columbia did not belong to the Richland County Bar Association. Nor did the [black] lawyers in Charleston belong the Charleston County Bar. When I arrived in Spartanburg in 1951, they moved my admission, and I became a member of the Spartanburg County Bar Association. It made a headline, "Colored lawyer becomes member of county bar association." [laughter] However, I soon found out that I was a member for only certain purposes. I was a member, I could go and attend the meeting when they ruled upon the cases South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 26

that were to be tried at the next term of court, and that was it. Occasionally, I would read in the newspapers about the bar association having a reception for some visiting judge, but somehow or another, I didn't know that it was going on. This happened two or three times, but I was not notified. I learned about it in the newspapers. There were a hundred and twenty-five lawyers in Spartanburg. I'm just using that as a figure, it might have been more, it might have been less. And there were two mailing lists. One of them had a hundred and twenty-four names on it. [laughter] The other had a hundred and twenty-five names. Horace Smith, who is still living and practicing law in Spartanburg, a good friend of mine, was the bar secretary. They evidently were going to have a reception at the Spartanburg Country Club to entertaining the then-visiting circuit judge. Judges then rotated around the state. There's still some of that, but not as much as there was then. Horace had his office secretaries to send out the notices, and the office secretary apparently did not know that she was not to use the list containing a hundred and twenty-five names on it. So I got the notice about this forthcoming dinner reception to entertain the visiting circuit judge at the Spartanburg Country Club. Those who expected to attend should send in their checks for five dollars to cover the cost of the meal and the drinks. I promptly wrote out a check, stuck it in the mail, and sent it in to Horace Smith. Horace didn't write, he didn't call. Horace came to my office. [laughter] He was very much embarrassed. He sat down. I knew by now that I wasn't supposed to get that invitation. I was aware of the mistake that had been made. The trick was that I've got to ride this out. Horace took the letter. I looked at it. I said, "This looks like I sent this to you." I just literally played with him like a cat with a mouse. After a while, I could contain myself no longer, and laughed in his face. He said, "You son of a gun, you knew all the time. Matthew, I'm personally embarrassed. I want you to know, this is not me, it's not anything that I want to do. To show you, I'd be glad to have you out to my house, anytime. They just don't feel like you ought to attend." [laughter] I said, "Well, Horace, I'm going to leave that to you and them." I never went to any affair sponsored by the Spartanburg Bar Association. I did laugh about it.

Moore: It seems to me that this is an important part of your personality. How could you bring yourself to laugh about this?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 27

Perry: I think that one of my own approaches to dealing with racism is to recognize its existence as a fact, while not at the same time approving it. Recognizing that there are people whose lives are governed by racial considerations. Those who choose to follow that course and be so governed, I let them operate as they will. I do not conform myself to their course of conduct, their approaches. I accept as a fact that they prefer to be that way. I choose to determine whether I will challenge what they do. In some instances, I simply choose to walk around it, and to not regard a practice at that time as being. . . .

[Tape 1 ends. Session 2, December 27, 1995, Tape 2 begins]

Moore: We've just played the tape from the last interview. You don't have anything you want to add?

Perry: I don't know that I have too much to add to it. In life, you come to realize that there are some things that you can change, and there are some that you cannot change, at least immediately. One of them happens to be racial attitudes. The best way I know how to deal with it is to recognize its existence, and to try and conform my own conduct to a standard that I feel is proper, and hope that eventually those who have harbored views that I will term adverse to my existence will hopefully turn around.

Moore: That's a very nice statement, and pretty gentle on those who sometimes might be considered your oppressor. [laughter] Moving along sort of chronologically, in 1960, I believe, you dealt with a murder case, the Bullock case.

Perry: Yes.

Moore: I don't know if we can make any connection here to civil rights or not, but it had to do with the death penalty, and you may want to make some connection there. Could you tell South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 28

me about that case, and if you see some civil rights implications to the death penalty as applied in South Carolina?

Perry: That was the case involving Quincy Bullock, who was charged with both rape and murder, if my memory serves me correctly. He was an uneducated black man. He allegedly confessed to having done so. He was brought to trial over in Dillon County, South Carolina. I did not represent him at his trial, nor did I even know about the existence of the case at the time. He was represented by some attorneys in that region of the state who had been appointed by the court to represent him. After Bullock was convicted and was sentenced to die in the electric chair, the lawyers who then represented him withdrew. By the way, I had just recently been named the Chairman of the State Legal Committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In my role as the state chairman, this matter was literally laid at my feet, with a request by the state organization that I amass a group of lawyers to do something about it, to try and save this man's life, or to look into it and try and ascertain whether there were matters that the state organization ought to be concerned about.

Moore: So it was an NAACP case on appeal?

Perry: Yes, that's correct. I and some of my colleagues looked into it. The first thing we had to do was to file a notice of appeal, because the filing of a notice of intent to appeal is jurisdictional. The Supreme Court of South Carolina doesn't look into a case unless it comes before that court properly. At first, the notice of appeal did not get filed immediately because of the fact that we just came into the case. But we did indeed file the notice of appeal, and the Supreme Court decided that, notwithstanding the fact that the notice didn't get in on time, they would permit it to come on before them. I think perhaps I ought to pause right here, to try and state an answer to your question. At that time, and I'm thinking that this was in the later 1950s, either 1957 or thereabouts, my memory fades on this point. . . .

Moore: It ended in '60, so it probably dragged through '57.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 29

Perry: There was a general awareness that the death penalty as then applied in South Carolina, and indeed, in a good many other states, was considered an instrument of racial suppression. This was especially true with reference to the crime of rape. It was, to a lesser extent, true also with respect to the crime of murder. But with respect to the crime of rape, it was undoubtedly an instrument of racial suppression. The death penalty was, for the most part, meted out against black males accused of committing that offense against white females. In the case of murder, where a black person was accused of committing a homicide upon a white person, that black person was singled out for the death penalty, whereas white persons accused of committing the same offense against a black person were almost never given the death penalty. In some instances, whites accused of committing that offense against other whites were given the death penalty, but not nearly as often as otherwise. Blacks accused of committing that offense against other blacks were almost never given the death penalty. This was a fact that was very well-known in the black community at the time. Bullock, a black male, was accused of raping and murdering a white female. We filed the appeal, and on appeal to the state Supreme Court challenged the confession as having been beaten out of him. He testified that the police had placed a bucket over his head and had beaten him, and had tortured him into making the confession. He denied that he had committed the offense. Whether he committed the offense, even as of this day I cannot say. His conviction was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Now we had to seek further review. You have to understand that I was a young, inexperienced lawyer at the time. The matter of preparing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was a major undertaking.

Moore: This was new for you?

Perry: First time. I did it many times thereafter, but this was my first time. I purchased a set of books on Supreme Court practice. I conferred with others. You have to also understand another thing. The white members of the bar were not always receptive to lending assistance. Indeed, the present approaches to post-trial review had not then been developed. The Supreme Court of the United States had not yet decided some major cases deciding the right of state prisoners convicted of state crimes to later seek federal habeas corpus review. The right was there, but it had not been put into widespread uses that today are evident. We were literally South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 30

plowing new ground. A young inexperienced lawyer, handling his first such case, was nevertheless plowing new ground procedurally. I sought the assistance of Thurgood Marshall. I spoke with him, and he declined to offer assistance. He said that it was not a case that he had any interest in. He and the members of his staff were busy with other cases then pending. He thought I ought to go ahead and do it for the experience. [laughter]

Moore: Had you been accredited to the Supreme Court at that point or did you have to gain that?

Perry: I had to gain that. As a matter of fact, I went to Washington at a time when Thurgood Marshall was arguing a case before the Supreme Court, and had him to move my admission before the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. That was done before I went to Washington to handle the Bullock appeal. We filed the petition for a writ of certiorari and, low and behold, the court granted the writ. That is to say, it decided to hear the appeal. I then called Thurgood Marshall to say, "Look here, they've granted the writ, would you argue it for me, please?" I had never argued before the Supreme Court. He said to me, "You filed it and they granted it, now you argue it." [laughter] So, I and several of my colleagues, including Lincoln Jenkins, Donald Sampson, and Willie Smith, went to Washington. I was designated to make the argument for our side. In preparing for that argument, I've got to tell you, that was quite an arduous task. I had read every decision that the Supreme Court had rendered on the subject that I was arguing several times over. I knew where each justice on the court stood. I had read the opinions, and therefore had come to appreciate the judicial philosophies of each member of the court, to the extent that justices had committed their views to writing. We took a hundred volumes of books in the trunks of our automobiles. The copy machines that we now know had not become widespread. We took the books into our hotel in Washington, and I read and reread during the night. Having not tried the case, I had to be able to speak to the facts of the case. I had read the transcript of the trial, two or three hundred pages long, and knew every word in it. I knew just about where each item of testimony was, because I had read it so many times. Also, I had read the views of the members of the court, and had read the cases. On the night before the argument, I stayed up all night. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 31

Moore: Really?

Perry: Really. I tried to sleep, but there was no such thing as sleeping. I got up and read some more, and stared out the window. At some point before breakfast, I started shivering. My colleagues and I went down to the dining room for breakfast, but I couldn't eat. [laughter] I probably drank some coffee. At that time, the lawyers arguing the case had to report into the Supreme Court by eight-thirty in the morning, but the court didn't come out until noon. They now come out at ten a.m. I could be wrong about the eight-thirty, it might have been nine, but whatever it was, it was some ungodly point prior to the actual argument. We were all over at the Supreme Court. Now I'm shivering, and I just can't control myself. I later learned that other members of my group didn't know that I was in this terrible state. They have a table there for the lawyers arguing that case. If you're in the case preceding that one you have to be in the courtroom, at a table reserved for the lawyers in the next case.

Moore: But you were the first case that day.

Perry: That's right. So we were in position. They went through the normal opening ceremonies. There must have been two hundred lawyers admitted to practice from around the country. Then they got to the business of the day and they announced this case. "First case for trial is Bullock v. the State of South Carolina." The clerk of the Supreme Court bellowed out, "Counsel are present." Chief Justice [Earl] Warren looked down at me and he said, "Mr. Perry." I stood up before the Court. Mind you now, my teeth were chattering, my knees were. . . honestly, I don't know why I didn't urinate. [laughter] But I stood up before them. I had, of course, rehearsed my argument many, many times, and I started before the Court. I had heard other lawyers make this opening remark, "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. This case is here on writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina." Now, that is all of my prepared remark that I was able to say, because immediately, the justices began asking questions. One of the justices, let's suppose that it was Justice [John Marshall] Harlan. . . He was a superb, brilliant justice. He asked a question, but it was fact-related. I had told myself, "Listen to the question and formulate your answer before you open your mouth. Plan what your response is South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 32

going to be. Then you have to do it instantly. You can't just take time to contemplate. You've got to be pithy." [laughter] As the question was coming out, my mind went and searched the pages of the transcript, and I was able to give him a response that was accurate. When I answered him, another justice hit me. Let's suppose now that it was Justice [William] Brennan. Again, it was fact-related, and as the question was coming out, my mind churned, and before I engaged my mouth, I had my response formulated. I gave it to him, and the answer was considered accurate. Then the bombshell came. This was Justice [Felix] Frankfurter. He had written extensively in the field. I have to tell you, I stood in utter fear of the man. When he put his question, I went through the same exercise, and I gave a response that apparently satisfied him. At that time, we were on the regular calendar. The regular calendar means that they had allocated an hour to each side. Now, for the most part, lawyers are put on the summary calendar, meaning that you have only thirty minutes assigned. We were on the regular calendar, and most of the time, lawyers like to divide their time, leaving a little bit to respond to the other side. They engaged me some fifteen to twenty minutes over the hour, but I never had a chance to give them my prepared argument. The responses that I was able to give incorporated the argument. By the way, I lost that one, but I won all of my other appearances. Lincoln Jenkins, who was with me on that occasion, and who was thereafter with me on my several subsequent arguments in the Supreme Court, says that that was my finest hour before the Supreme Court. [laughter]

Moore: That was your first one, and you lost it. You never lost another one after that on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Perry: No. The Supreme Court later ----- the grant of the writ, holding that the grant had been improvidently made. They changed their mind. The case did not have issues of merit that prompted them. They set Bullock's execution. I then petitioned then-Governor [Ernest "Fritz"] Hollings for clemency, which he denied. Bullock was executed. The value that that case played to my development as a lawyer is tremendous. Remember, I had never ventured out beyond the courts of South Carolina. I was unfamiliar at that time with the practice of the Supreme Court. The first draft of the petition was made before my books arrived. So I drafted the first one by reading the rules of the Supreme Court, what the petition ought to contain. It's got to contain South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 33

something pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It's got to contain a statement of the facts. It's got to contain your argument in support of the granting of the writ. I had put these various things together, literally forging in the dark. Now I get a book written by a then well recognized practitioner before the Supreme Court, who laid it out. I looked at what I had done. I had put the pertinent aspects in, but not in the fashion that he would have. So now I redrafted it. I think this case contributed to my view of myself, my feeling that I had what it took to get it done. I had seen the great Thurgood Marshall. Now I had the feeling that I could operate. Bullock died, but I think that my involvement in his behalf contributed to my winning a good many cases in the future.

Moore: At about the time that case was being decided, on January first, 1960, at the Greenville airport, there was a pray-in, apparently in response to a snub that Jackie Robinson had encountered at the airport when he had come through there in October. The NAACP led a pray- in there at the airport. I just wonder if you remember that. Did you participate?

Perry: I remember it. I did not participate. I do remember Jackie Robinson coming to Greenville. Jackie Robinson, of course, was the first black to get in major league ball. He was sponsored in a big meeting over in the Greenville Auditorium. I went to that. I heard Jackie Robinson, the great Jackie Robinson was up there. There was a lot of hero-worship, you know. Here was a guy who had made it, he had broken through, and by gosh, he'd shown them that a black man could perform in the major leagues. Apparently, he had to put in something at the Greenville airport. The then-leadership [of the NAACP] had the pray-in at the airport. Thereafter, we were involved in a case involving the Greenville airport. I didn't file the suit. There was a man named Henry, a black executive of some company that had had occasion to come into Greenville, who was required to be seated in a segregated waiting room. I suspect this was the same experience Jackie Robinson had. He left and contacted the Legal Defense Fund. They got a hold of Lincoln Jenkins, who was later of my law firm. They brought the lawsuit against the Greenville Municipal Airport. I attended the trial. Jack Greenberg actually handled the representation of it. My recollection is that I was permitted to sit at the counsel table with them, but I was just a lawyer who was interested. It may very well be that his South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 34

experience came before Jackie Robinson. Or they could have been so close together that the actual trial of the case came about after the Jackie Robinson incident.

Moore: At about the same time there was a Charleston golf course case. I don't recall that you were involved in that.

Perry: I was very much involved in that.

Moore: You were very much involved?

Perry: Very much involved. This was the second thing that they gave me in my new role as Chairman of the State Legal Committee.

Moore: Bullock and the Charleston golf course?

Perry: The Charleston golf course was going on at the same time that we had Bullock.

Moore: '58 through '60 were the years for that.

Perry: I was practicing law still at Spartanburg, and my own perception was that my role as Chairman of the State Legal Committee was, when a problem arose, to identify lawyers to handle it. I went into Charleston and conferred around among the lawyers, only the black lawyers. None of them would take the case. There were various explanations. Four men became the plaintiffs, and one of whom was a fellow who I still know affectionately as Big John Chisolm. [laughter] They wanted to play golf, but Charleston would not allow them to play on the municipal golf course. I attempted to give the case to lawyers in Charleston who would not handle it. It was sensitive racial issue. Here again, now that I could not give the case to a colleague in Charleston, I decided to look elsewhere. I said, "Well, I'll draft it myself." I got Lincoln Jenkins, and he and I talked about it. I then once again called Thurgood Marshall. [laughter] Did you ever meet Thurgood Marshall?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 35

Moore: I never did.

Perry: In a courtroom you would not have seen a smoother, more efficient operating human machine. A man who knew the rules and knew all of the correct mannerisms by which a lawyer ought to govern himself in a courtroom. But in private conversation, he would lace his private conversations with profanity. [laughter] He said to me, "Hell, I've got no time to fool with no damn golf course. If they want to play golf, let them pay for it. You want to handle it, you go ahead and handle it. You need the experience. You can handle it." [laughter] That was his response to me. Here again, I had not drafted such an action before. I had to go to the books, and confer with various lawyers, and I drafted the complaint. I put my name on it. Lincoln Jenkins and I later formed a law partnership. We filed the case. It became a headliner. In preparing for the case, I could walk up and down Broad Street in Charleston, and I became one of the best-known lawyers on the street. [laughter]

Moore: You stood out.

Perry: The federal judge handling the case was. . . .

Moore: Judge Williams?

Perry: Judge Ashton Williams, who didn't have much of an appetite for the case, and therefore took a dim view of me. We finally came to trial. He had to rule in my favor. This was subsequent to Brown v. Board, which, while it spoke only to the field of education, was now being applied to other aspects of public life. Thereafter, when I'd go to Charleston almost all the lawyers were very pleased to associate with me. I became something of a figure there, and developed some lasting friendships. Morris Rosen was then the corporation counsel, or later became the corporation counsel, meaning city attorney. He and I fought very hard in that case, but we developed a friendship that lasts until this very day. If he were to come in here right now, he would just bowl you over with stories. [laughter]

Moore: He ruled in your favor, and Charleston didn't appeal it, is that correct? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 36

Perry: It was indeed appealed. He ruled in our favor, but he had me to propose the language for the injunction. He admonished me that he was going to give them six months to comply. In calling upon me to propose the language for the injunction, he told me, "You just may as well put it in there, because that's what it’s going to be." So I put it in there, and then we decided to appeal the delay. The Court of Appeals, having been told that I put that language in the order, ruled that I had no right to appeal it. [laughter]

Moore: Did Ashton Williams figure that out, and get you to do it knowing that would happen?

Perry: I think a charitable view of him would be that he did it on purpose, that he was just smart and that he was using his great intelligence. That would be charitable. I'm not willing to extend that. I think it's something that just happened. [laughter] He was not the brightest man ever to adorn a court.

Moore: It's my understanding that he was very reluctant to apply Brown [v. Board of Education] in this case.

Perry: Very.

Moore: But he just saw no way out of it.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: Timmerman earlier had decided that Brown applies only to education and does not apply to streetcars in Columbia.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: Do you remember about demonstrations by State College students in 1960? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 37

Perry: I certainly do.

Moore: If you remember it, I'd sure like to be filled in on it.

Perry: There were perhaps a thousand students who marched the streets of Orangeburg on that day in March of 1960. Some three hundred and eighty of them were arrested. They were arrested and charged with the crime of breaching the peace. I was still practicing law in Spartanburg. Reverend Newman had called me to find out if I was going to be in my office. He didn't tell me what they were going to be doing. He had a strong sense of the propriety of not involving me as the lawyer for the organization in the active demonstrations.

Moore: He knew the demonstrations were going to take place. Was it simply a matter of his knowing it, or had he helped organize it?

Perry: I have no doubt that Reverend Newman and other persons active in the organization were mindful of the fact that the students were going to speak out. I believe it. [laughter]

Moore: Was the NAACP's role to shape and make more effective what was going to happen anyway, or did they foster something that wouldn't have happened otherwise?

Perry: I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer to that question. I know that Reverend Newman and others, to include people like Reverend Matthew McCollom, who died some years ago, Reverend J. Herbert Nelson, these were people who advocated a nonviolent, very orderly approach to challenging the existence of racial practices at that time. Whatever their involvement was, whether they urged the students to do it, or whether having discovered that there was a disposition by the students to do it they attempted to give proper leadership, I hesitate to state definitively. They were indeed involved in counseling the students to refrain from any odious conduct of any sort, and to at all times to conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 38

This stood us in very well in later appeals. All of the evidence, even on the part of the police, was that the students conducted themselves in an orderly fashion.

Moore: So breach of peace was hard to prove.

Perry: That's right. Having been notified now that they had nearly four hundred students in jail in Orangeburg, I'm sitting in my office up in Spartanburg, get in my car and head out. I called other lawyer colleagues, Lincoln Jenkins, W. Newton Pugh in Orangeburg, Jack Townsend, also a lawyer in Orangeburg, and Willie Smith of Greenville. We all descended into Orangeburg. The students had been arrested for three hours by the time I arrived. I had developed a sense, in my various interactions with Thurgood Marshall and others, to be sure and cover yourself. Get your clients to authorize you acting in their behalf. So we had them all brought into the Orangeburg courthouse, and I drafted out a little statement on a piece of paper. "We hereby employ and retain Matthew J. Perry, and such lawyers as he may wish to associate with, to represent us in respect to the pending case, and we authorize Matthew J. Perry to do thus and such, and to take any and all means necessary to vindicate. . . ."

[Tape 2, Side 2 begins]

Perry: The matter then was getting them out on bail. One of the things that we had to do was to get the bail set. The bail had initially been set, I think it was a hundred dollars a person. Senator Marshall Williams helped, and persuaded the then-magistrate to reduce the bail to some more manageable figure. Then, we had to fan these lawyers out, and all these ministers who were interested, to get interested citizens to sign the bonds. We got bond forms. We got all of these young people out of jail, and of course the trial proceeded. We had several different trials, and they were quite the occasion at that time.

Moore: They were duly convicted?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 39

Perry: They were duly convicted.

Moore: You wanted to tell about the trial. I don't want to cut you off from that.

Perry: The trials were interesting. The police officers who testified concerning what they were doing gave some very interesting testimony. I recall, for example, that one officer testified that he encountered this group of students walking toward the center of town, coming toward Amelia Street. Amelia Street is a street that proceeds from the railroad corner towards the center of town in Orangeburg. He said, "They were walking, generally in columns of twos, and I went to the head of the column and I said, 'Halt, you may not proceed further. Return to the place from whence you came,' or words to that effect. The students looked at me, and those at the head of the line seemed to confer with some behind them. They decided to disobey my order, and they continued to walk. I said, 'You are all under arrest.' There must have been two hundred or so in that line. I said, 'You're under arrest, follow me. I marched them all to the county jail.'" Here he had no other policemen helping with the operation, and he led them all and they all followed him. [laughter] On cross-examination, he was asked, "Did the students say anything in response to you?" "No." "Were they profane in their language in any manner?" "No." "Did they commit any other acts of disorder as far as you were able to observe?" "No." "Were they blocking traffic?" "No." [laughter] He said some of them were carrying signs, saying, "Down with Segregation," "We want the city officials to honor our rights as citizens." We developed all of this on cross-examination, and the record was just perfect as a freedom of assembly, freedom of speech case. Similarly, the officers who encountered some of the others going down other streets gave testimony not inconsistent with that. On that occasion, they brought out the fire department. There was a much larger group who was marching down Russell Street, but they were orderly in every respect. When they refused to disperse, they turned those fire hoses on them.

Moore: Oh, they did?

Perry: Yes. Wet them down. We eventually won all of these cases on appeal.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 40

Moore: They were tried in small groups, is that the way it worked out?

Perry: Yes. I believe the first group consisted of around fifteen students. Everybody attended, it was a major event. Now you had the emergence of the Matthew Perry persona in the legal community, because the press now is focusing heavily upon me and my every move. Either that day or the day after, you had the arrests of the sixty-five people in Rock Hill. That later became Henry v. Rock Hill. We represented those people. You had the young people, twenty-five or more of them, who were arrested in Sumter, in a case called Randolph v. the City of Sumter. At the trial levels in every instance, these young people were convicted, and they were appealed. It wasn't until the following year, in '61, that 187 were arrested marching around the State House. That case later became Edwards v. South Carolina.

Moore: Tell me about the appeals in the Orangeburg student case. Those were separate from the Edwards case.

Perry: But Edwards became a national treasure, because the judge who sat on the appeals in the Orangeburg case was late getting his decisions. Edwards came along, they were tried and convicted, and the Supreme Court accepted that case, and decided that case before we were able to get the Orangeburg cases. Thereafter, we won the Orangeburg cases, not in a grandiose opinion, they said for the same reasons we said in Edwards v. South Carolina, these convictions were reversed.

Moore: We'll start with that case then, Edwards. This was a case of students marching around the State House. Were these Benedict and Allen students, or State students?

Perry: Many of them went to Benedict, many went to Allen; some were from the Orangeburg campus. You had some ministers. I remember there was a Reverend Carter who was a pastor of a church in Newberry. There were people from around the state. Once again, Reverend Newman ascertained my expected whereabouts on a certain day. I tell you honestly I didn't have any idea in the world what was going to happen, but I had come to know Reverend Newman, and had come to realize that something was going to happen. [laughter] Lo and South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 41

behold, I get a call that afternoon. I'm still at Spartanburg; I'm now contemplating my move to Columbia. This call came from Lincoln Jenkins, saying that they've got nearly two hundred students down here in jail. I get in my car and come to Columbia. He and I used somewhat the same procedures we used earlier in Orangeburg. These cases were tried in four separate groups before then-Magistrate Frank Powell. He later became the sheriff of Richland County. The testimony was that the students were orderly, they were marching in columns of twos, they were carrying signs. The state legislature was in session, and they wanted the members of the legislature, according to the testimony of the trial, to know that the black citizens of South Carolina were dissatisfied with the manner in which the law impacted adversely upon them, and they wanted the legislature to do something about it. Perfect freedom of speech, perfect First Amendment concerns. The city manager of Columbia and the then-chief of police both testified concerning the conduct of these students. They testified, "Yes, they were marching around, they were in columns of twos, they were singing, some of them were singing patriotic songs, the 'Star-Spangled Banner.' Every now and then they would sing a Negro spiritual. Finally, we decided after they had had long enough, after they went around a second time, I told the chief of police, 'Time to stop it.' The chief of police went to the head of the column, and he said, 'Stop. You're in violation of the law. You must now disperse and go back where you came from.' At which time this minister began to speak loudly and began to harangue the crowd with religion, and with patriotism, saying, 'I'm a citizen,' and all of this kind of thing. We said, 'You're all under arrest,' and marched them all to jail." That is in essence the testimony. [laughter] We argued that before the South Carolina Supreme Court. Frank Powell convicted them all.

Moore: Was that a jury trial?

Perry: No. We tried them non-jury. We knew that we wouldn't fare well before a jury.

Moore: Had that been the case in the Orangeburg case?

Perry: Yes. Later, some of my colleagues that I sent in various places did call for jury trials. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 42

Moore: It turned out the same way.

Perry: It turned out the same way. [laughter]

Moore: The appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, how did that . . . ?

Perry: They affirmed the conviction. So now we filed the petition for certiorari.

Moore: This is Edwards?

Perry: This is Edwards v. South Carolina. Jack Greenberg, then the director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued the case before the Supreme Court on the trial record. He called and he said that he had argued and handled cases from all over the country, and he said, "I just want you to know that trial record is a jewel. It was a pleasure to argue it." I was there with him when he argued it. The Supreme Court rendered its decision, reversing Edwards, all those convictions. That case became one of the pearls in First Amendment jurisprudence.

Moore: I have a quote from Justice [Potter] Stewart: "The circumstances in this case reflect an exercise of rights in their most pristine and classic form." That must have really made you thrilled.

Perry: Oh, it did. If you read the opinion, you will see the footnotes are references to my cross-examination of the witnesses. Many of these were intensive. You've got to develop your facts. On the basis of Edwards, all of the other cases were reversed, Henry v. Rock Hill similarly. They were all based on Edwards.

Moore: Was anything unique about the Henry case that you'd like to comment on?

Perry: They were all excellent exercises by the citizens of the various communities of their concerns about racial practices locally. In the Rock Hill case, there was a very fine South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 43

Presbyterian minister confined to a wheelchair, Reverend Cecil Ivory. It was my pleasure to represent Reverend Ivory, and all of the various people that were involved in that incident.

Moore: This question has a rather long prologue, so bear with me. It has to do with the intricacies of the sit-in cases. As I understand it, the first sit-in case before the U.S. Supreme Court was the Baton Rouge case, in which a policeman had ordered protestors out of a private establishment, accusing peaceful protestors of breaching the peace. Clearly, here the state had discriminated, because the arm of the state had come into a private establishment and ordered them out. So, the Supreme Court overturned that case. The question still remains, what if the private owner of a lunch counter ordered them out, and if they didn't leave, then had them arrested for trespassing? That would be an individual discrimination, that wouldn't be the state discriminating. The court hadn't ruled that unconstitutional yet.

Perry: That's true. This was an argument that had been carefully conceived by a group of lawyers whom Thurgood Marshall had assembled. We attended many seminars. We would gather lawyers, my counterparts from Alabama and Mississippi, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina. Thurgood Marshall would convene lawyers. There's a conference center out in Warrenton, Virginia called the Airlie House. I don't know if you've ever heard of that conference center.

Moore: I've heard of it.

Perry: Thurgood Marshall used to assemble us. It was literally out in the boondocks. We'd be exposed to some of the great legal minds in the country. They came from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Georgetown, Chicago. One of the greats was Bob Ming, a great Chicago lawyer and law professor. Spot Robinson out at Virginia, formerly a law professor at Howard, later a federal judge, now in retirement. William Hasting. Charles Black, then of Yale. Numerous others. These arguments, you see, were carefully put together. Getting back to your question, the idea was that where a private person attempting to enforce a private scheme of segregation utilizes the arms of the state to enforce it, such as calling in the police, and utilizing the state's judicial system, this became state action. The arm of the state was indeed being used. This was the same theory on which the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled the racial South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 44

covenants unlawful in Shelley v. Kraemer, and in McGhee v. Sipes. These were the arguments that we brought to bear in arguing against the trespass convictions in the state courts.

[Tape 2 ends. Tape 3 begins]

Perry: There was the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Dr. King and his colleagues in the SCLC came into being at Montgomery following the Montgomery confrontation. Dr. King had become internationally prominent as a major spokesman. Now the Southern Christian Leadership Conference became a voice, an organization that spoke to concerns of the black community, and, in a manner of speaking, was literally in competition with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for its leadership role among black citizens and its claims of accomplishments. The NAACP at all times maintained primacy as far as advancing the fight legally. You had lawyers identified with the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who operated in lock step with each other. The Legal Defense Fund lawyers defended people and represented in the civil courts the aims and aspirations not only of NAACP concerns, but of those espoused by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and later by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. NAACP lawyers also represented concerns expressed by the Congress of Racial Equality, the CORE group. Of course, CORE had its own legal staff, but NAACP lawyers actually got in there and handled the concerns of the leadership of CORE, and of the leadership of SCLC and of SNCC. Many of your young people, some of whom had taken on a more militant stance and who wanted to move a little bit faster than the leadership of the NAACP evidently was willing to move, and indeed, faster than the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was willing to move, decided to form their own student group. Initially, this student group was willing to get in there and do things in a little more rash fashion. They were willing to be more provocative. Dr. King and his followers urged a nonviolent approach, a peaceful approach. The NAACP did the same thing, certainly to the extent that I. DeQuincey [Newman] and his colleagues in South Carolina represented the approaches of the NAACP at that time. This was true in other states. The NAACP leadership in other states were governed similarly by, let us call it, restraints, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 45

perhaps based upon their understanding of human nature, and of their perceptions of how best to proceed. You've got students who were expressing disdain towards this business of waiting. They wanted the rights and manifestations of citizenship that they thought they ought to have now. They were willing to put themselves on the line, and become subjected to the violence. Today, there's a very prominent man now in the , John Lewis, who was then prominently identified with SNCC, and who was badly beaten on a number of occasions, almost killed. Julian Bond came out of that. Many of these people, John Lewis, Julian Bond and others, are looked upon today as heroes of the SNCC movement, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating movement. That same movement spawned others. Stokely Carmichael and his claim of black power, and then later, Rap Brown, were willing to take the SNCC movement into a kind of activity that was indeed considered disruptive in many ways. I'm offering the comparisons as I see them. I don't know if you were to talk to John Lewis if he would agree with everything I've said or not.

Moore: In a movement of this sort, is it better to have the more militant approach, as sort of a threat on the one hand? Let's say in the city of Columbia. If the city fathers are confronted with Modjeska Simkins or Redfern Deuce, and then there's I. DeQuincey Newman and Matthew Perry, they'll say, "Well, these are reasonable men, we'd better talk to them, or we'll have to deal with the more radical element." Was the movement better off by having that?

Perry: I think all of these groups contributed immeasurably to our progress. I cannot criticize for one moment the existence of the divergent approaches that were thus manifested. They all contributed greatly to our progress, and to the eradication of laws and practices that I think everyone would acknowledge were oppressive.

Moore: Do you think it made your job easier in getting the legal changes, that there's this more radical element out there, a factor frightening the establishment, if they don't come across with what they know is right and legal, that they're going to face conflict with the more radical element?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 46

Perry: That may very well be the case, but I'm not sure that I can totally embrace it. I think the legal approach that we represented had to be taken. I don't think that the changes that were brought about could have been accomplished absent some of the things that we did. I do think Martin Luther King and the other great ministers who were able to take the public pulpit and speak out, they spoke to the conscience of the whole nation. The "I Have a Dream" speech goes down as one of the great orations of history. I regret so much that I. DeQuincey Newman and some of the people that I knew right here in South Carolina did not take the national stage, because they spoke just as eloquently. Dr. King, of course, was a well-educated and a very well- placed figure. The national press made him into an international figure. He had what it took to meet their expectations. [laughter]

Moore: He knew how to use them even as they used him.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: He was great news material, and he knew how to exploit them as well. This leads into one of the big philosophical things, and again it will come up as we talk about other cases, but South Carolina has a reputation for moderation within the movement, and moderation within race relations. We didn't have, with the exception of the Orangeburg Massacre, the type of violence that happened in other states. Was this primarily due to the fact that there are people like you, Newman, and Hinton, who are emphasizing the legal and the moral, and are seeing some degree of change taking place, and therefore some light at the end of the tunnel? Or is it the fact that the white leadership didn't stand in the schoolhouse doors so dramatically as [George] Wallace did in Alabama? Was there something different in South Carolina's historical background? These are philosophical questions that it's hard to be precise about, but I wondered what comment you'd have to make on those.

Perry: Depending upon one's point of view, I think that each of these queries has some merit. Certainly, it is true that South Carolina had some leadership in place, in the person of the governors who have served during crucial periods of our racial evolution, let's call it, who gave leadership that I think was crucial. I believe there were elements in South Carolina who could South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 47

have erupted in the same kinds of violence that we saw in Oxford, Mississippi, when James Meredith entered, or who could have committed the kinds of violent acts that we saw in Alabama and in Mississippi. Fortunately, we had governors willing to speak out, and willing to admonish the population that South Carolina would remain firm and would fight its convictions in the courts, but, having exhausted its legal means, would abide by the law. South Carolinians were urged to be law-abiding. To give you an example, when I accompanied Harvey Gantt onto Clemson's campus, this was done against a background of preparation that involved the actual hands-on input from the office of the governor, the office of the state attorney general, the chief of the law enforcement division, and through them, the entire law enforcement community that went about in meticulous detail to see to it that the kinds of things that happened in Oxford, Mississippi would not happen at Clemson. There were public pronouncements by the governor, from time to time, and I'm speaking not of just one governor, I'm speaking of the several governors who served during crucial periods our history, who insisted upon the observance of law and order. At the same time, they were insisting upon honoring South Carolina's tradition of being racially separate.

Moore: Carrying the legal process to the conclusion.

Perry: That's right. I would like to think that the black leadership of South Carolina acted responsibly during that period, and that what they did contributed to the maintenance of some semblance of order. The contrasts are obvious. Had a George Wallace been governor of South Carolina, had a Ross Barnett been here, they could have exhorted the population of South Carolina to erupt and to resort to mass resistance and violence, just as was done in Alabama and Mississippi. The history would have been entirely different.

Moore: What do you think that would have done to your leadership, had that happened? Would you have taken a more militant position in confrontation with that?

Perry: I don't know. I had decided upon my role as a lawyer. I was out there representing the interests of the people, and I suspect I would have done so in any climate. My responses may very have been different. Perhaps I would have had to tailor my responses South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 48

differently. My own view is that in representing people in the courtroom, I had to become expert in the law. I had to present the case in a fashion that would make a record that would be attractive to the Supreme Court on appeal. You see, we tried all of our cases with an eye on the Supreme Court. That would have had to have been done in any setting. It was done by my counterparts in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. We compared notes; we were together from time to time. I knew them on a first name basis. We were doing the same things. They were doing so with an eye on George Wallace. I never had to ask a court to hold a governor in contempt, but we were prepared, should that ever have been necessary.

[Tape 3 ends. Session 3, January 3, 1996, Tape 4 begins]

Moore: I wanted to talk a good bit today about the Harvey Gantt case against Clemson. If you would, please tell me the whole story, and I'll interject a question or two, here and there. I really am interested in just hearing your version of the whole story.

Perry: As you undoubtedly know, South Carolina had directed that its schools, in elementary and secondary education, and in the colleges and universities, be racially segregated. Indeed, there were provisions in our state statutes that limited attendance at Clemson, the University of South Carolina, Winthrop, the Citadel, and the Medical University of South Carolina at Charleston to whites, and the school then known as the Colored Normal Agricultural and Mechanical College at Orangeburg for its black citizens. That had been the state of the law since the mid-1890s. It actually preceded the 1895 constitutional convention, but it became firmly implanted during the 1895 convention. During all of the period between the mid-1890s and Gantt v. Clemson College, our schools were racially segregated by law. As we have earlier noted, all of our public lives were racially segregated. We were required to observe racially segregated seating in public transportation, and in parks, beaches, and playgrounds. There was another group of statutes that regulated that kind of activity. The segregated way of our educational institutions was simply another aspect of our public life in that regard. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 49

You remember that in 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Brown v. Board of Education. I assume you will give proper recognition to that fact. During the early 1960s, we had the great period of activity among young people, and on the part of the civil rights movement throughout America, beginning with the demonstrations that started first at Greensboro, North Carolina, and that spread throughout the greater part of the United States, but principally in the southern states. One of my defenses of sit-in demonstrators was in Charleston, South Carolina, where a group of young blacks had sat-in at Kress' five and dime store in Charleston and had gotten arrested and charged with trespass. I, and several of my colleagues, were in Charleston to defend them. A young man, then a high school senior at Burke High School, approached me. He was obviously a bright, very intelligent young man, seemingly highly motivated. He was one of the defendants in the case that I was there to defend. He made himself known to me in somewhat this fashion: "Hello. My name is Harvey Gantt. I'm a senior at Burke High School. I'm going to be an architect. I want to go to Clemson College, which, I understand, has one of the better schools of architecture in the country. But I understand there may be a problem." [laughter]

Moore: Smart young lad.

Perry: That's right. "But I still want to go there. If there should become a problem with my going there, will you represent me?" That's how Harvey Gantt and I came together. When you speak with him, I don't know whether he will recite the scenario in exactly that fashion. His recollection may not be identical to mine, but that is the way I remember it. I suspect however he will describe it, it won't be too far from that. I point that out because, in subsequent years, people have credited us with selecting such a bright, very fine person to be the first person to integrate Clemson College, and therefore the entire educational system. My response has always been, and is now, that we did not select Gantt. Gantt selected me, and through me, he selected the civil rights structure with which I was associated. You may also recall that James Meredith's case was then pending in the United States District Court down in Mississippi, the district where Jackson, Mississippi is located. James Meredith's case had already been filed. The case involving Charlayne Hunter and the young man who entered the University of Georgia was then also pending. The young woman down in South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 50

Alabama had already gone to court, and something had happened. I'll be able to recite that case to you, in a moment. There was a female who sued to enter the University of Alabama. Ada Lois Sipuel sued the University of Oklahoma, Sipuel v. Oklahoma. These cases were already in the court. Also, McLaurin v. Oklahoma had already gone through, and in fact, the court had issued an order directing [George] McLaurin's admission. The University of Oklahoma people had cordoned off an extra room, just outside the classroom, for McLaurin to sit. So, we had the background. Cases were then pending. In fact, Sweatt v. Painter had already been decided. Sweatt v. Painter, you will recall, was the suit of Herman Marion Sweatt to enter the University of Texas law school. The state of Texas had built a law school at Texas Southern University campus, one of the black universities of Texas.

Moore: Similar to what had happened in South Carolina.

Perry: Yes. They had spent a lot of money. That was one of the better facilities. Thurgood Marshall argued the case in the United States Supreme Court, and argued that Texas, even though it had spent a lot of money creating this new law school, could not superimpose the fine tradition and the great standing in the academic community that the University of Texas law school had with one clean sweep of appropriating millions of dollars. The Supreme Court agreed. Sweatt v. Painter was, I believe, the last step before Brown v. Board. All of these preceded Gantt by several years. My point in bringing them up is to invite you to consider that, when Gantt said to me that he understood there might be a problem, when I accepted his invitation to give him whatever assistance I could, I did so with the full knowledge of the background of cases that I've just now mentioned.

Moore: Autherine Lucy was the woman at Alabama.

Perry: Autherine Lucy. Yes. I remember her very well. I've forgotten how long before Gantt's graduation from high school that was. It was during his senior year. Gantt submitted his application to Clemson. At that time, South Carolina was a part of the Southern School Plan. There was a consortium of southern states who had come upon a plan to provide financing to any black student wanting to pursue a course of study that was provided in the white schools, but was South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 51

not provided in the black schools. The state would furnish the money and send that student out to a state that would accept him or her. Gantt applied to Clemson, and he also, for some reason, chose to send an application to the University of Iowa at Ames, Iowa. He was accepted at Ames. The registrar at Clemson wrote him, stating that his application was deficient in some respect. This was a stalling technique. By the way, not only did Gantt come to me, another young man named Flood came to me. I've forgotten Flood's first name. Flood went ahead and enrolled at Savannah State in Savannah, Georgia. The registrar responded identically to Harvey Gantt's application and to Flood's application, stating that, "Your application is incomplete." The particulars in which the applications were deemed incomplete included the failure to provide scores from the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Gantt took the test, passed it, and furnished his test results. He got another letter, as did Flood. Both of them went through the same thing, stalling and requesting more information. Gantt was first in Charleston, and then subsequently, he went out to Ames, Iowa to enroll. They would send the letters to me. I would look at them and propose responses to the letters for both students. This process went on through the fall of the first year. Meanwhile, I was now conferring with Thurgood Marshall and with the group in New York. Thurgood Marshall was appointed by President Kennedy to be a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, somewhere during this initial period. This was in the early 1960s. During the winter and spring of 1962, the Meredith case came to fruition. NAACP defense lawyers that included Constance Baker Motley and Jack Greenberg were in Mississippi representing James Meredith. I was monitoring very carefully the progress of the Meredith case, while at the same time fashioning responses to the registrar's delaying tactics for Gantt and Flood. Eventually, the Meredith case came to final judgment, and as Meredith entered the University of Mississippi at Oxford, they had riots on the campus. There were deaths and injuries, and much destruction. This was the fall of 1962. We had filed the lawsuit for Gantt. That suit was filed during the summer, I believe, in June or July of 1962. Meredith had not yet entered Mississippi at that time. I had forgotten why I did not go forward for Flood. For some reason, we did not sue on behalf of Flood. I do recall that, during the spring of 1962, when the registrar called for them to come for an interview, I and perhaps Reverend Newman and others traveled to Clemson with both Flood and Gantt. We went South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 52

to Clemson, but we did not go to the campus. We went to some place off campus. Do you remember a Reverend Webster?

Moore: Oh, yes. Charlie Webster.

Perry: Charlie Webster was then the minister of a church, was it a Methodist church, at Clemson?

Moore: Either that, or maybe he was a campus minister.

Perry: Could have been. My recollection is that we did not go onto the campus. We made a tactical judgment that Gantt and Flood should not appear on campus with lawyers. We knew what they were doing, and no doubt, they knew what we were doing. But we had to go through this process. Reverend Webster met with us at some point off campus. I do not remember where that was. Gantt and Flood were driven onto the campus by someone who was not a member of the legal team for an interview with the registrar and whoever they were to be interviewed by. [Clemson President] Dr. [R.C.] Edwards was keenly aware of what was going on. He knew that I was in Clemson on that day, as he later revealed. [laughter] In other words, when they set up the interview, they also somehow acquainted themselves with the goings and comings of everybody. I suspect they had SLED [State Law Enforcement Division] people watching us. They never did send a letter of rejection, but the stalling tactic that they were engaged in led us to conclude that they intended to stall past any potential for Gantt getting in. We reached a point where we filed a lawsuit. I did so in consultation with Constance Baker Motley, who was actively then involved in representing James Meredith. I was the lead attorney, along with several others, including Lincoln Jenkins, Donald Sampson of Greenville, and Willie Smith of Greenville. The Legal Defense Fund lawyers included Motley and Jack Greenberg. We filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order enjoining Clemson from denying Gantt's admission. The motion was heard by Judge C.C. Wyche of Spartanburg, who later presided over the trial on the merits. Judge Wyche was a rather interesting judge, who had any number of known dislikes. He didn't like northern lawyers. He didn't like government lawyers. Reportedly, he did not like Jewish lawyers. I have no personal knowledge of that, but South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 53

that's a well-known reputation. He didn't like women lawyers. Of course, women members of the bar were few and far between at that time. Mrs. Motley was born in Connecticut, and lived in Connecticut and New York. I think she and her husband maintained a home in Hartford, Connecticut, and her office was in New York. She was a product of Columbia University law school. She was both northern and female. There was one other category of lawyer that he did not like. [laughter] He didn't especially like black people. Every time he'd look around, there I was. I was in his court, or I would even go to his office, and request the use of his library. I didn't have access to federal books myself. I didn't have a substantial library. He had one, so I just felt like perhaps he'd let me use it. I'd go to his office and ask permission. [laughter] He had perhaps decided, we have reasoned subsequently, that I was a fact of life. It seemed no matter how hard he tried, I would not go away. I was simply a fact of life, and he had decided that, perhaps he would tolerate my presence, but none others need apply. He was a rather mean rascal of a judge. There were many others that he did not like. After having filed the case, we went through a lot of pre-trial activity. He only saw me. But when she surfaced, and I brought her in, he admonished me. He said, "What did you bring that woman in here for? You don't need that woman. You're a good lawyer. You can handle this case." That was the very first time that he ever paid me a compliment. I understand, from other lawyers who knew him at the time, that he spoke very highly of me, but never to me. He always offered me a rather mean countenance. He said to me, "You don't need that woman." My response to it was, "Well, judge, she just happens to be the best in the business. She's the expert. She's the cat's whiskers." [laughter] "You just don't need that woman." He ruled against us on the motion for a preliminary injunction. We filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. We prepared the briefs on appeal. The Court of Appeals set the argument. When they set the argument Mrs. Motley was in trial in some other part of the country. She called me and asked if I would argue it. I said, "Oh, yes." I went to Richmond, and I argued the appeal. We won the appeal. When the Court of Appeals issues its orders, it lists the name of the lawyer who argued the case. When he got the order reversing his order, it showed my name as having argued it. He called me. My office now was in Columbia. He said, "I told you, you didn't need that woman." [laughter] "I see you argued that case. See, what did I tell you? I told you, you didn't need her." I said, "Judge, she helped me prepare. She's the one South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 54

who put together the winning argument. I went up there and argued it, sure. It was with the background of her input." The effect of the reversal was that he had to give us a trial on the merits. This was in the fall of 1962. James Meredith had now entered the University of Mississippi. The riots had already gone on down there. Now we're in that kind of a national atmosphere. So we went to trial in the fall of 1962, and the trial occurred in November, 1962. We subpoenaed the whole board. It was a grandiose thing. The pre-trial discovery was substantial. We did a lot of work in that case. Meanwhile, Gantt is in his second year at the University of Iowa, and doing well. The University of Iowa was on the quarter system. Doesn't that have three regular sessions and then a summer quarter?

Moore: Right.

Perry: Clemson was on the semester system. The first quarter at Iowa came to an end. It meant that, in tactical terms, we wanted to have Gantt ready to enter Clemson in its second semester. The Iowa second quarter would substantially overlap the beginning of Clemson's second semester. For tactical reasons, we conferred with Gantt and his parents, and decided that he ought to withdraw from Iowa at the end of the first quarter, and devote his time to preparing to enter Clemson. Rather bold, wasn't it? [laughter]

Moore: Presumptuous.

Perry: Rather presumptuous and optimistic. The trial was held in November, close to Thanksgiving. Judge Wyche had the trial in the federal courthouse at Anderson. The press was there from all over the United States. It was really quite an event. After the trial had gotten underway, it was going very well. All of us were performing. Mrs. Motley, of course, was brilliant. She's a dynamic woman. During a recess, for some reason, I had to go into his office. I don't know what took me in his office, but I went in there. By now, I had pretty much come to know how to handle Judge Wyche. I knew all of his likes and dislikes. I said to him, as he was staring out the window, "Judge Wyche, I believe Mrs. Motley is getting to you." He said, "What South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 55

do you mean?" I said, "She told me you smiled at her just now." [laughter] "She smiled at me first." [laughter] That very evening, Mrs. Motley was trying to get home, to be with her family for Thanksgiving. She had to get out that evening, otherwise she would not be able to be home for Thanksgiving. We had two or three more witnesses and the final arguments. She was leaving the trial in my hands. We go through a matter of protocol with judges. She asked if I would call him and ask permission for her to withdraw, so she could go home to be with her family. I would proceed to put the finishing touches on the trial. I reached him at his hotel that evening. He paid her a compliment through me. He said, "You tell her, she's got my permission. You tell her, she's welcome to come back here anytime. It's been a pleasure having her." [laughter] She never did get a public acknowledgment out of the judge who decided the Meredith case, Judge [William Harold] Cox down in Mississippi. He was just a sort of a bastard of a judge.

Moore: Isn't that the one that JFK had to appoint?

Perry: He had to appoint him in order to get Marshall.

Moore: So he knew exactly what kind of a racist he was getting.

Perry: Was it Senator [James] Eastland?

Moore: Yes.

Perry: He said to Bobby Kennedy, the attorney general, "You tell your brother that if he gives me my man Cox, he can have his nigger."

Moore: You had President Edwards on the stand, right?

Perry: Yes.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 56

Moore: And the registrar on the stand.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: It's my understanding that they said something like this, correct me if I'm inaccurate. "Clemson does not have a policy of racial segregation. No black person has ever applied."

Perry: Yes. [laughter]

Moore: And Gantt's application was not complete.

Perry: That's essentially correct.

Moore: How do men of integrity deal with that sort of situation?

Perry: They were just carrying out the state's plan. Remember, South Carolina had what was called the South Carolina School Committee, a joint legislative committee, chaired by Senator [Marion] Gressette. It was otherwise known as the Gressette Committee. That committee hired the lawyers to defend in this and other cases. The Robinson-McFadden-Moore firm of Columbia, then the primary lawyer was Mr. David Robinson. He was there, and he and other lawyers, including Bill Watkins, of the Watkins-Vandiver-Freeman firm in Anderson, represented Clemson. David Robinson was the lead attorney. He was a Gressette Committee lawyer. The attorney general of South Carolina had a representative sitting there, but they all deferred to the Gressette Committee counsel. Interestingly, reference was made to the fact that the Gantt application and the Flood application were kept in a vault. Mrs. Motley was examining Dr. Edwards on this point. "Why did you keep them in the vault?" He said, "Well, because we had two applications. One from a young man who was then attending the University of Iowa, way out there in Ames, Iowa, and another from a young man who was attending Savannah State, down here in Savannah, Georgia. They came in, and they were worded identically, and seemed to have come from the same South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 57

typewriter." [laughter] Well, everybody chuckled. I arose and said, "The plaintiff stipulates that the letters were written by the plaintiffs' attorney, Matthew Perry. I wrote the letters." Of course, everybody chuckled. That made a headline, "Perry writes letters." [laughter]

Moore: It was indeed your typewriter.

Perry: That's right. [laughter] I didn't want them to try and elicit from Gantt. . . . in fact, I believe that was the context in which I made the stipulation, when they were pinning Gantt back. Gantt may not have known how to answer the question. Without giving them an opportunity to decimate him with some series of questions on that, I arose, and stated the stipulation that the letters were written by his counsel. I wrote the letters.

Moore: That may have helped reinforce this idea that Gantt had been selected rather than that Gantt selected you.

Perry: It might have. But I think, more importantly, Gantt proved himself to be a first class young man, just a jewel of a human being. If we had selected somebody, if we had gone out to look for somebody, he's the type person we would have wanted. Judge Wyche decided the case in this fashion. He ruled against us, holding that Clemson did not have a policy of exclusion of Negroes—that was the accepted term then—but that it did have a policy of discouraging. That was included in his order. We appealed his order to the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit. We went to Richmond to argue that. Now, we're near the end of December or in early January. We knew exactly what the closing minutes were going to be. We felt that the Court of Appeals was going to rule immediately, and we felt they were going to rule in our favor. We felt that the lawyers for the state were going to go immediately to the United States Supreme Court. So we drafted not only our appeal papers for Richmond, but we drafted the opposition papers that we knew we would have to file in the United States Supreme Court, to oppose any effort on their part to stay it. We got the order from the Court of Appeals in Richmond. They did indeed file an immediate appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and an immediate petition to the Supreme Court to stay the Court of Appeals order. We promptly filed our opposition to their order. We South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 58

really traveled from Richmond to Washington. All of this happened in one sweep. We were in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, awaiting word from the Chief Justice. The petition for stay came back with a handwritten notation, signed by the Chief Justice. "The petition for stay is hereby denied." Reporters were present. I believe Charlie Wickenberg was there. If it wasn't Charlie, it was some reporter who was well known to me. Charlie followed much of this, as did Jack Bass and others during this period. I was quoted in the papers when the clerk read the note from the Chief Justice saying "the petition for stay is hereby denied."

[Tape 4, Side 2 begins]

Perry: This was before the beginning of the second semester at Clemson. Now Gantt is eligible to enter Clemson, and he has an order from the Court of Appeals, which has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court, directing that he be permitted to enter. At some point during this same month of January, the outgoing Governor, Fritz Hollings, had one last appearance before the joint legislature. I don't know if it was the State of the State speech, it may very well have been. It was before Governor [Donald] Russell was inaugurated. In that speech, Governor Fritz Hollings made, among his various comments, an exhortation to the people of South Carolina to obey the law, and to be law-abiding citizens. He admonished them in this speech, that South Carolina is fast running out of courts. South Carolina will soon be faced with a court order requiring that a black student be admitted to one of its state universities. He called upon the citizens of South Carolina to not allow a replication of what happened some months earlier, at Oxford, Mississippi. Quite a speech.

Moore: I've also read, and I want to see if your memory fits this, that Harvey Gantt's entrance into Clemson represented the last state to have integrated. . . .

Perry: That may be true. I'm not going to deny that. I know that Charlayne Hunter and Hamilton Holmes had already entered the University of Georgia [in 1961]. They had entered perhaps the prior year. It had been some few years since Autherine Lucy's aborted entry into the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 59

University of Alabama. Ada Lois Sipuel and McLaurin had already had their bout with Oklahoma. Sweatt v. Painter had preceded Brown. You had had students at the University of North Carolina. They had already done it.

Moore: I think it must be accurate.

Perry: I think it must be accurate, too. I cannot deny that Gantt was the last one. I think that is most probably true. Everyone expected that there would be a last stand in South Carolina. South Carolina's officials, including its governor, who was then Donald Russell, and its attorney general, Dan McLeod, and I might add, the president of Clemson, Dr. Edwards, set up meticulous plans for Gantt to enter . They did so out of an abundance of caution, recognizing, I am sure, that there were elements right here in South Carolina fully capable of engaging in the kinds of conduct that we had seen down in Oxford, Mississippi. They set out to try and avoid any replication of that incident. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division was given, let me suggest, marching orders, by the governor's office, to do whatever was necessary to prevent rowdy kinds of people, lawless kinds of people, from becoming involved and getting that situation out of hand. Dr. Edwards wrote out an itinerary, which was placed in the hands of the attorney general, for delivery to me. In fact, they wanted me to be the one to arrive on campus with Gantt. They did not want anyone else to come, including Gantt's parents. On the day of Gantt's matriculation, it was planned that he should arrive at the administration building, just at the horseshoe. The administration building was right up at the hub of a drive around in the nature of a horseshoe, right in front of the building. We were asked to arrive right at one-thirty. I was asked to come to the attorney general's office on the morning of Gantt's entrance. Gantt, his father, and his minister had come up from Charleston. They were at my office. I went over to the attorney general's office. I met with the governor first, and then went over to the attorney general's office. The attorney general had present one or two people from SLED. I was also given a folder containing Dr. Edwards' itinerary notes. They said, "Now, Mr. Perry, this is what we'd like you to do. These men are from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. You're going to be escorted, but the public should not know this. We're going to have a car in front of you. That car is going to be preceding as much as a half-mile or South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 60

more in front of you. There's going to be one coming up from your rear. There are going to be law enforcement officers intermittently along the way. You are to drive as fast as you need to drive to try and ensure that you will arrive at the appointed hour." The appointed hour was one-thirty. Since it was known that Gantt's father was with me, and that his minister from Charleston was with me, I was asked to arrange with friends in Greenville for me to drop the father and the minister off, so that they could wait in Greenville, while Gantt and I proceeded from Greenville to Clemson. Through my lawyer colleagues in Greenville, Willie Smith and Donald Sampson, we arranged to meet at a specific place in Greenville. Then Gantt and I left and proceeded towards Clemson. We were being watched throughout. It was a national news event. The national news said, "At this very moment, a black student is en route to Clemson with the attorney who has represented him throughout the proceedings." I recall, on one occasion, I passed an individual who recognized me, and this fellow, who knew what I was up to, speeded up, and hailed me down. So I stopped. He wanted to shake my hand, and he wanted to shake Gantt's hand. The police escort closed in and wanted to know who he was. "Mr. Perry, keep moving, Mr. Perry. Keep moving." [laughter] We proceeded. Gantt had to stop, because his luggage was in the trunk of my car. He had his checkbook in a pocket in his suitcase. I was to drive up to the administration building, and we had come to realize that we may be hard-pressed for him to do all of this. So he asked me to stop. We stopped so that he could open his suitcase and get his checkbook out. That's where I think we lost the four or five minutes. We arrived at the administration building at one-thirty-four.

Moore: Four minutes late.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: Before you go on, what was Gantt's father's response to being left off in Greenville? Was that a disappointment to him? Did he see the point in that?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 61

Perry: I don't recall that there was any resentment on his part. I think he accepted that that was a part of the total security approach. I think he felt that, under the circumstances, he would comply with what was being asked of him.

Moore: Do you think that he felt any fear for Harvey's life, and did you?

Perry: There must have been. I know that the parents, both his mother and his father, very fine people, they had to have experienced some anxiety. Look what James Meredith had gone through. They had to have entertained some. But, they kept an outer countenance that showed bravery, and pride in what their son was doing. They were totally supportive. The minister was with us. He asked us all to kneel, and we prayed.

Moore: Before you left Columbia?

Perry: Before we left Columbia, and before we left Greenville. The plan was for me to drive up to the front of the administration building, and Gantt was to get out of the vehicle and go into the administration building. I was to promptly drive on around to the dormitory. Somebody got in the car with me to show me the dormitory. I was not to wait, and go around there where Gantt's luggage was to be removed from my automobile, taken into the dormitory. I was to promptly leave the campus. That was the plan. It worked like a charm.

Moore: Was a part of the reason here to keep you and Gantt from making some statement to the press, or not to leave a target?

Perry: I don't have an answer to that question. If I were to speculate, I do not believe that was the purpose. They realized the potential for outward manifestations of objections to Gantt's being there. There must have been three hundred news reporters. There were other people there. It was a major event, as we drove up into the situation. I have to say that Dr. Edwards undoubtedly anticipated that there would be -----. Maybe he and his campus security people probably opined that the better way for us to do this is to get the young man in as quickly as possible, and not have the lawyers or anybody else connected with the effort at gaining his South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 62

entry hanging around. I say that because thereafter, Dr. Edwards and I struck up quite a friendship. We conferred regularly. Indeed, I came to realize that he was just going through what he understood was his duty as a state employee in putting up this delaying tactic. He said the lawsuit was something that had to be done. He was very glad that it had been done. He was glad that I had been able to provide what he termed such high-class representation. Looking back, I think I will attribute to him nothing but a high purpose in fashioning the matter the way he did. Whether he was correct in doing it, we cannot today know.

Moore: But it worked in terms of getting it done with no problem, getting it smoothly carried out.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: There were some people in South Carolina who, you and I know, were fully capable of doing the same things that were done in Mississippi.

Perry: Yes. They were fully capable.

Moore: There was a legislator then named Red Bethea making noises very much like some of the most radical people in Alabama and Mississippi.

Perry: I'm told also that SLED did indeed ferret out some people that SLED suspected were troublemakers during the evening before our entry there. There were crowds on the campus. Cecil Williams of Orangeburg, who has just published a work, covered many of the events. He was present as a reporter for Jet magazine.

Moore: I had read that there were a couple of punctured tires of SLED vehicles or highway patrol vehicles, a little bit of vandalism of that sort that evening, or later that afternoon.

Perry: I didn't hear about it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised. There was a great presence of law enforcement people. Chief [J.P.] Strom [of SLED] had the ability to move South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 63

about. He looked like a redneck. He was the kind of a fellow who could get out among them. [laughter] He could ferret them out. I understand that they did target several people, and engineered their removal from the scene. These were people fully capable of igniting a tough situation.

Moore: As you look back on it, to what do you attribute the peaceful nature of the transition?

Perry: No small measure of the credit goes to the fact that we, here in South Carolina, were able to observe from a safe distance, and from the standpoint of several months, the events that transpired at Oxford, Mississippi. We had an opportunity to reflect, and to ask ourselves the question, "Do we want that kind of thing to happen here, in South Carolina?" I'd like to think that that was a factor. I have every reason to believe that South Carolina's elected officials decided that the approach that Governor Ross Barnett gave in leading the people of Mississippi was not the way to go. Governor Barnett really brought out the lunatic fringe among the people of Mississippi. I have to believe that outgoing Governor Hollings and incoming Governor Russell were able to judge from the distance. They looked at what was happening over there. They must have, among themselves, and whatever leadership groups they assembled around them, reasoned that that would not have been a proper thing for them to preside over in South Carolina. I have to believe that they felt that the better way to go about it was to admonish South Carolina citizens that even though we have fought this thing to the end, we have fought it in the courts, and lost. Now you've got to obey the law. Bob McNair served as lieutenant governor. When Donald Russell resigned after Olin Johnston died, Bob McNair became the governor, and appointed Donald Russell to be senator. Bob McNair was keenly aware of what was going on, as was Fritz Hollings.

Moore: You were mentioning SLED in a rather positive light.

Perry: Understand, now, SLED had the role of enforcing the law. The law then was racial segregation. Chief Strom was the state's chief law enforcement official. On the other hand, Chief Strom came to know me and the various lawyers that I had working with me, as we South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 64

had represented people all over the state, down at Orangeburg, here in Columbia, at Charleston, at Sumter, at Rock Hill. In the various places where we appeared in court, there were generally always SLED people. More often than not, Strom himself was there. He had come to know me as a lawyer. I had developed a certain comfort zone in dealing with him. When the Freedom Riders came through a tip of South Carolina, and went down into Georgia, they were attacked in Georgia, but they were more forcefully attacked in Alabama.

Moore: One or two of the buses burned in Alabama.

Perry: In South Carolina, they got through without incident. Strom said to me, "See, they came through South Carolina, and nothing happened to them here, did it? We saw to that." So his claim was that his people knew how to keep the people off. People used to mail threatening letters, and make threatening telephone calls to our home. Hallie [Perry] and Chief Strom became acquainted with each other by telephone. On occasion, she would talk with Strom, when I would be appearing in some gosh-forbidden place. He would tell her, "You tell him we'll have our people there. He knows he's not to talk to any of our people, but they're there. They're there to keep anything from happening to him." Sure enough, I appeared in some gosh-awful places. I'd look around, there would be one, two, or three SLED men there, sitting around. And, of course, there would be the local law enforcement officers. I'd speak to everybody, as I normally do. People said that I'd speak to everybody, including people who didn't want to have anything to do with me. I can tell you some other things that Strom has done, in another context, having nothing to do with the Gantt case.

Moore: Go right ahead with that while we're on him.

Perry: Let me give you an example of one thing that happened. You know the Flemings of Manning, South Carolina. Billy is an old friend, and his wife Margie. There came a time one summer when there were a number of young people of an interracial character who had come into the state. They had fanned all over the state doing registration and voting. A group of these youngsters were in Manning. They were there urging people to register. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 65

Among college kids, registering and voting can be all right. It's a fine thing to do. But kids want to have some fun sometimes. This was on a Saturday evening, if I'm not mistaken. Nothing would suit them more than to go to the movie theater down there in Manning, a theater that had not yet decided that its black and white citizens could sit together. They'd go in there and sit together, black and white students. A crowd began to gather, and somebody called the Fleming residence. Billy Fleming had gone out of town to pick up a body from the veterans' hospital at Asheville. Margie called me in Columbia. This was after nine o'clock. She said, "Billy is not here. I understand these kids are down there in the theater, and the manager has called here saying there is going to be trouble. Crowds are gathering." So I asked her to wait while I made a call. I called Chief Strom at his home. I relayed to him what Margie had told me on the phone. He said, "All right, let me get back to you. Let me make a call or two." In ten minutes, he called me back. "All right, Mr. Perry. Here's what I want you to do. You call Mrs. Fleming back. See if she can communicate with whoever has called her in the theater. Tell the young people, don't move. Tell them to sit right where they are. I've got law enforcement officers traveling there right now. I've got highway patrolmen, I've got deputy sheriffs from over in Sumter, and I've got the sheriff’s office in Clarendon County alerted. Tell them to sit right there. I'm going to have some people come in there and escort them out." That happened. One thing in dealing with Strom, it would have been counterproductive for it to have become known that he was providing that kind of service for us. There are elements in the society who would not have tolerated the knowledge that their officials were interacting with us in that fashion.

Moore: That's an interesting story. Back to Gantt and the peaceful transition. What sort of role do you think the business community or business leaders, particularly I'm thinking of white business leaders, played in that?

Perry: Judge Russell regards the fact of Gantt's entry into Clemson during the period when he was governor as a major event. He mentioned it on the occasion I went up to the naming of that courthouse for him. I would like to believe, and I do believe, that the leaders of industry and the business community wanted desperately to avoid bloodshed and riotous conditions here in the state. That wasn't good for business. Remember, I was not privy to it, and South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 66

therefore, I cannot state with any level of assurance that that was the case. But I'll bet you that people like McNair, Hollings, and Russell would be able to confirm that. I can tell you that Bob Davis, formerly of R.L. Bryan, he was a business leader. I can tell you that he gave vocal, forceful leadership to creating an aura of good will. There were people with him. Mr. Harley, who was Bob Davis' chief executive, also. I met a number of people around the state who I have every reason to believe helped to create a modicum of good will and receptivity. Mr. Foster of Greenville would fall in that category. John Bolt Culbertson, who died some years ago. These are people whose names come to my mind immediately. There were others.

Moore: Were you acquainted with John Cauthen, the vice president of the Textile Manufacturers Association, their chief lobbyist?

Perry: As best I can recall, I never met him. It may very well be that I met him. I've met so many people.

Moore: Is there any other role that the NAACP played as an organization, other than the legal aspects of it? Was Reverend Newman doing anything to supplement your efforts in preparing Gantt, or preparing the black community for it?

Perry: The answer to all of those questions is yes. Reverend Newman operated principally with a cadre of ministers who met with the Gantt family. They literally prepared Harvey Gantt for what they feared would be an onslaught of opposition to his presence at Clemson. Through them, they helped prepare him psychologically, as if Gantt needed such preparation. I think that this was a young man who was really up to it.

Moore: Had his head screwed on right.

Perry: He did. But I mention this in comparison with the more recent case of Ms. [Shannon] Faulkner versus the Citadel. They did not prepare Ms. Faulkner to win. We prepared Gantt to win. I think they prepared Ms. Faulkner to lose. They didn't prepare her for the period after she got in there, at least not from what I've been able to observe. They may have, but it just South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 67

does not seem to me they did. We had a support system around Gantt. We had a family up in Seneca who agreed that Gantt was welcome to come to their home on a moment's notice.

Moore: All set up ahead of time?

Perry: That's right.

Moore: Did he ever have to?

Perry: He didn't have to, but he did. He found their home a welcome place of refuge. He went there. He had meals. It didn't take long before the student body at Clemson began to have friendly notions about Gantt's presence. Gantt, on one occasion during that very spring of 1963, walked by some fellows out sunning. He laughed and said, "Ha ha, you fellows have got to do that. I've already got mine." [laughter] Everybody was able to laugh about that.

Moore: It's my understanding that a couple of days before Gantt arrived, the Clemson House fired eighteen black maids. Their excuse was that the federal government had raised the minimum wage to a dollar and a quarter an hour, and applied it to workers of this type, and that they couldn't afford that. Then they hired white women to replace them. I wondered what happened there. Did these women sue?

Perry: If that happened, I was not privy to it. I never heard about it. I'm not denying that it had happened. It was never brought to my attention. I suspect that that's the kind of thing that most probably would have been brought to my attention. By now, you see, I had become something of a personality, in the legal sense, in South Carolina.

Moore: That would be an easy case to win, I'd think. [laughter]

Perry: That's right.

Moore: Were you the lawyer for Lucinda Brawley as well? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 68

Perry: She did not need a lawyer. She was admitted the next year. She and Harvey struck up a relationship, and got married. I did, as you may know, represent Henri Dobbins Monteith, in her application and her entry into the University of South Carolina. We tried that case.

Moore: Let's just move right into that, then. You did not represent [James] Solomon and [Robert] Anderson, the other two at the time?

Perry: Anderson was represented by my colleague Donald J. Sampson of Greenville. Donald J. Sampson filed a petition to intervene in the Monteith suit against the University of South Carolina. So together we represented both Henri Dobbins Monteith and Robert Anderson. Dr. Solomon did not sue. He filed his application to enter the Ph.D. program. Just after Judge Martin rendered his decision, ordering that Henri Dobbins Monteith and Robert Anderson be admitted, Mr. Solomon, a teacher over in Sumter, applied to enter the doctoral program at the university. He got accepted. By the way, the attorney general of South Carolina conferred with me privately and said, "Now, after this one, you won't have to bring any more suits. The word will go around, and your people will be admitted, assuming they are qualified, at all of the other state-supported schools." I think that Solomon's application was acted upon favorably in that vein. Thereafter, applicants at Winthrop and at the other state-supported schools…It took a while at the Citadel. I thought we were going to have to sue at the Citadel, but they finally accepted an applicant. The Medical University in Charleston turned out to be a rather difficult place. We didn't have to sue, but they knew we were getting ready to sue when they finally accepted their first applicant.

Moore: Judge [J. Robert] Martin was the judge in the Monteith case. Tell me a little about that. Was there a trial?

Perry: There was.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 69

Moore: What about him? I take it he was a little different than Judge Wyche.

Perry: Yes. Judge Martin recognized that Brown v. Board of Education was the law. He applied it.

Moore: This one you didn't have to appeal.

Perry: That's right. There was no appeal from Judge Martin's decision.

Moore: The state didn't appeal it.

Perry: That's right. We filed the case before him. The case came to trial. I, and my colleagues, tried the case, although we had the presence of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyers in the case.

[Tape 4 ends. Tape 5 begins]

Perry: . . . . refusing to admit Ms. Monteith and others similarly situated.

Moore: So it was a class action?

Perry: It was.

Moore: Was the Gantt decision?

Perry: It was class action.

Moore: What sort of preparation was there for the entrance of Monteith and Anderson?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 70

Perry: I would say that the preparations were similar to, but not as extensive as, they were for Gantt. Gantt entered Clemson at the beginning of the second semester, which was in the winter of 1963. Henri Dobbins Monteith entered the University of South Carolina for the fall semester of 1963. She was living in another state at the time, although her mother lived here in Columbia. Ms. Monteith was the niece of Ms. Modjeska Simkins. I met with them, and we went through all of the various aspects about it. I think Ms. Simkins and her sister—who was a fireball in her own right—they are the ones who conferred with Henri Dobbins Monteith perhaps more pointedly than I was permitted to do. Together, we got her ready. Robert Anderson of Greenville conferred more with Donald Sampson. There was a certain camaraderie among them. He did not fare quite as well as a student at the University of South Carolina as did Ms. Monteith.

Moore: He didn't graduate, did he?

Perry: That's my recollection.

Moore: Henri did, and went on to become a medical doctor, right?

Perry: No, a Ph.D.

Moore: In both these cases, and particularly the Gantt case, I read a good bit about the moderation of the white officials and the white community. There's a great deal of self- congratulation among the white press about how wonderfully restrained the white people were. I wondered if that sort of commentary gets sort of old to you?

Perry: It does. It gets a little old.

Moore: It occurs to me that nobody congratulates the plaintiffs on their moderation or their dignity.

Perry: Right. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 71

Moore: Of course, it's the white press that's doing most of the commenting. They think they're being very liberal about it, saying, “This transition, which none of us wanted, has been brought off with peace and dignity because of these wonderful white officials.”

Perry: Gantt has been honored in a number of ways by the Clemson community. He's been back there. He's lectured, he's spoken. He's been hailed as the first black student. Henri Dobbins Monteith has been. Dr. McFadden at the university, he and his wife, Grace McFadden, had some program commemorating the desegregation of the University of South Carolina. They brought in Henri Dobbins Monteith and Robert Anderson, and Dr. Solomon. They had me to come over and be on the program. This was about five years ago. I don't know the extent to which Henri Monteith has been otherwise honored over there. [USC President] Jim Holderman was such a grandiose fellow, I regret so much the excesses that got him in trouble. Otherwise, I think he was a dynamic person.

Moore: It's just surprising he didn't use her.

Perry: That's right. [laughter]

Moore: You mentioned the Gressette Committee. Maybe we could close out this session with your talking about that committee a little bit, and any impression you might have of it, and its role in delaying, or perhaps even ultimately facilitating, the transition.

Perry: It didn't facilitate anything. The role of that committee was to seek, through the introduction of legislation, and through other means, ways to stymie and thwart the efforts of blacks to desegregate state-supported institutions and practices. They did so through the introduction of legislation. Senator Gressette was in the state Senate. Joe Rogers was the co- chairman, a member of the House of Representatives. Together, they represented the official state attitude. Through them, as far back as Briggs v. Elliott, and the employment of John W. Davis to argue in the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, to argue South Carolina's part of it, the Gressette Committee was the one who persuaded the joint assembly in that respect. All of the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 72

various things in which the official position of South Carolina on questions of race was brought to bear, it was that committee that placed its imprimatur. It hired the lawyers. It fashioned the state's response. Senator Gressette was the guru, you might say, of the state's position. Joe Rogers was right there with him. In press reports of that period, you will find many public pronouncements made by those two men, and by others associated with them. With respect to everything involving the official position of South Carolina on questions of race, that committee gave leadership. I came in contact with Senator Gressette and with Joe Rogers, and certainly with the lawyers hired by that committee. Those lawyers were paid from state coffers.

Moore: And David Robinson was the main lawyer for them.

Perry: Yes. It is that committee that we were facing in the courtroom.

Moore: This was your enemy.

Perry: That's correct. They cooperated with similar groups in other states. I'm sure that other states, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and all those, must have had similar state bodies. Once, when I was handling a lawsuit designed to desegregate the state park system, Mr. Robinson served a subpoena ------on me for me to personally appear and be deposed, and to bring with me my case file, in order for him to examine it, to look into what we were about. I know that that was a part of a national move. Nationally, there was a movement on to discredit the lawyers who were bringing lawsuits around the country to desegregate various state-enforced practices. They had succeeded in some areas. They had, for example, in Mississippi, been able to persuade a black plaintiff represented by a black lawyer named R. Jess Brown. R. Jess Brown had sued on behalf of a number of black persons to desegregate some practice down in Mississippi. Through the efforts of a similar body in Mississippi, they had brought pressure on a black plaintiff to publicly state that she had not authorized R. Jess Brown to represent her. This got Brown into trouble with the Mississippi bar officials. He had to be defended. Down in Texas, a similar thing happened to a very outstanding black lawyer. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 73

Thurgood Marshall had admonished us to have our files in order, to be sure that we had written authorization from the people we represented. Sure enough, I had written authorizations from everyone that I represented. So in the case file that Mr. Robinson had subpoenaed, I had written authorizations, and they were impeccable. I had dictated them. They were letters from the various people in the state park case to Matthew J. Perry, Attorney at Law. I was still living in Spartanburg when this event occurred. "I hereby retain and authorize you to represent me in connection with my desire to utilize the facilities of Sesquicentennial Park, and of the other state- supported facilities of South Carolina from which I am excluded by reason of my race. I hereby authorize you to take any action necessary in state and/or federal courts, to secure for me the right to utilize these facilities in a fashion that does not violate the United States Constitution. I authorize you to associate with any other lawyers whom you may choose to associate, including lawyers of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et cetera, et cetera." I had that in my file. So Mr. Robinson subpoenaed me. I ought to have moved the court to protect me against having to appear, because this was an invasion of the attorney-client relationship. I could have defended on that basis. I was not then sophisticated enough to do that. In retrospect, I'm glad I wasn't. I had nothing to hide. I was glad to show it to him. This was a tactic of the Gressette Committee.

Moore: If you had not had that documentation. . . .

Perry: If I had not had it, they undoubtedly would have charged me before the bar with soliciting and proceeding without authorization to represent people with lawsuits. I could have gotten in trouble.

Moore: Could it have gone to disbarment?

Perry: Yes. That was the theory. In fact, it got a Texas lawyer suspended from the practice. My friend Sam Tucker, there was an effort at disbarring him in Virginia, under similar principles. There was an effort at the disbarment of a North Carolina lawyer. They called it barratry and champerty, unlawful solicitation of clients. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 74

Moore: Does that rule still exist?

Perry: Lawyers are not permitted to outright solicit, but ambulance-chasing, as the term is more popularly used, is a tactic that lawyers are known to utilize. You get a wreck out here on the intersection, and it's a bet that if the circumstances are perceived as possibilities of generating income, then, boy, the personal injury lawyers will be all over the place. If the police officer arrives first at the scene, the police officer will suggest the name of a lawyer. If the ambulance driver arrives first, it's the ambulance driver that will do it. Let's say you were unconscious, and you arrive at consciousness in the emergency room. An emergency room nurse or somebody will.

Moore: They get a kickback from the lawyer.

Perry: That's as I understand it. I never engaged in the practice, but I had it on good information that it could be my next of kin, and before they could get to me to represent them, they would have to travel through a maze of people trying to persuade them to go to this or the other lawyer.

Moore: I recall a case of Edna Primus in the Supreme Court, where they tried to get at social work people.

Perry: Yes. But the state bar gave her a private reprimand. She appealed it.

Moore: The Supreme Court ruled in her favor.

Perry: They ruled in her favor.

Moore: She had not solicited in the strict sense of the term.

Perry: What she did was protected under the First Amendment. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 75

Moore: We got a little bit afield from the Gressette Committee. Do you have any parting comments about the Gressette Committee?

Perry: I don't know that I have any parting comments, but I suspect that, from time to time, as we continue to talk, things will come up, and I will be able to again mention them.

Moore: One interpretation suggests that, because the Gressette Committee was there doing everything it could to delay or to prevent desegregation from occurring, when desegregation did occur, the white people of South Carolina had the assurance that everything that could have been done had been done. So they were more submissive because of the actions of the Gressette Committee. You can sort of twist them around, and give them a little bit more positive appearance.

Perry: I've heard that, but I don't know that I will buy that. On the other hand, there are all kinds of theories that flow from things that have occurred. Perhaps that is a plausible afterthought. [laughter] I assure you the Gressette Committee didn't have that. . . .

Moore: They didn't have that in mind.

Perry: That was not its motivation. [laughter]

Moore: I noticed that when you ran for Congress, he [Gressette] spoke at a fund-raising event.

Perry: He did. He grew to respect me professionally, to the extent that we were then in the same political party setting. He appeared at a rally, and indicated support for my candidacy. I might add further, when I was named a judge to the Court of Military Appeals in Washington, McNair and Bob Davis had a grandiose reception for me. Gressette was in attendance. We sat and we chatted, and Gressette spoke publicly. He gave a remark that included this statement. "When I first came to know our honoree, he was all the way over on one end of the spectrum, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 76

and I was all the way over on the other end. But over the years, as we've both labored in our respective ways, pursuing our separate goals, I came to know him, and to admire him. I can tell you that he has performed ably as a lawyer, and he has at all times been a professional. He is indeed one of the great South Carolinians that it has been my pleasure to know."

Moore: Did he ever, to your knowledge, recant any of his racist background?

Perry: Not as such.

Moore: Not like George Wallace.

Perry: That's right. Never a George Wallace-type statement. But I think, through his conduct, it can fairly be said that he gave evidence of having ameliorated, to a degree. Only to a degree. I went down into Calhoun County and appeared in court when he was there. He was on one side of the controversy, and I was on the other. He came through as an individual who could be talked to. Let us just say that he represented another era.

[Session 3 ends. Session 4, January 19, 1996, Tape 6 begins]

Moore: We finished the last tape talking about Gantt's entry into Clemson. I thought we might begin this one by giving you the opportunity to tell the story about the problem of the rebel flag that had been such a symbol at Clemson before this time.

Perry: At Clemson athletic events, and particularly at its football games, Clemson's cheerleaders would run out onto the field and run around with a gigantic flag. It was a flag done in the style of the Confederate flag. They would turn it around during halftime. It was one of the things that helped enliven the spectators. It was, I hesitate to say the battle cry, but it was one of those things done by cheerleaders and those who were out to enliven the enthusiasm at the athletic events. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 77

After Gantt's entry into Clemson, the following year, more black students entered. My memory doesn't serve me about the number of black athletes who were then playing football for Clemson. Early on, there weren't many. During the next year or two, you began having a much greater entourage of black spectators at the athletic events, including the new black students. The governing body at Clemson had been made aware of the fact that some of the new black spectators were offended by the spectacle of that flag. I had become very friendly with the president of Clemson. In the handling of the lawsuit, he was a defendant. We were, in so many words, antagonists. The handling of the lawsuit brought us together. He often times turned to me for dialogue designed to try and make more palatable some of the changes that we brought about as a result of the lawsuit. During a conversation at some point during the year or two following Gantt's entry at Clemson, the president sought my advice on what he termed a ticklish little matter, a rather irritating little matter. It was pertaining to the longstanding practice of using that flag to drum up crowd enthusiasm. He was reluctant to take it down in any obvious way, because of the possibility that such an official act on his part might offend the students who preferred it, and might offend others. Yet to permit its continuance raised some objection on the part of those who now were a part of the Clemson family. I, and others, made the suggestion that the president and others involved in this process might give some consideration to having another flag made, and quietly substitute it during an off-season, so that when the next season began, and the occasion came to reach for the flag, they would find the new flag. Our suggestion was that the new flag might, if officials thought well of it, be done in Clemson orange, with a gigantic tiger paw in the middle of it. Such a new flag, I suggested, ought to be viewed very affectionately. It ought to engender as much as, or possibly even more, enthusiasm on the part of onlookers, who might, at the same time, not even be conscious of the fact of the substitution. The president and his advisors gave consideration to it. The old flag has not been seen since then. I don't know whether it was destroyed or burned. It just disappeared. Several generations of students have gone through Clemson without it. As far as I know, no one ever gave voice to the substitution. The Clemson student newspaper, as far as I am aware, never reported on the substitution. The officials of the university never voiced it, never made mention of it. [laughter] I think that had it been South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 78

mentioned and acknowledged as an official act, there might very well have been some kind of repercussions.

Moore: In Columbia, with the desegregation of lunch counters and things of that sort, often the newspapers muted the news on that, in order to prevent disturbing people's tranquility.

Perry: I think so. In that regard, a great deal of credit is deserved by Mayor Lester Bates, and a number of other persons to whom he turned for advice, both white and black. Reverend Hinton and a number of those would meet together. What is now known as the Columbia Human Relations Council grew out of the original efforts of Mayor Lester Bates and the interracial group who formed to try and find ways to deal with the ticklish problems that abounded in the mid-sixties.

Moore: Do you think that sort of dialogue helped in the advancement of civil rights, or was it a con job that allowed whites to get by with less change than they might have?

Perry: I think it depends upon one's perspective. Those who are not satisfied with the pace of change that this group of people advocated and put into place have viewed the efforts as that of compromise. Whether those statements are justified or not I think depends upon one's perspective. Bear in mind, I was not privy to many of the discussions that I'm talking about, as a lawyer who was then serving as the state Chairman of the Legal Committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I, and my lawyer colleagues, were very busy defending young people who had been on the front line challenging racial practices. I learned that there were citizens, many of them ministers and other responsible citizens of the community, who sat down and fashioned out some approaches during that period. As a young lawyer, I was not asked to sit down with them.

Moore: I seem to remember Redfern Deuce, and at times, Modjeska Simkins, being a bit skeptical of some of the deals that were made that didn't go as far as they perhaps wanted to. Did you know Redfern Deuce well?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 79

Perry: Yes. He was a young man who came into prominence later in the 1960s. Mrs. Simkins, she was a very strong-willed woman, brilliant, very demanding in her demeanor, unwilling to accept compromise and less than what she thought was proper under any circumstances. She viewed with a great deal of skepticism the activities and the efforts of those who sought compromise. The white persons who engaged in that process, she considered them as adopting something of a method of compromise that, in the long run, denied blacks the full measure of their constitutionally-protected rights. To those blacks who engaged in the process, she outwardly referred to them as Uncle Toms and sellouts. This was a favorite phrase of hers. She was highly critical of any black person who sat down in a spirit of civility and compromise with others whom she considered the white power structure. That's Mrs. Simkins. [laughter]

Moore: How do you judge her effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in the movement? Was she useful? Was she, for example, useful to you and Reverend Newman in that the power structure saw that they had better deal with Newman and you, or they'd have to hear more from Mrs. Simkins?

Perry: I'm not certain that I can give a meaningful answer to that. Let me make the effort. I was a great admirer of Mrs. Simkins. I admired her intellect. I admired her determination, her tenacity. And yet, I came to realize that one had to go on and try and deal with the problems that beset our state and our communities through the use of whatever approaches might bring about meaningful change. Often times, these included developing pleasant dialogue. It included coming to know, and becoming friendly with people. Indeed, there can be no real progress, in terms of human relations, unless people come to know each other, and therefore learn to trust each other, and become comfortable in the presence of each other. I am convinced of that now. I have always been convinced of that. We have come through periods during the past thirty-four years, during which we utilized approaches that involved dealing with people of different racial backgrounds in civil terms, and learning to trust and to be comfortable in the presence of each other. At one and the same time, we had to challenge in the courts the existence of laws that many of these same people defended. Therefore, I could go into communities all over the state and handle lawsuits that were designed to break down racial barriers that state senators, mayors, governors, other public officials stood South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 80

fast in protecting. The state chief of law enforcement was there. His job, he said, was to maintain law and order. But the maintenance of law and order included protecting against intrusion into certain areas. An example is that when blacks attempted to enter, let's say, Sesquicentennial Park out here, it was the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, headed by Chief Strom, who literally erected a barrier to their entry, and who threatened them with arrest. Yet I came to know Chief Strom, and developed a splendid working relationship with him. Likewise with the attorney general of South Carolina.

Moore: Dan McLeod?

Perry: Yes. His function was to protect against our lawsuits. Yet we were able to sit down and engage in dialogue that attests to our mutual respect, in professional terms, for each other.

Moore: So you managed to sue the bastard without calling him a bastard?

Perry: [laughter] A very apt observation. [laughter]

Moore: It is amazing to me, the amount of civility that you were able to maintain about all this. Through your personal confidence and manner of dealing with these matters, you managed to gain the respect of these people whom you were going up against every day in the court.

Perry: I think that was the way to do it. On another note, just the other day, the state bar found a young black woman who aspires to be a circuit judge not qualified. Oddly, they observed that she is an able lawyer who gives vigorous and competent representation to her clients. Now, what higher compliment can you give a lawyer than that? However, they said that many lawyers who were interviewed find her unnecessarily confrontational on occasion. In some instances, she interjects race into a conversation where the matter under consideration or discussion does not involve race. I regretted that for her very much. I have urged her not to let it get her down, and to simply hang tough. I said, "You know, the cases I handled during my career were not designed to win friends and influence people." South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 81

However, oddly, when the time came, when I was proposed as a judge, first to the United States Court of Military Appeals, and later, as a judge on this court, many of the very people that I had fought over the years sent in letters praising me professionally. Perhaps it comes from the fact that I dealt with them in civil terms, and remained what they have later termed a gentleman at all times. I didn't curse them out. That would have been the style that Mrs. Simkins would have preferred. Mrs. Simkins, on the whole, spoke in glowing terms of me, I learned. Never to my face. But at the same time, she for some reason hated Reverend Newman. I never knew why. I hate to attribute to her jealousy. Newman rose to a point of prominence, and gave what I considered wise, intelligent leadership to the aims and aspirations of the black community. In his role as president of the state NAACP, and later as the state executive director, I thought he performed well. It was during this period that I learned that she was most critical of him. She classified him as an Uncle Tom. He believed in being civil in his discourse. He could take the podium and speak forthrightly, also.

Moore: And get people into the streets if necessary.

Perry: He certainly could. I just never understood it. Perhaps you cannot understand everything about people. Coming back to your basic question about what I thought of her, I thought very highly of her as a dedicated woman. She was uncompromising in her style and manner. I had to believe that she kept a sense of consciousness alive within the black community, and indeed, within the white community, concerning what she thought they ought to be about. Even though she did not gain any measure of acceptance in the public mind, certainly not among officials, perhaps not until her last days or until her death, I believe that there came a time when most people began calling her the matriarch of the civil rights community. Now her portrait hangs in the State House.

Moore: What did you consider the highest priority of the NAACP in the sixties? Was it desegregation of the schools, or was it desegregation of public facilities? Did that priority change from time to time? Did you or the NAACP consider the schools to be the central thing, if you got that, you would have won the battle? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 82

Perry: I'm not certain that it's possible to say. Racial practices that barred blacks from attending public schools and colleges, and other public institutions, was considered odious to us. When I say "us," whom am I talking about? Certainly I'm speaking of young black people, such as I, who had been away in the army, and had engaged in a war. But also, one has to look at what was focused upon nationally by the leadership. Here, the kind of leadership I'm focusing upon is, say, the national board of the NAACP, which focused its attention during the period of the early 1950s, when I began to become involved, on abolishing legally enforced racial segregation, first in the schools. That's where it first directed itself. After those cases were decided in 1954, we filed numerous lawsuits around the country, and here in South Carolina particularly, seeking to desegregate elementary and secondary schools, as well as the state universities. Then we turned our attention to the matter of desegregating our state parks and playgrounds. We filed these lawsuits in the very early 1960s. The first suit I brought was the Charleston golf course case. Let's say I cut my teeth on that. Then when I got involved in the one on the state park system, this is my second effort, and I'm ready to go. We began in South Carolina to focus our attention upon everything that black citizens considered a barrier to their progress. Their ability, for example, to attend schools without regard to race. Their ability to go to theaters. It was not until 1964 that the Civil Rights Act came about to give the right to go into theaters and other places of public accommodations. Those that were controlled by state authorities we were attacking already.

Moore: The sit-ins of the early sixties was also attacking the public facilities, lunch counters, theaters, that sort of thing. You were defending those people. It's almost like the NAACP was thrown into that position as defender of those people. The suits that you brought tended to be against government facilities and schools.

Perry: We were called upon to defend the students. This was the grass roots within the black community, manifested principally by the students, joining with adults of varying levels, engaging in racial protests, including sit-ins, wade-ins, and all of this kind of activity. We lawyers found ourselves defending people in many situations that we had nothing to do with, in South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 83

terms of planning them at the outset. We had to run and catch up. [laughter] Some feel that we rose to the occasion. Happily, they gave us good cases to deal with.

Moore: Whites often talked about outside agitators. You're talking about the grass roots here. Is there any justification for whites thinking, "Well, it's outside agitators. Our Negroes are good Negroes, and are satisfied with their status"?

Perry: I don't think there is really a great deal of justification for it. One has to certainly acknowledge that nationally, there were people who did not live right here in South Carolina, who spoke to concerns that South Carolina blacks agreed with. When a man like Walter White, and later, Roy Wilkins, would come into South Carolina, and when the legal team would come in, sure, they were outsiders. But they were speaking to things that we here in South Carolina readily embraced. In many instances, these so-called outsiders spelled out methods that we found perfect to our needs. To say that we here in South Carolina did not want to be free, that we were satisfied with water fountains that designated the water fountain you could drink from because of your race, or a restroom that you could not go into because of your race, no. This was never anything that the local blacks loved. We desperately wanted to rid ourselves of these practices. The fact that we sometimes found ourselves applauding the rhetoric of outside people in this regard does not mean that they convinced us that these practices were wrong. We knew it all the time. At first, we didn't know what to do about it. I, as a young man growing up, grew into a realization that certain practices were wrong. I did not, at first, perceive any method of dealing with it. But that does not mean that I was not offended by it. Oh, I tell you, as a young man, and during my early teens, I was very much offended by practices that required my exclusion from certain aspects of public life, and the realization that I was powerless to do anything about it.

Moore: You didn't know how to get a handle on the power to change it.

Perry: There you are. It didn't take an outside agitator to get me. [laughter] It's true that people do respond to enthusiasm. So when a Roy Wilkins came into town, or when Billy Days or Walter White came, they would come in and take the podium at the Township Auditorium, or South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 84

in some church. People would respond. Sure, we loved it. But that didn't mean that they brought the level of dissatisfaction with them. They helped us articulate our displeasure. To describe the manner in which South Carolina blacks began to act as the product of outside agitation ignores the fact that we didn't like it to start with.

Moore: Such a statement as that, that it all came from outside agitators, stems from something they wanted to believe. Their servant at home told them that.

Perry: Yes. In many instances their servants would tell them things like that, what they thought they wanted to hear.

Moore: Would you try to recall for me the progress in desegregation of schools in the 1960s? What was happening, how slow or how fast it was, and what breakthroughs there might have been at particular times?

Perry: After the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board, and the re-argument of the cases which came in 1955, there was re-argument of the Clarendon case [Briggs v. Elliott] here in Columbia. Thurgood Marshall and others came in. I was then a young lawyer still practicing law up at Spartanburg, but I was vitally interested in what was going on. I had gone to the Supreme Court and heard Marshall argue. I went to a meeting of the state NAACP and there was an assemblage of lawyers from all over South Carolina. Thurgood Marshall and Bob Carter came. There were discussions about the filing of petitions before school boards around the state, asking the governing bodies of school boards at the local district level to now obey the mandate of the court.

Moore: Would this have been about 1956, then?

Perry: About 1956, we began having these meetings. At the same time, three new lawsuits were filed, and I became one of the lawyers in those lawsuits in Clarendon County. Briggs v. Elliott, which was one of the five cases that later were combined under the lead case of Brown v. Board of Education, was filed against the Summerton school district. Clarendon South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 85

County had twenty or more school districts. During the pendency of these cases, the legislature of South Carolina reconstituted the Clarendon County school districts so that the original district that was sued in Briggs v. Elliott was no longer in existence. They knew they had a trump card whenever the case came back. There was really no defendant capable of doing what the court was going to order it to do.

Moore: The legislature did that?

Perry: You had a joint legislative committee, headed by Senator Gressette. The Gressette Committee was ever at work, formulating approaches intended to thwart the efforts of the black plaintiffs. They formed three new school districts in Clarendon County. The citizens considered that if they wanted compliance, they had to sue those three new districts. Harold Boulware, who had associated with Thurgood Marshall in the filing of the first lawsuit, by now had come to a point where, for reasons that I am not sure that I am. . . .

[Tape 6, Side 2 begins]

Perry: . . . . I was not a part of the state leadership structure.

Moore: Of the NAACP?

Perry: That's right. I was an outside observer. But for some reason, Mr. Boulware pulled back, and did not participate further. He was a lawyer in Briggs v. Elliott. Now we had to file three new lawsuits. Mr. Hinton, who was the state president of the NAACP, chose my partner Lincoln Jenkins to associate with Thurgood Marshall in the drafting of the three new lawsuits. I was included as one of the lawyers. We filed this one around 1956. Lincoln Jenkins served as the state chairman for about a year or two.

Moore: Of the legal committee? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 86

Perry: Yes. During Mr. Hinton's last year as the state president.

Moore: He was not yet your partner?

Perry: No. I was still in Spartanburg. But, he and I were boyhood friends, and we commiserated with each other. Naturally, he included me in this suit, and also in the suit Sarah Mae Flemming Brown v. the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, which I've already told you preceded Browder v. Gayle, decided by the Supreme Court after the Montgomery lawsuit that catapulted Dr. King into prominence.

Moore: Your earlier case didn't make the headlines.

Perry: That's right, because ours didn't go to the Supreme Court. But we won. [laughter] We won at the Fourth Circuit level. Ours did not produce a massive boycott, and it did not have a Rosa Parks. Martin Luther King, nobody can take anything away from his eloquence and the style with which he and others led the Montgomery effort. That was something that we all looked to with a great deal of admiration and pride. It's just that ours got shoved into the background, and we got no credit. [laughter] Remember, we were not doing it to be recognized. It's just that when we reflect back now, we're able to chuckle over the fact. [laughter] I assure you, we did nothing for recognition. We did it out of dedication and out of a sincere desire to bring about what we considered necessary change.

Moore: We were working through the progress of school desegregation.

Perry: So we filed those three lawsuits. Those suits were pending in the courts. This was in 1956. Mr. Hinton had decided not to serve any longer as state president. I don't know whether he decided that, or whether the group made the decision for him. They elected Reverend I. DeQuincey Newman as state president. Reverend Newman's first act as brand new state president was to call me and say, "Counselor, I'd like to name you the chairman of our state South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 87

legal committee." He and I had come to know each other. I first met him when I was a law student in Orangeburg.

Moore: He was a minister there?

Perry: He was a minister at Trinity Methodist Church. Newman remodeled that church into its present state. The present edifice was a product of I. DeQuincey's stewardship as a minister. Later, when he left there, they made him a district superintendent over Sumter. I was now a young practicing lawyer. He and Fred James and all of them got sued by ------in that libel suit. I went over there with Lincoln Jenkins to defend them. He had come to know me over the years. When he was elected state president, he appointed me as state chairman. Lincoln had served the last year of Mr. Hinton's tenure, and now here Newman appoints me. He and I just sort of kept working together and later joined in a law firm together. Having already filed those three Clarendon County suits, now we are getting more suits. We got the Charleston district. We filed that one, and we filed the Sumter district lawsuit, the Greenville district lawsuit, the Orangeburg district lawsuit, and the Darlington lawsuit. We filed several more around the state. Gradually, we fashioned those cases and worked them up to trial. The first one that went to trial was the Charleston case. We tried it here in the federal court in Columbia. It was quite a trial. We went to trial before Judge Martin, and we won. The plaintiff, Millicent Brown, was the daughter of J. Arthur Brown, then the state president of the NAACP. She, her sisters, and other children of that community were ordered in. Then we got the decision in the Greenville case and in the Orangeburg case. All of these started coming together. The cases actually went to trial in the early sixties. We had already gotten judgment in the new Clarendon County case. There was never any meaningful desegregation in Clarendon County. There was some, particularly the schools at Manning. But at Seneca, the whites abandoned the schools and went to private schools.

Moore: The Charleston case then was the first to go to trial.

Perry: There's no question that the first meaningful trial we had was concerning the Charleston case. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 88

Moore: My recollection is that that was the first court-ordered desegregation. All these were won at the district level, right? They didn't have to be appealed.

Perry: That's correct. Judge Martin assigned most of them to himself. Later, he permitted Judge [Robert] Hemphill and Judge [Charles] Simons to take one or two. He was assigned the principal cases. He was a bulldog of a fellow.

Moore: He simply applied the Supreme Court's ruling?

Perry: That's correct. I recall a case down at Swansea. The district had decided on its own to close the black schools and send the black students to a white school in -----. Because of the opposition of some citizens, the school board reversed itself in the month of August, just before the beginning of the school term. They sent letters to all of the parents of all the black kids, saying "Your children will return to such and such formerly black school on the first day of school." That's when the case was brought to me. This action occurred the week before the beginning of the school term. The board made its decision on the Wednesday before the Monday on which the school was to open. I got the people to authorize me to bring the lawsuit. I began drafting the lawsuit. On Friday morning, I called Judge Martin to tell him I was filing this lawsuit because of the action that had been taken. I stated that I would need an immediate hearing on a motion for a restraining order. I wondered if he could set it for me. It so happens that he had been appointed by the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit to go to West Virginia to try the then-governor of West Virginia, who was on trial for bribery. He was getting ready to leave the state, so he said, "I'll assign you to one of the other judges, and I'll call you back and let you know. When will you have the suit ready?" I said, "I plan to have it ready later today." He called me back that afternoon to say that Judge Simons was going to hear me, but that he would not be available until Saturday, and that I should call Judge Simons and arrange an appointment with him. He said, "You don't want to do it. But he's a federal judge, too." [laughter] "I think he'll take care of you, but if he doesn't, you know what to do," meaning appeal it. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 89

I called Judge Simons. Judge Simons is a great golfer. He spends a lot of his time on the golf course. He told me he would be home on Saturday afternoon, and that I might come to his home. I went to Aiken and tried to find his house myself. I couldn't find it, and I had to hire a taxi to lead me to his house. He reluctantly signed the order, giving me a temporary restraining order against what the Lexington board was attempting to do. We had several skirmishes of that sort. The Richland District One schools desegregated without our suing them. We had gotten court judgments against Charleston, Greenville, and Sumter, and we were getting ready to sue Richland One. Why we had not sued Richland One already, I cannot now tell you. But we were getting ready to do it. It may very well be that this friendly committee that you and I have been talking about put its best efforts behind it, and persuaded them to do it. I don't know that to be the fact, but I suggest to you that they did it without our suing them, so I'm left to conclude that they came to a decision that the inevitable was about to occur.

Moore: I may be wrong, but wasn't Bob Davis involved?

Perry: Bob Davis was very much involved.

Moore: Wasn't he on the board?

Perry: He might have been. I know he was very much involved in the affairs. The kinds of things that I said about Lester Bates, Bob Davis was very much involved.

Moore: Most of this desegregation that you're talking about now, in the early sixties, was what we call freedom of choice. Is that correct? We were not yet pairing schools.

Perry: These were not paired schools. These were just people who sued to get in. The decrees that we won from the court enjoined the school officials from maintaining racially separate schools. At the same time, these decrees abolished the practice of maintaining racially separate schools. Where statutes were involved, the decrees declared them unconstitutional. It required that the plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, be admitted without regard for their race or color. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 90

Moore: This left the initiative in the hands of the people who were least able to effect the change.

Perry: Yes, it did.

Moore: It left all the burden on the black plaintiffs. Even when you got a judgment of others similarly situated, they would have to provide their own transportation if they chose to go to a school that was away from their home.

Perry: That's correct.

Moore: So the freedom of choice concept was rather slow in bringing much effective desegregation. Is that inaccurate?

Perry: I think you're correct. And yet, you look at schools like [Dreher?] and A.C. Flora. I don't know about the old Columbia High School.

Moore: I'm very interested in your helping me understand some of the feelings in the black community that, here they were, getting into some of the white institutions, and yet, the black institutions were being scuttled, and they were losing what some people considered a valuable heritage.

Perry: This was not looked upon with favor in the black community. It was nevertheless done. The closing of Booker Washington [High School] was not a happy time for black people. Many of us had come through Booker Washington. I'm a graduate of that institution. I have many fond memories of my days as a student at Booker Washington. Annually now, we have a coming together of the people under the umbrella of what is now known as the Booker T. Washington Foundation. They encourage various classes to have reunions. My class was the class of 1939. We have only had a couple of reunions, but we had one grandiose one. Our first reunion was held on the fiftieth year of our graduation. Many of those who were still living South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 91

attended. It was just great to see them. We were able to reminisce, and to reflect upon the kind of atmosphere that we were nurtured in at Booker Washington, at a time when, by law, the schools were racially segregated. We had a principal and a faculty that strived to give us a good education.

Moore: With desegregation, because of the way the white power structure did it, there are some losses of institutions like Booker Washington.

Perry: Yes.

Moore: Instead of half the student body as white students. . . .

Perry: They did that at first.

Moore: It always seemed such a tragedy to me that it was considered okay, once the law required blacks to go to white schools, that there was no way whites were going to send white kids to black schools.

Perry: They did for a while. I believe Booker Washington is a victim to the expanding University of South Carolina.

Moore: Rather than desegregation?

Perry: I believe so.

Moore: That certainly was a factor.

Perry: You look at the building that has the profile of [USC football star] George Rogers on the side of it. That building was built as the gymnasium. I think it had a part in it with some classrooms. I remember it very well. It's the last remnants of Booker Washington.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 92

Moore: I wonder from the perspective of the nineties what your judgment is about the process of desegregation and the results of it. I think there are some people now who tend to say, "Was it all worth it? We have some re-segregated schools. It hasn't perfected our educational system."

Perry: That's a widespread thought.

Moore: What sort of judgment do you make upon where we are, and whether the process went wrong, or whether we did about as well as we could do?

Perry: I think that, to the extent that there was a feeling that you couldn't get a good education in a black-only school, many people have come to reject that as a principle. On the other hand, it was entirely proper that the laws that required racially separate schools be attacked. I think that was entirely proper. I'm firmly convinced that that was the right thing to do. Those who feel that some people thrive better in some settings than they do in other settings have a great deal of logic behind what they are saying. I look at various young people in this society who, in many instances, are not able to adapt in cultural settings that are different from their own. This does not mean that I would lock them in to any particular setting. On the other hand, I think that if they want to go to one that they are more comfortable in, why, perhaps they ought to have that opportunity. We look at the effort at maintaining the black college. For example, I'd hate for them to scuttle South Carolina State. And yet, I applaud the fact that you can either go to South Carolina State, or the University of South Carolina, or Clemson. I guess there are many ways of looking at it. I'm not an educator, and therefore I don't profess to have the answers. There is a great dispute going on right now, over whether women ought to be permitted to go to a school [The Citadel] that has been a last bastion of the males.

Moore: And some of these issues are the same?

Perry: Yes. They are the same. They're trying to make them different. They're trying to say that a stricter scrutiny needs now to be given, that there are some basic values in same-sex environments that were not present when you considered the racial content. [laughter] South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 93

Moore: We've talked about a number of cases. What do you consider your biggest case?

Perry: The biggest in terms of the impact that they had on our community?

Moore: Yes.

Perry: During I. DeQuincey Newman's dying days, I sat down next to his bed, and he and I had a conversation somewhat like this. We agreed that breaking the racial barriers that prohibited blacks from entering our higher educational institutions was necessary. We undoubtedly made, we believe, a great contribution to our state in breaking those barriers. Similarly, we think that we had to break down the racial barriers against the same practices in our secondary and elementary schools. We think that it was necessary to reapportion the South Carolina House of Representatives into single-member districts. I handled that suit. Prior to that lawsuit, you had multi-member districts. A county such as Richland, for example, had ten or eleven representatives. All of those representatives were elected at-large. Blacks simply could not get elected. The white population had not shown any inclination to give a majority of its votes to a black candidate. This was true all over the state. This was why we brought the lawsuit, Stevenson v. West. It resulted in the reapportionment of our state House of Representatives into single-member districts.

Moore: That was during the seventies, right?

Perry: Yes.

Moore: When West was governor?

Perry: That's right. That was an important lawsuit. An important lawsuit was Brown v. The South Carolina Board of Education. J. Arthur Brown, South Carolina State president, vs. the state board of education, and the state treasurer, and other officials. Perhaps you will recall that South Carolina decided to give tuition grants to the parents of the children who desired to South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 94

send their children to private, non-sectarian schools. This was an effort at maintaining racially separate schools. Here was an item of legislation that permitted the state treasurer to give to any parent a sum of money sufficient to pay the tuition for that child to attend a private school. We brought a lawsuit, and the court enjoined the operation of that statute. That was a great contribution. We think we saved the public schools of South Carolina through that lawsuit.

Moore: Was that won at the district level?

Perry: Yes. On his dying bed, reflecting this same kind of a question, I. DeQuincey Newman expressed the view that Edwards v. South Carolina was one of our biggest victories. This one was the 187 people who marched around the State House grounds protesting the existence of laws that limited the exercise of rights by black citizens. The Edwards people were convicted of the common-law crime of disturbing the peace. We handled those cases, and ultimately we won reversals in the United States Supreme Court. I'm very proud that Edwards v. South Carolina was one of the prime First Amendment cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. On the basis of that opinion, the convictions of the 370 people who were convicted in Orangeburg were reversed. So were the convictions of the 65 people in the Rock Hill case. So were the Charleston cases. Many of the others were reversed on the basis of Edwards. Many cases around the rest of the United States were reversed as a result of the precedent that we set. It was a very important case. I don't know that I can come up with anything more moving than those cases. I think we established a record that we were proud of. It got to a place where, when we'd show up, or when it was known that we were coming, things livened up. In some instances, people turned around and relented, and did what we would have tried to have a court enjoin them to do. We won many victories simply by focusing our attention upon a problem. In many instances we'd write a letter or otherwise express an interest in a matter. For example, black lawyers were not members of the South Carolina bar.

Moore: Tell me that story.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 95

Perry: I let them know that I was ready to bring a lawsuit to have the practice dealt with. Indeed, we were going to sue. A then-newly elected president of the State Bar called me. He said, "Perry, I understand you're getting ready to sue us. I guess I can't blame you. I'm the new president, and I want to do something about this. Will you give me some time? Hold off your lawsuit. Let me work it out." I said, "Sure, I'd be glad to." He said, "If you give me six months, I believe I can do it." I discussed it with my lawyer colleagues, and we said, "Sure." It would take us six months, easily, to get the lawsuit. [laughter] He did it. I think that our reputation as lawyers capable of producing victories in the court got us that without having to sue. That happened with respect to many things around the state, after we established a record of winning.

Moore: A lot of that simply goes unrecorded.

Perry: That's right. An example can be seen when we went to Charleston. Early in the civil rights movement, I was down there to represent some young people who sat-in at Kress' five and dime. This would have been in the early sixties. Young Harvey Gantt was one of the people I was there to represent. When I went into the Charleston Municipal Court, it was jam- packed with black and white citizens. All of the blacks were sitting on one side, and all the whites were sitting on the other side. The water fountains were for colored or white only. There were signs in the courtroom indicating where the colored and the whites were to sit. When I went into the courtroom, the judge hadn't come out yet. I said to the attorney ------, who was later, and is now, a great friend of mine ------. He immediately appreciated what I was doing. He said, "Young man, don't make a motion about it. Let me do it. Let's tell the judge that we're not ready to try this case. Give me ten days. We'll reschedule it, and come back, and I promise you the signs won't be there." The judge came out and went through the process. He made the motion that were some logistical matters, and so the case was continued for x number of days, I believe ten days. It might have been two weeks. I went out; I conferred with all of my people. I said, "When we come back two weeks from now, and sit in that courtroom, the signs are not going to be there. I want you to disperse yourselves all over the place." We were able to accomplish things like that because we had, by then, developed a record of winning. Also, the people with whom we dealt had come to have some professional regard for us. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 96

[Tape 6 ends. Tape 7 begins]

Moore: I know that politics is not your field. It's not the heart of what you thought about most of your career. But you knew something of what was happening politically in the sixties, and of course, you were involved in getting more thorough rights to vote on the part of blacks. That brought a profound change in the political system in South Carolina, and in Richland County. I wonder if you can help me understand how the Democratic Party machine operated in Richland County after the Voting Rights Act was passed. How did Boss [Tom] Elliott turn out the troops in an election?

Perry: I was never active in Richland County politics as such. On the other hand, as a citizen of Columbia, I was very much interested in what was going on politically, and I was a voter. I attended voting rallies and this kind of thing. But, as far as the manner in which a given political leader went about accomplishing his purposes, I cannot say that I was privy to them. I never worked closely with Mr. Elliott, for example. I knew him when he was county treasurer. I knew him in that regard. I did not interact with him in his political role in the community. I am aware of the fact that he was very active in the community. I wonder if I couldn't put it in another context in this regard. Perhaps we've already observed, and I know that you are aware, that before Smith v. Allwright was decided in about 1944, most blacks who were politically active were Republicans. Some considered themselves Democrats, but they were not permitted to vote in the Democratic primary, which was limited to white participants. It was the white primary. After Smith v. Allwright, which outlawed the Texas white primary, was decided by the United States Supreme Court, a lawsuit was filed in South Carolina on behalf of a black plaintiff named Elmore against the then-chairman of the party, a man named Rice. I've already observed that I sat and heard that case tried. It was presided over by Judge J. Waties Waring. He made his decision in obedience to the Smith v. Allwright decision, and enjoined South Carolina officials from refusing to permit black citizens to vote in the elections operated by the Democratic Party. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 97

As a young man just returned from my active duty as a soldier in World War II, I was called upon by Reverend Hinton and others to help go from door to door to register people, and to encourage them to come out and vote in the first election after the Elmore v. Rice decision was made. I think this is a good point to tell you something that, if I haven't already told you, I'll tell it to you again. Before I went to the army, during my first one or two years as a student at South Carolina State College, I had become a Young Republican.

Moore: No, you had not mentioned that. A Young Republican?

Perry: That's right. Remember, that was the only party that would accept us. I did so perhaps at the suggestion of someone who approached me as a student at the college. I didn't know the difference between the parties. I did know that one of them operated a primary election that I was not permitted to vote in. I therefore knew that, if I was to exercise my right as a citizen, that it had to be with another party. When I came back, here was this effort at breaking the white primary. I can't say that I was wedded to the other party. Nor was I wedded to this one. Here's where the meaningful activity was taking place, and so I aligned myself with the effort at encouraging people to come out and vote. Over the years, this was a gradual process, because many blacks continued to give their allegiance to the Republican Party. On the other hand, many of those same blacks came to realize that the only meaningful election was the Democratic primary. As blacks began to increase their numbers in Democratic Party affairs, county-wide and state-wide, many whites who harbored intense racial views resented the presence, the growing numbers of blacks in their midst. Many of them began to see other alternatives. 1948 did find Senator [Strom] Thurmond to be the president[ial candidate] under the states’ rights banner, which gave them an avenue for permitting their views. Many of those same people later turned to, and took over, the Republican Party. Many of the whites of that period had now voted for a states' rights ticket, the Dixiecrat ticket, as some people called it. Many of them became very critical of the national Democratic Party. President Truman in the 1948 election did not appeal to many of them. The convention that nominated General Eisenhower, wasn't that '52? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 98

Moore: '52.

Perry: Two delegations of South Carolinians went to San Francisco. I. DeQuincey Newman was a part of one delegation. A number of other prominent black South Carolinians were a part of that delegation. But another delegation went, and this delegation was made up of many of the same people I've been talking about, who were former Democrats. They went to San Francisco. There was a big contested activity before the credentials committee of the Republican convention. This group of white delegates prevailed. I didn't go. I only learned about it afterwards. A lawsuit resulted from it. That was the beginning of the takeover of whites, and when I say whites, I'm talking about the whites who harbored the anti-black sentiment, who took over the Republican Party, and pushed out many of these loyal Republicans who were black, such as I. DeQuincey Newman, Mr. I. S. Leevy, and many of the prominent blacks of that period who were lifelong Republicans. They took it over, and they began to develop the Republican Party as that party exists today. I don't know when J. Drake Edens became active in that effort.

Moore: I think 1960. Nixon brought him out in '60.

Perry: We were friends. We were certainly very pleasant acquaintances. He used to brag that he had seen my card as a Young Republican, and I guess he had. In fact, I've got it. I'll show it to you. [laughter]

Moore: You were a card-carrying Young Republican.

Perry: That's right. The Voting Rights law came about in 1965. Many of your high- profile blacks openly supported persons who were running on the Democratic ticket nationally. Many Democratic candidates for local office were not very open in their solicitation of support from the black community. They didn't want to alienate their white supporters. There was a lot of backdoor activity. Hence, in the black community, many people began circulating lists of ----- candidates. Reportedly, Tom Elliott would sponsor such a list. There were other people who South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 99

sponsored lists. I was aware of the existence of these lists. There were some people who didn't bother about making their own judgments about the worth of the candidates. They simply accepted one or the other person's views of who was the best person for them to vote for. In some instances, prominent ministers were known to carry great influence, certainly among those within their church. There were other high-profile blacks who were allegedly able to influence large numbers of people that this or the other of the candidates was who they should vote for. We had a growth of activity among blacks in the Democratic Party through the 1960s. In 1964 [Barry] Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president. The then-pending civil rights law was before Congress. Senator Goldwater announced that when it came to the floor, he was going to vote against it. I don't know of any single act by a national political figure that polarized the black community exactly like that announcement from Senator Goldwater did. Look at the election before that. The election before that was between Nixon and Kennedy. While it may be said that Kennedy got the majority of the black vote, Nixon got fully thirty-five percent or more of the black vote. So the black vote was not, by any means, the sole possession of the Democratic Party. Republicans still had great appeal, and presumably, a Republican candidate nationally who showed any willingness to align himself with the aims and aspirations of the black community undoubtedly would have gotten black support. Here was Senator Goldwater promising to vote against an item of pending legislation that was considered the most important breakthrough for black people this century. Nationally, blacks were mobilized en masse to vote against Goldwater. Johnson got an overwhelming boost in his re- election bid. Thereafter, you had a wholesale exodus of the old Dixiecrats who had continued to call themselves Democrats, who now openly became Republicans. Senator Thurmond left the Democratic Party and became a Republican. Albert Watson, then the congressman for this district, resigned his seat from the Congress, and ran for re-election as a Republican.

Moore: And won.

Perry: And won on these racist views. Many former Democrats now identified themselves. The Republican Party got a grandiose spurt of growth during this period. That's my South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 100

perception of the evolution of political activity, and the involvement of blacks in the various parties. I would say that up until the 1964 election, the Republicans had as much a chance of getting the black vote as did anybody. True, many high-profile blacks still identified themselves with the Democratic candidates, but the Democrats did not have a lock on it. I think after 1964 it'd be a little difficult. [laughter]

Moore: You mentioned the voting lists, or sometimes they'd call it the ticket.

Perry: That's right. [laughter]

Moore: The newspapers, and I think the Republicans, tended to call it this. I even heard Tom Elliott call it once the "controlled vote."

Perry: They might have. That is a perception held by some political leaders. It was a perception held by some newspaper editors and writers. It might have been a perception by some of the actual participants. It was nothing more than the fact that some people were so high- profile and had such an ability to command allegiance to whatever they thought. A Mr. Hinton, for example. James Hinton could simply get up before an audience, and through his own proclamation. . . [laughter] But not only him. A Modjeska Simkins could. They were by no means in lockstep.

Moore: Different tickets.

Perry: Different tickets. A Reverend Wilson, or A.P. Butler. There were people who, by reason of their high profile and elevated public positions or standings, were able to persuade fairly good-sized numbers of people to their points of view.

Moore: The newspaper editors in Columbia, and I think in Charleston, they were probably more insistent on this point of view. They were slightly more conservative in Charleston than in Columbia. They asserted that there was a good bit of money being exchanged here.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 101

Perry: I've heard that statement. In fact, I've heard Mrs. Simkins in a setting one evening hurl the allegation. She made the assertion that she had learned that a fifty-thousand-dollar payment had been placed in the hands of some ministers to deliver the black vote to such and such candidate. I never heard anything like that. I've heard that money described as "walking- around money" has been given to various persons, including some ministers and other people. Whether that is true, I frankly do not know. I honestly don't know. But I've certainly heard it. It is true that some people in the black community have been known to become very active around election time. That gives evidence to the fact that something is motivating them.

Moore: There are legitimate reasons for "walking-around money," and illegitimate reasons for it, I suppose. Using money to hire taxi cabs for people seems to me a legitimate use of campaign funds.

Perry: Mr. Hinton did that. After Elmore v. Rice was decided, we were urging people to register to vote and to come out to vote. The Blue Ribbon Taxi Cab was given money to ride around and pick up people to take them to the polls. But it wasn't for any particular candidate, or at least not to my knowledge. I don't doubt that Mr. Hinton favored a candidate or disfavored a candidate. If he disfavored a candidate, boy, you sure knew about it. Or if Mrs. Simkins felt that somebody was no good, she let you know that. If the net effect of it was to turn your vote to the other person, so be it.

Moore: I would be interested in hearing your comments on South Carolina governors of the fifties and sixties, and into the seventies, particularly your view of how each of them helped or hindered the movement for civil rights. We begin with Jimmy Byrnes, 1951-1955.

Perry: Governor Byrnes came back into South Carolina, having served as a Supreme Court Justice. He came back into South Carolina and advocated an increased sales tax.

Moore: He inaugurated the sales tax.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 102

Perry: Yes. He inaugurated the sales tax. His theory was that South Carolina needed to improve all of the schools, but especially the schools for the black children. This had a great sound to it. There's no question he was by no means a man who favored the abolition of the racially separate concept. On the other hand, he undoubtedly knew that one of the major complaints of blacks was the inadequacies of the school facilities in the black community. Through his espousal of the sales tax, I think it can be said that he planted some seeds of progress for the physical improvement of school facilities. Beyond that, I don't think it can be said that he made a discernable impact upon the racial climate of South Carolina. He presented a somewhat more polished image than his predecessors. He had a more worldly appearance. He was able to speak from the standpoint of having occupied high national office. He was able to speak well, in terms that were somewhat more attractive and made him sound more palatable than some of his predecessors. But he had no other impact than to plant the seed in the form of the sales tax to create more money for public education. Let me hasten to say that that was a much-needed thing.

Moore: He was succeeded by [George Bell] Timmerman, 1955-1959.

Perry: Governor Timmerman was the son of a federal judge. He made no contribution to the dialogue. I later came to know him, and he became a circuit judge of the United States. He seemed to have been a pleasant enough gentleman, but as a governor—as far as I, a member of the public, was concerned, I was not impressed that he took any action that is considered as advancing the racial climate in the state. I can tell you that I regard him more kindly than I do his father, the federal judge. During that period, there were investigations at South Carolina State over the presence of the communist influence at Allen and Benedict. He certainly did not contribute to the good of our climate.

Moore: And Hollings, 1959-1963?

Perry: Hollings was a young governor who was, in my view, more enlightened, and who was more ambitious. He was governor during the period of the beginnings of the civil rights movement. He was governor when the student protests got underway. Before he became South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 103

governor, he had been practicing law in Charleston, and had taken part in the defense of Clarendon County in Briggs v. Elliott, went to the Supreme Court, sat there while the case was argued. He didn't argue it; Robert Figg argued it, as did John Davis of New York. Fritz had some familiarity with the major players, and sort of grew up professionally watching some of what was going on. As a governor, he came to recognize the inevitability of social change. He was governor when we won for Harvey Gantt the right to enter Clemson. He made that now-famous speech as he was leaving office, admonishing the people of South Carolina that South Carolina was fast running out of courts, and South Carolinians should reveal themselves as law-abiding citizens, obey the law, and not allow any conduct similar to that that had occurred some months earlier in Oxford, Mississippi. That was a powerful speech. I think that it went a long way to creating an atmosphere in our state that was beneficial. Fritz has always been a reckless speaker. He's been a fellow who generally opens his mouth first, and then, while he engages his lips to speak, starts to think about what he's going to say. [laughter] He made a statement when we were down at Orangeburg defending the students, that was the 370-something people that got arrested. He was critical of the students. He was critical of those who had stirred the students up. In classical Fritz Hollings style, he said to the news media that "hot-headed teachers and ten-cent lawyers" were not going to run South Carolina, or words to that effect. Lincoln Jenkins, my law partner, when asked about it, said "We're not going to let any ten-cent governors deprive our clients of their constitutional rights." [laughter] That was our introduction to Fritz Hollings. I thereafter came to meet him personally and came to know him. After he left the governor's office, he practiced law for a while. I was with Reverend Newman, and we went to his office to suggest that, in our view, he would make a splendid United States Senator. I don't know how I got in that, but I found myself among the group. Sure enough, he ran for senator and got elected.

Moore: His successor, Governor Russell, was in for only half a term.

Perry: That's right. He took the unexpired term of Olin Johnston. When Olin Johnston died, Russell got his lieutenant governor Bob McNair. The two of them talked about it, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 104

undoubtedly, and decided that Russell would resign the governor's office, and McNair would become governor, and would immediately appoint Russell to the unexpired term of Olin Johnston, which he did. Russell served very briefly. Russell did an amazing thing. For the first time ever, a newly-elected governor of South Carolina opened up the governor's mansion, and invited all the citizens to the grandiose reception. This man was publicly giving evidence that he was moderate and considered himself the governor of all of the people. Judge Russell was a brilliant man. His great intellect displayed itself.

Moore: I think you've given him some commendation on his actions in the Gantt case, which occurred within two or three weeks after he became governor.

Perry: That's correct. He was very much a part of the setting of the stage for Gantt to enter Clemson. With the power of the governor's office used in that fashion, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and the highway patrols were able to perform. They were active under the direction of the governor.

Moore: What about his successor, McNair, who served one and a half terms?

Perry: Bob McNair was, in my view, a very progressive governor. Let me hasten to say that Bob McNair was governor, unfortunately, in 1968, when the students were killed at Orangeburg. He takes the blame for presiding, and for allowing an atmosphere among the law enforcement community to develop, that resulted in that unfortunate situation. Mrs. Simkins never forgave him. Many other members of the black community hold him responsible. I know him very well. I have high regards for him. He's a very able man. I happen to know that he regrets very much the events at Orangeburg.

Moore: He's expressed that to you?

Perry: Yes. I don't have the benefit of his view. He never told me his views on how it came about. But I happen to know he regrets it. I think if he were able to wave a wand and change one thing. . . . But he's marked by the history of that event. When a good mutual friend South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 105

inquired of me whether I thought he ought to allow his name to go in for something, I believe it might have been for senator, the question was whether, in my view, there would be opposition within the black community. I responded to this that I regretted to tell him that there would be. I happened to have known Mrs. Simkins' view. I said, "If you allow his name to go on, you have to be prepared to face much vocal opposition." I don't know whether my advice on that subject turned him around. That was my view. I was convinced that the bitterness that remained, that lingered in large segments in the black community against him prevailed. I must say that much of that bitterness was misplaced, unless you can say that through neglect he allowed the wrong people to be on hand. I don't believe that he affirmatively placed wheels in motion that caused it. To the extent that any blame can be laid at his feet, I think it came through neglect, and simply the belief that those in charge were capable of acting more responsibly.

Moore: I'd like to explore Orangeburg with you in more depth later. We can conclude with your views of John West, 1971-1974.

Perry: I think he was a superb governor. He actively sought to increase the presence of blacks in his administration and in state government. He's highly regarded as a man who made sincere efforts at making government more representative of all the people. He named Jim Clyburn to his position.

[End of Session 4. Session 5, January 23, 1996, Tape 8 begins]

Moore: At the end of our last session, you were talking about your assessment of the civil rights contributions, or lack thereof, of various governors. If there is anything else you have on your mind about that subject before we go on to others, now is the time.

Perry: I might have mentioned, and if I did not then mention, perhaps I ought now state, that the succession of governors with whom I interacted were desirous of the maintenance of order in South Carolina. I'm not going to attribute to any of them an attitude that favored what South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 106

we were doing. Some we felt we had greater reception with than others. On the whole, they were people who insisted upon the maintenance of law and order. To them, it meant that they were going to adhere to the law of South Carolina at that time. The law at that time was the maintenance of racial separation in our schools, in our public transportation, in our places of public accommodations. In large measure, they adhered to the wider custom and practice that prevailed throughout South Carolina with respect to the maintenance of a racially separate society, even in those areas that were not otherwise delineated by law. In making this statement, I invite the comparisons with some of the governors of other states. Governor [Orval] Faubus of Arkansas, Governor Barnett of Mississippi, Governor Wallace of Alabama, and the then-Governor of Georgia. In making the statements that I do about South Carolina governors, I'm inviting the comparison with the public displays that were made by the governors in those states, which, I feel, encouraged the lawless elements of those states to act in the manner in which they did. The public stance of South Carolina governors was that of discouraging the kinds of eruptions that we saw in those other states. In that respect, I speak of them in that regard. Some, as I have pointed out, were perhaps more moderate in their views. We were talking, for example, about Governor McNair. I came to know him very well, and I have a high regard for him. I know how he suffers the embarrassment of having had the killings of the students at Orangeburg to occur during the period of his stewardship. There were people in South Carolina who have never forgiven him for the fact that he was governor when it happened. Some of them later laid it at his feet. He was succeeded by Governor West, whom I observed as a man of moderate views and approaches, who actively sought to increase the presence of blacks in his administration and the state boards, and in public life in South Carolina. Bear in mind, the involvement of blacks in the political process had increased greatly, and undoubtedly, this act on the part of Governor West and others during that period is a direct reflection of the fact that blacks had become more involved. Let me say a word about Governor [James] Edwards [1975-1979]. He was the first Republican governor of recent memory, a very fine gentleman. I came to know him, and I don't know that there's anything that I can say specifically about his tenure that is at odds with what I've said about others. I feel that he falls right in with the string of governors to whom I give South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 107

credit for seeking to maintain a stance of order. It is true that these governors did not seek to lead South Carolina away from the kinds of racial practices that had existed over the years. Perhaps they were content with leaving the matter of bringing about social change to those of us who challenged the legality of certain racial practices and statutes that set forth certain classifications. It may very well be that they concluded that, for their own political good, it was better for them to simply observe, since it was obvious that we were on the move. Richard Riley [1979-1987] came in, and I have a very high regard for Governor Riley's stewardship. He was a very progressive governor, in terms of his public stance, his spoken words.

Moore: It was he that picked Milton Kimpson as one of his major deputies in the office of the governor, targeting health, education, and welfare.

Perry: Yes.

Moore: And then Governor [Carroll] Campbell [1987-1995].

Perry: When Governor Campbell was elected, I was already a federal judge, and never had an opportunity to interact with him, other than social settings. As governor, he invited all of the judges over to the governor's mansion once, in recognition of one of the judges of our court. It was a very generous act on his part. He was a gracious host. We all enjoyed the setting. I have met him on several other occasions, generally in social or ceremonial settings. He is affable and has generally given an impression that he is a gentleman, and that he seeks progress for the state.

Moore: Is it too early to comment on Governor [David] Beasley [1995-1999]?

Perry: Yes, a little early. I do note with a great deal of interest the fact that he has named a committee to study the status of race relations in our state. He has given public expression to his desire that, whatever the problems are, he would like his committee to come up with some approaches that might give some solutions. I note with a great deal of interest he went to the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 108

Palmetto Project's weekend in Myrtle Beach. I was not present when he appeared before the audience. He appeared before the audience on Friday evening. My son and I went down. We arrived near midnight, so this was after the governor's appearance. The following day, I learned that the governor had opened himself up to dialogue with members of the audience. Of course, one of the first questions to him concerned the flag on top of the State House.

Moore: The Confederate flag.

Perry: Yes. He reportedly became defensive, saying that the flag had stood for a lot of heritage, that it had a lot of value to the citizens of the state, and that he supported leaving it where it is. I guess I find it a little curious that a man who is the governor of an entire state, and who, by all accounts, has ambitions for the future. . . . he's a young man with his eye on as far as he might go. He's very active in the Republican Party. He's one of the young stars, nationally. There's no telling where he might eventually go, assuming those of like mind politically see fit to accommodate him. Why would a man like that not find it wise to say, "I've got a constituency here that is diversified. Fully one-third or more of them are black. The evidence is that most of them find that flag offensive. True, there are others among my majority constituency who find that it's a part of their heritage. Why shouldn't I find some agreeable way of dealing with this? Would everybody be satisfied, for example, were I to suggest to the General Assembly that we move the flag to some other place on the State House grounds, give it a proper status as a monument, along with other matters to which we, and various segments of our community, take pride, and leave the capitol dome to display, if at all, only the flags denoting our sovereignty, both of the United States, and of the state?" I can't see that that would injure him, that that would necessarily place him on either side of the controversy. It seems that that would be an act of statesmanship. [laughter] I do understand that the rhetoric has gotten so that he might now find it a little difficult. That doesn't mean he ought not to, because my sense is that the rhetoric is not going to subside.

Moore: What is your view as a black person, and your sense of how most of the black community feels, about the Confederate flag? What's wrong with the Confederate flag?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 109

Perry: I must say to you that I personally have not gotten my dander up over the flag. I do recognize that, while it may have different meanings to different people, while there may be people who do not see it as many black people see it, it is a fact that it was the flag that came into being during the period of the secession. South Carolina and other states separated themselves from the national body in a fight over the existence of slavery. Reportedly, there were other considerations that drove them apart, but you can't get away from the fact that slavery was a prime issue. Those of us whose ancestors were held in slavery want to get that part of history behind us. We do not look kindly upon any allocation of places of honor to that period of history that tried to keep us in bondage. Not all blacks describe it in those modest terms. [laughter] But I think that I capture the essence of the black objection. Add to that the fact that the flag was hoisted over the State House back in the sixties, right at the time when we were knocking down racial barriers in the courts. The flag was hoisted, some say on an anniversary [the centennial of the Civil War], but we say it was because we were then knocking at the door. It was put there as an expression to signal the opposition to what we were doing. Whether this is an accurate statement by me. . . . I was not there, I had nothing to do with it, I didn't talk with those who put it there. I'm certainly not in a position to state the reason it was put there. But I point to the fact that it was put there at a particular point in time. No matter what those who put it there were thinking, there's no doubt that there are people out there in the community, certainly those described by some as rednecks, who rally their racial views and are best called to action by the display of that flag. By the same token, blacks who identify the racial attitudes that are thus manifested, likewise are called to active state of resistance. So the flag sort of conjures up an emotional response that is counterproductive to meaningful progress along the lines of seeking racial calm. Lo and behold, now this past session of the General Assembly, by legislative act, they've got it there. Now it would take an act of the legislature to remove it. Prior to that time, the governor or some responsible group of legislators could have simply ordered it down. They could have done precisely what I and others urged Dr. Edwards to do at Clemson. It could have been done in the dark of night.

Moore: But would the tiger paw have worked over the State House?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 110

Perry: No. [laughter] The tiger paw would not have. I don't know that the press would have let the matter go.

Moore: But the point is, at an earlier time, it would have been easier to accommodate, because it wasn't frozen into law as it is now.

Perry: I applaud and tended more to identify myself with a statement which Mrs. Simkins made from time to time. When she was reacting to some of the fervent speeches of young blacks who want the flag down, she is known to have observed that "The flag ain't bothering a soul. You've got something better than that to blame. You've got things that you need to devote your energies to solve. You go ahead and do the things that you can do something about. Just don't even look at it. Don't even think about it. If those people want that thing to stay there, let them get up there and wrap themselves in it. You just go on." Mrs. Simkins had a unique way of expressing herself.

Moore: Yes. I've heard her express the same view. But others take symbols a little more seriously.

Perry: That's very true.

Moore: Symbols are powerful things, as you have indicated.

Perry: I think you can allow your antipathy towards what you regard as an adverse symptom to consume you to the point where you cannot devote your efforts constructively for the solution to things that are within your power. A friend of mine down in Alabama, this was a fellow in the Alabama legislature who was also a member of the NAACP national board at a time when I was still on the NAACP board. He and several black legislators down there let it be known they were going to physically remove the flag. Of course, the Alabama police got there. These fellows go up there, and confronted the police and everything. Their object was a publicity stunt. They knew they wouldn't be able to do it. They got themselves arrested, and the flag continued to fly. [laughter] South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 111

Moore: Turning from governors to other officials, I wonder if any mayors of South Carolina towns or cities come to mind as important, either in their support of civil rights, or in their opposition to civil rights.

Perry: Lester Bates, who was mayor of Columbia during a substantial period [1958- 1970], was generally regarded as a progressive person on the subject of race. His involvement in interracial committees, some possible members of which include Bob Davis, for example, and others. . . . I knew of its existence. I'm going to consider him as being a progressive person. There was a mayor of Greenville who was considered that progressive, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Moore: He had a quiet and calming effect at the time of the school transition. He was going to send his children to the public schools, and affected others to follow suit. I'm not sure of the man's name.

Perry: The mayor of Charleston [Palmer Gaillard]. The one before Joe Riley came into office. I'm having trouble remembering when Joe became mayor.

Moore: I think it's been about twenty-two years.

Perry: There was a mayor who had served as the mayor of Charleston for some years. If memory serves me correctly, he was given some appointment at or about the same time that I was nominated as a judge to the United States Court of Military Appeals. I was confirmed in '75. I took office in February of 1976. I was confirmed in December of '75. Somewhere thereabouts, the man who had been mayor of Charleston before Joe Riley was given some appointment, something that was a presidential appointment. [J. Palmer Gaillard, Jr., served as mayor of Charleston from 1959 until 1975, when he resigned to become deputy assistant secretary of the U. S. Navy for reserve affairs.]

Moore: Were there any newspapers that were supportive of the civil rights movement? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 112

Perry: There were newspapers which editorially accommodated us, and urged a general acceptance to the rule of law. There were two newspapers in Charleston. The Charleston News and Courier, the morning newspaper, whose editorial staff was not favorable. Then Charleston had an afternoon paper, the Evening Post. Its editorial staff had a healthy accommodation of us. The Charleston News and Courier had some reporters who covered me very well. There was a reporter named Hugh Gibson who handled their government affairs role. He stayed here in Columbia for the most part. He covered my handling of litigation, and he covered many of the activities of the civil rights movement in a dispassionate, and, I might add, an objective and fair manner. I generally felt I was in good hands if Hugh was reporting about the event, not only because he came to look upon me with a certain level of favor. For example, he labeled me the NAACP's legal ace. [laughter] Even before he began referring to me in that fashion, I had come to feel that his reporting was fair. You see, not all reporters treated us fairly. Some literally labeled us as communists. Let's take a look at The State. In general, it all depended on what reporter got a hold of you. Jack Bass came on the scene and reported for a while with the Charlotte Observer, didn't he?

Moore: Yes.

Perry: Didn't he also sometimes report for The State?

Moore: He did, and then went to the Charlotte Observer.

Perry: Anytime Jack was reporting, I knew I was in good hands. Then Charlie Wickenberg would report. You knew that you had a solid journalist who was objective and who gave a fair report of what he saw. Now the same newspaper would put some other bird on you. [laughter] Did Anne Marshall report for The State or the Columbia Record?

Moore: I'm not sure.

Perry: Do you remember her? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 113

Moore: Yes, I do.

Perry: I tell you, Ms. Marshall was not a favorite. [laughter] I didn't like it at all when I saw her covering the event. [laughter] The Greenville newspapers, there was the morning paper, the Greenville News, and then there was the afternoon paper. The Greenville newspapers were generally responsibly reported. And, editorially, they did all right. Mr. McKinney, who was once the chief editor, his daughter Rita McKinney was my first law clerk. [laughter] The Morning News. You remember Mr. [James] Rogers?

Moore: Yes.

Perry: I would say that we got pretty fair treatment, certainly editorially, when Mr. Rogers had a hand in it. Not every reporter out on the beat gave you a fair treatment. Other newspapers like the Orangeburg Times and Democrat, or the Sumter Daily Item, you wouldn't fare too well. [laughter] The Aiken Standard, we didn't do too well. The Spartanburg Herald and the Spartanburg Journal. I had spent ten years practicing law in Spartanburg. After I left Spartanburg and returned to my home in Columbia, the newspapers tracked me. For a while, certainly those reporters who continued there during the period after I left, in general, gave pretty fair reporting. The news that occurred in those papers came from the wire reports, AP and UP. Your best coverage came from the Charlotte Observer. You could get a better handle on what was going on in South Carolina by picking up a copy of the Charlotte Observer than you could in any of these other newspapers. You could get a pretty good cross-view.

Moore: You mentioned their interest in order, and you mentioned that in terms of the governors. Would you say that, when the crunch came, that many of the conservative South Carolinians, politicians, governors, newspaper people, and some of the business leaders, adopted order as a higher value even than separation of the races?

Perry: It would be a little difficult to give a single answer to that. Perhaps you might have found a little of that on all sides. You might have found some who were more insistent South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 114

upon the maintenance of order, and order even at the risk, on our side, of maintaining the status quo. Order in the sense of requiring the black to stay in his place. If he made an effort at getting out of the place to which society had assigned him, then that was disorder. [laughter]

Moore: I didn't make it clear. When the politicians and newspapers saw they could no longer maintain the status quo, that the federal government, you, and the grass-roots efforts of blacks were forcing some change, they decided to accept some change and maintain law and order, rather than go with the group that might inflame passions and try to hang on to the status quo by use of violence or disorder. It seems to me that a man like Hollings or Russell decided that they would lose control of the situation if they let the segregationists have their way.

Perry: Yes.

Moore: That they are going to have to go with some integration, maybe they will keep it slow.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: In order to maintain order and control.

Perry: I think you've captured it.

Moore: Many of the newspapers may have sensed this.

Perry: Yes. From time to time, governors have assembled newspaper editors for little sessions. I don't know the extent to which newspaper editors, on the whole, found that they could go along with helping a governor to maintain his stance, or whether there were those among them not so inclined. Waring of the Charleston News and Courier, I never got a word of acceptance out of him. [laughter] I can recall one time I was down at the Penn Center, at some conference. I was on a panel discussion, and there was a professor at the University of South Carolina who was also on the panel. Whatever the discussion was, it was something of current South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 115

interest at that time pertaining to the civil rights movement. A Charleston News and Courier editorial commenting upon the presence of this professor on this panel was highly critical of his. . . .

[Tape 8, Side 2 begins]

Perry: Interestingly, a man who was then a state senator from Charleston wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the editorial and coming to my defense. He proclaimed that it was the right of this professor to appear on the panel. "We still have a First Amendment," or words to that effect. Then he challenged the editorial further by the attack upon the likes of Matthew Perry. He stated that I was a lawyer who was considered highly professional by all who come in contact with me. He said a few nice things about me. The editor wouldn't let it rest. They responded, now attacking the senator. The Columbia newspapers picked it up. [laughter] It was a very interesting exchange. [laughter]

Moore: Let me carry you back to the Brown decision. One scholar argues that the Court erred badly when it permitted a year for advice on the implementation of the decision, and then in 1955, only demanded "all deliberate speed." He argues that this only allowed time for the school officials and politicians in the South to build the momentum for massive resistance. What is your view of how the Supreme Court handled that? Maybe you could speculate on how you might have voted had you been on the Supreme Court at that time.

Perry: As you point out, the view that you just expressed has been expressed by many scholars and by many very fine thinkers. I find myself aligned with that line of thought. Obviously, this comes as an afterthought. I have no doubt that the inclusion of the phrase "all deliberate speed" gave an opportunity for a slowing of the process, and for delays. There is another line of thought, and that is that the deliberate speed approach gave the states an opportunity to adjust, and gave society a chance to adjust to the sociological change more gradually. I, as a lawyer, always sought implementation of the court orders that required equality South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 116

under the law. I always advocated that they be put into effect now, without delay. That was my stance as a practicing lawyer. I have to feel that, were I in the position to direct the course of action, I would not have included the phrase, "all deliberate speed." I say that recognizing that there are all kinds of thoughts and all kinds of considerations that decision-makers have to take into consideration. A lot has been written on that subject, as you well know. There is nothing new that I could say. [laughter]

Moore: Changing the subject again, do you remember much about the Progressive Democratic Party?

Perry: I do.

Moore: I noticed that you were the keynote speaker at its convention in 1952.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: A young man right out of law school.

Perry: I mentioned to you that after I came out of the army in 1946 and I attended the trial of Elmore v. Rice, and thereafter was called upon by Mr. Hinton and others to join with other young people and fan out into the community and urge blacks to come out and vote in the primary. This was my first manifestation of my desire to be active politically. Having joined as a Young Republican before I went away to the army, that really meant nothing to me. I had the card. [laughter] I'm now urging people to go and register and vote in this primary. I graduated from law school in 1951. I began practicing law up at Spartanburg. I had come to know John McCray, and he was the head of this Progressive Democratic Party. He and Mrs. Simkins and others were very active in it. They were having a convention here in Columbia. John McCray put this thing together, and he called me. He said, "All right, young man. We're going to have this convention. I want you to be the keynote speaker." [laughter] Of course, he helped me with my speech, too.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 117

Moore: He did?

Perry: He did. [laughter]

Moore: There were certain things he wanted you to say?

Perry: Oh, yes. That's right. But they were not at odds with what I would have said anyway. It was in keeping with the spirit of the movement of that time. I became a headliner. [laughter]

Moore: Did that Progressive Democratic Party have much impact? Did it get blacks more traction within the Democratic Party?

Perry: I don't know that it did.

Moore: Was it useful?

Perry: I think it was useful as an interim form of involvement on the part of blacks. The Progressive Democratic Party came into being before blacks were permitted to vote in the Democratic primary. This was an effort by John McCray and others to form an organization to give vent to our aims and aspirations to be politically active. Through this medium, McCray and others were able to signify support for the national officeholders of the Democratic Party, while at the same time, being denied the right to vote for them locally. It was, shall we say, a sociological phenomenon of the times, something that served a limited purpose, the purpose of giving focus to the views of those who gave it leadership.

Moore: What else can you tell me about John McCray?

Perry: He was a very interesting character of that period. John McCray was a very knowledgeable person. He was a newspaper publisher and editor of the old Palmetto Leader newspaper. You ever hear of that newspaper? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 118

Moore: Wasn't it the Lighthouse and Informer?

Perry: Yes. There were two newspapers. There was the Palmetto Leader and there was the Lighthouse and Informer. He was the publisher and editor of the Lighthouse and Informer. He walked literally in lock step with James N. Hinton, who was the state president of the NAACP, and with Mrs. Simkins, who back at that time was the state secretary of the NAACP. She also was active with Mr. McCray in the Progressive Democratic Party, until they fell out. [laughter]

Moore: Do you know anything about that?

Perry: Mrs. Simkins, her allegiance wasn't a continuing one to anybody. [laughter] For some reason, she and Mr. McCray fell out. I was not within that circle. I knew them and admired them all from a distance as a young man on my way up, and respected them all. I couldn't figure out why they didn't like each other. [laughter]

Moore: Related to this, a later manifestation of political activity on the part of blacks, and separate, this time, from the Democratic Party, the United Citizens Party sprang up in 1970. I wonder what your thoughts are on that, whether you thought that was a helpful movement. I noticed that you argued the case that kept them on the ballot.

Perry: Yes. I filed that lawsuit, and got them on the ballot. Tom Broadwater was their candidate for governor. [laughter] Again, this is another, shall we say, sociological phenomenon. John Roy Harper was one of the organizers of it. After we won the right to get them on the ballot, they had a big rally with candidate Broadwater there. I went to the rally, and saw them whoop it up, and stir up enthusiasm for his candidacy.

Moore: Your role was strictly as the lawyer?

Perry: I had no other involvement. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 119

Moore: You supported John West in 1970?

Perry: Yes. [laughter]

Moore: As it turned out, most of the black community ended up doing that in spite of the Broadwater candidacy. In 1965, Heathwood Hall accepted its first black students. Among those was one Michael Perry.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: This is pretty personal, I know. I wonder if you could tell me about that decision you and Hallie made.

Perry: You will recall that the public schools were racially segregated. You had not had any breakthrough in the public schools. Hallie attended the Episcopal Church. I frequently go there with her. I tell people that I can kneel as long as any Episcopalian, and I fully understand the ritualistic concept. But I have always maintained my membership in the Baptist Church down here, Zion Baptist, where I was baptized at the age of twelve. I move back and forth. I was also active in the Methodist Church. I was once a member of a Methodist Church when I lived in Spartanburg, and had started to become somewhat active as a Methodist layman. This was a friendship with I. DeQuincey Newman and other Methodist ministers. I moved about among other ministers, AME ministers, many of whom were active in the civil rights movement. They got me involved in some of their church disputes, and so I came to know the AME discipline about as well as any AME person. Hallie and her Episcopal minister of the period made the decision that they would apply to have Michael enter the kindergarten at Heathwood Hall. Michael's birthday was December second. He would not have been qualified to enter the public schools as of September. Meanwhile, she and her Episcopal minister came to this approach, and I didn't fight it. It meant not a great deal to me. I was very happy to get him somewhere. Yet he was going into a situation where there had never been any black students. He was accepted. Reportedly, a South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 120

number of white families removed their children from that school. Later they tried to get back, and in some instances, there was no room for them. [laughter] Many of them did come back. He continued there, until we left to go to Washington. When he left Columbia, I think he was in tenth grade.

Moore: Please tell me about the Piggy Park case. How did you prove that Piggy Park, this little Columbia restaurant, was subject to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution?

Perry: This was after the 1964 civil rights law had passed, which has, as one of its components, the fact that a business, a restaurant, for example, that is involved in interstate commerce may not exclude a person because of their race or color. One or more people, including Mrs. Newman, sought to be served at Piggy Park.

Moore: I. DeQuincey Newman's wife?

Perry: That's right. Of course, they were denied service. We filed a lawsuit. By now I was a seasoned practitioner. [laughter] I was by then what Hugh Gibson described as the NAACP's legal ace. Through our discovery, we found out where do you buy your sugar from, who furnishes your meat products, your bread, and various other items that are sold. Through the various warehouses that sold to them, we found that many of these items were manufactured or produced out of state. We subpoenaed various people from these warehouses. [laughter] This was the manner in which we proved the interstate component of Piggy Park's business. [laughter]

Moore: Much to Mr. [Maurice] Bessinger's consternation.

Perry: Yes. He was claiming that he didn't cater to interstate commerce. We knocked that prop right from under him. That was a pretty good piece of work that we did in that case.

Moore: Is it true that there were pictures taken in the parking lot to show that there were out-of-state patrons of the restaurant as well? Was that a part of it? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 121

Perry: Yes, there were one or more photographs. I had forgotten about that. The main thing was the fact that their food had traveled across state lines.

Moore: I noticed that you appeared before the South Carolina congressional delegation in 1965 on behalf of the South Carolina Voter Education Project. Is that something that stirs up memories right away?

Perry: It does. [laughter] Yes, because Congressman Albert Watson challenged me.

Moore: You were promoting other things besides voting rights in that, a little broader political objectives than you were usually pursuing. That's why I wanted to ask you about it.

Perry: I was active in the Voter Education Project. A fellow like myself, if CORE groups came into South Carolina and needed representation, I was there. If Dr. King's group came in, and they needed legal help, here we were. If SNCC came in, and SNCC did indeed come in in 1968 in the Orangeburg situation. . . .

Moore: On this occasion with the congressmen, you were advocating for the VEP and the FEPC [Fair Employment Practices Commission] goal, Home Rule for the District of Columbia, repeal of 14b of Taft-Hartley [the Labor-Management Relations Act], extension of the minimum wage to more laborers, and truth in packaging labeling. Some broader political objectives than I'm usually associating with you.

Perry: Many of these were concerns of the organization and the constituency. When they put together the group that I was to make the appearance before, all of us were given the general concepts that we hoped that the South Carolina congressional delegation would be receptive to.

Moore: You found them receptive to none on this list.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 122

Perry: None on this list. I was one of them. I. DeQuincey Newman was also one of the speakers at that, and so was Reverend Fred James. There were probably a half dozen of us.

Moore: And Albert Watson challenged you.

Perry: While I was speaking, there was something that he had to say. Generally, he was speaking adversely to our advocacy of all of these principles. He chose to criticize the bloc vote, which, in his view, was the method by which South Carolina blacks gave political expression. I took offense, and have always taken offense to various public officials' claim that blacks voted as a bloc. During our last session, I think you and I talked about the various tickets, and it is true that there were some high-profile blacks who were able to persuade those within their hearing range to either vote against whoever they were against, or for somebody else. But, other than in those contexts, I claimed then, and have generally claimed, that blacks are as heterogeneous as other people. There are times when blacks do indeed come together. So I reacted to Mr. Watson's use of the phrase "bloc vote." He said, "What about last year, 1964?" I quickly said, "If you have reference to the manner in which we responded to the gentleman from Arizona, there was never a time when the interests of the black community became more solidified than it did during the candidacy of the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater." [laughter] That, too, got some reaction in the press.

Moore: You went on to point out, as I recall, that in 1960, there had been much more diversity in the black vote, as you pointed out in our last segment.

Perry: That's correct. Except when we find it advisable to come together, we're just like anybody else. There are some people that various segments of the community favor.

Moore: In my study, I've found a good bit of diversity in terms of blacks' response to the civil rights movement, some being fearful of rocking the boat, fearful that we're going to lose what little freedom and economic opportunities that we have now. Don't anger the white folks. Then others want to go in a more militant direction than the mainstream civil rights movement. I South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 123

find it very easy to sympathize with every one of those groups. You can see yourself in that position adopting that position.

Perry: There were lawyers in the community who would not accept a case that I would offer them. As the chairman of the state legal committee, when I got a case, I first offered it to the lawyers in that community. It had not yet become popular for white lawyers to handle civil rights cases, with the exception of Mr. Culbertson up in Greenville, who would sometimes do so. He, to my knowledge, was the only one. Later, one or two others gave some indication of their willingness. My very first invitation to go into a community after I became the state chairman was the Charleston golf course case. I went into Charleston and tried to give the case to all of the black lawyers of that community. I would have participated to any extent that would be appropriate, but it would be their case. Generally, they were not willing to do so, because of the very kinds of concepts that we've just spoken to. They were not willing to rock the boat. Many of them had involvements locally, across racial lines, that they felt would be brought into jeopardy had they become actively involved.

Moore: They were probably right. Not only in jeopardy, they would have been destroyed. Some of those were economic.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: Given all that, it's rather amazing that people screwed up their courage and made any progress happen at all.

Perry: Yes. Many people in the black community who were reluctant themselves, for the very reasons that you have just mentioned, nevertheless quietly approved of what we were doing. They applauded us, and they supported us financially and otherwise, but were unwilling to take the leadership themselves.

Moore: That's probably one of the reasons students became so prominent in the movement. They were the ones who felt they had the least to lose. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 124

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: Maybe they didn't know all the risks involved.

Perry: That's why they send teenagers and people in their early twenties off to war. [laughter] As a young person, I frequently describe myself as a young fool. [laughter] There was no obstacle that I stood back and would not tackle. I was just a young fool. I didn't have sense enough not to. [laughter]

Moore: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: I remember the chapel speech at Columbia College that you made in 1969. You spoke about the progress that had been made in race relations, but you pointed out some problems that remained. Some restaurants transformed themselves into private clubs in order to remain segregated. There was white flight, white people moving from the cities to the suburbs to get away from the black populations, so they wouldn't be zoned in the same schools. You said that churches remain the most segregated institutions in America. Comment a little, if you would, on the phenomenon of white flight. You talk about sociological phenomena, now there's one.

Perry: It's a little difficult to make general statements, because people react out of personal considerations for the most part. There are some generalities that may be appropriate. One thing we do know is that many white people recognized the existence of not only the laws that required racial separation, but also were accustomed to the practices in areas of their lives that were not regulated by law, but by mores and folkways. People maintained the racially separate distances. We argued in many of our court cases that these practices that were not legally required were fueled by the existence of laws that required the separation in other areas of life. Many people became more comfortable with simply not coming in contact with biracial South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 125

involvement. The intrusion of one or more blacks into their setting, whatever those settings might be, residential, schools, created an aura of discomfort, because you had people who just didn't know each other, and who were suspicious of the aims and aspirations of other people, particularly people of other races. There were widespread thoughts that blacks had some kind of an agenda. In one of my appearances at Columbia College someone in the audience, during a question and answer session, asked a penetrating question: "I understand that your real purpose is to intermarry with white people." My response was, and I have often times given a response something like this, "Well, I'll tell you something. I've been around for a long time, and I do not see the black women falling over and playing dead in my presence. I can't imagine that the white women will act any different. You need not worry." [laughter] Interestingly, young people do find a way to interact with each other, and some of them get married. I suppose that's a natural byproduct of coming to know each other, and getting to be comfortable in each other's presence. Young people in college settings do find a way.

Moore: It does appear, rather ironically, that there was probably more sexual interaction between blacks and whites under the institution of slavery than under desegregation.

Perry: Far more.

Moore: Because of the equality in one, and the lack of equality in the other.

Perry: Yes. Many people in this state, and people in other states, where people can trace, there's no doubt about who's kin to whom. [laughter]

Moore: Mrs. Simkins liked to tell about who she was related to.

Perry: Oh, yes. [laughter]

Moore: Concerning white flight, do you think there is a sense of resentment that whites are trying to escape? You put it on a very personal level, which I thought was very charitable to South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 126

whites engaged in white flight. Do you sense that there is resistance, that whites are trying to move out and get away from the black population?

Perry: Perhaps so. Maybe it's not wanting their children to come into contact with the children of black families. I guess parents do run into some thoughts in this regard. There's no doubt that many people have fear that their children will become involved socially with blacks. I must say that the phenomenon of hatred based on race, I used to think there were some simple solutions. I regret to tell you that the problem is one that defies time.

[Tape 8 ends. Tape 9 begins]

Perry: There are growing instances of successful interactions among people. It's being done all over the country. It's being done in industry, in the entertainment and the sports arenas. People are able to peacefully coexist in a variety of settings. There are also growing instances on the other side. I don't profess to know all of the answers. I guess we wonder what causes people to hate each other so. These are centuries-old hatreds. Some of them are grounded in religion, grounded in differences in languages, customs. One wonders why did God create all of this diversity. But, we here in America, we've made some progress, but my goodness, we've got a lot more to do. It seems that we make some progress occasionally and then we drift backwards.

Moore: Where do you think we are right now?

Perry: I think there's been a great drifting backwards in recent times, on the whole. Now bear in mind, we've made some progress, and some of that progress tends to hold. But the masses of the people are experiencing some tensions. I hope that we can come to grips with some of the things which from time to time show up.

Moore: It defies rational explanation.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 127

Perry: It does.

Moore: That's why it's so difficult to deal with. The racial antagonisms that exist among people is enough sometimes that it makes you want to accept Calvin's view of the sinful nature of man.

Perry: Yes. [laughter]

Moore: Speaking of sin and the church, you mentioned that the church was, and is right down to today, I suppose, the most segregated institution in America. I wondered if you had any comments about the role of the white churches in helping bring about change, or, on the other hand, resisting change. Did the church make much difference in this process?

Perry: There have been some very, very fine church leaders who have advocated recognition of the worth of people without regard to. . . . I know, for example, the Christian National Council had been a very fine organization that has advocated recognition of the inherent good in everybody. I think it gives splendid leadership. In recent times, the Methodist Church has come up with the practice of diversifying its ministerial assignments. It's enjoyed a great deal of success. It's also garnered some resistance, here and there. [laughter] You get movements within various communities among the interdenominational ministerial alliances encouraging their congregations to visit each other. I don't see any permanent moving away from. . . . to be sure, in every church, you've got a few people, here and there.

Moore: What about the role of the black church in the movement? How essential was it?

Perry: It was very essential. The black church has been the spiritual background of the black community. It has advocated such change and encouraged the black community to the view that what they were doing was God's work. This was a part of the strength of Martin Luther King and some of the other great leaders, many of whom were people with religious -----. When they got up to speak, somehow, in addition to their oratorical skills, many of them were South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 128

able to give a slant to things based upon their knowledge of the teachings of the various great writers. Many of the religious leaders have simply risen to the forefront. They've done wonders.

Moore: This was a ready-made organization within the black community with some credibility.

Perry: The black church had a nice auditorium. A lot of times, black people didn't have any other place to congregate. A pastor of a certain church would let you come in, meet, have your study meetings. The march around the State House here that became the great constitutional ----- that I ----- to, Edwards v. South Carolina, they met at Zion Baptist Church. They heard a sermon that got their determination up in a religious setting. They used to meet down here at Bethel AME Church under similar principles, and in the various other churches. That's how I came to know and work so closely with many of the ministers of these churches as I went around the state. I became kind of a welcome figure in church congregations of various denominations.

Moore: Were you asked to speak?

Perry: Oftentimes, yes.

Moore: Were there churches that didn't want to have anything to do with a civil rights organization, wouldn't let them come and meet in their area?

Perry: You had some ministers in the black community who were sort of like the lawyers. You came to know who they were.

Moore: A variety like you would have in any group, as you were saying before.

Perry: That's right. [laughter]

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 129

[End of Session 5. Session 6, January 30, 1996, Tape 10 begins]

Moore: Before I start asking questions this morning, I thought I would give Judge Perry an opportunity to relate a story or two that he sometimes tells to fellow lawyers. These are inside things that I wouldn't know to ask about. Why don't you share those with us at this time?

Perry: The one that comes to mind, which I shared with Richard Gergel while walking along the beach this past year, I resurrected from my recollection of things that occurred after I had been practicing law maybe a couple of years. I had been practicing law either one or two years when this occurred, so we are talking back around 1952 or '53. You have to recall the sociological makeup of South Carolina at that time. Racial separation was the order of the day, and racial animosities were openly flaunted, many in public life. During my first ten years, I practiced out of an office in Spartanburg, South Carolina, though Columbia was my native home. I was approached by a woman who had been married to a minister, and she wanted a divorce. During those early years, I did handle some domestic cases. Certainly, during those early years, I handled just about everything that came in the door. This lady came, and she wanted to institute a divorce proceeding against her former husband, a minister who had been transferred from wherever they had previously lived in the upper part of the state. He had been transferred to Allendale County, where he was actively pursuing his ministerial duties. Having interviewed her, and having concluded that she did indeed have a cause of action based upon one of the four recognized causes of action for divorce at that time, that is to say, desertion for a period of more than one year, she and I agreed that I should proceed in her behalf, and file this action, which I did. However, the nature of the court proceedings in South Carolina is that you have to sue a person in the county in which he resides. In his case, that meant Allendale County, although we were up in Spartanburg. I initiated the proceedings and had them served upon him, and filed them in the office of the clerk at Allendale through the mail. The case had to lie there for a certain period of time before you could have a hearing; I believe it was ninety days. When the time came at which the suit was ripe for hearing, I approached the resident circuit judge from that area of the state who happened to have been presiding up in the Spartanburg area. He was South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 130

Judge J. Henry Johnson. I said to him that I had this case pending in his county of Allendale, and I inquired whether he would schedule the case for a hearing himself, or whether he preferred referring it to some other judge for hearing. He indicated that he would sign an order referring the case to the person who held the office of master in equity. That person happened also to have been the probate judge for Allendale County. So he was the probate judge and ex officio master in equity. A master in equity is a judicial officer who hears matters referred to that judicial officer by other judges. The matters normally related to equitable matters, and of course, divorce is a matter that typically arises in a court of equity. So Judge Johnson signed my order of reference, referring the matter to that judicial officer for hearing. Now I had to contact that judge concerning the logistics of our hearing. I wrote him a letter and enclosed the order of reference that Judge Johnson had signed for me, and indicated my desire for a hearing date before him. Later in my practice, after I had become a pretty well-known figure, everyone in the state knew me. Certainly, every member of the court family knew me. There was no doubt who I am or who I was, and of what race I happened to be. Back at that time, I was not well-known at all. My letterhead was just like the letterhead of any other lawyer. I wrote the judge, and it did not occur to me that I was, in any way, pulling the wool over anybody's eyes. But as it later developed, he probably looked at my letter and did not immediately discern my racial identity. [laughter] Having not heard from him within the space of perhaps several days, maybe a week, I telephoned him long distance. There are those who suggest that you can, sometimes, in speaking with people by telephone, immediately discern their racial identity. As to some other people, you might not be able to immediately discern that. It has come to my attention that I fall within that category of persons who you may not immediately be able to discern who I am and of what race I happen to be, if you are speaking with me for the first time by telephone, and do not otherwise know me. So, when I spoke with the judge by telephone, he was cordial. He said he had received my letter, and just had not had an opportunity to respond. We proceeded, during that telephone conversation, to establish the date for my hearing before him in Allendale, and the time of day. In discussing the time of day, he said that he would take me to lunch when I arrived. He'd be glad to see me. I thanked him. We proceeded to prepare the matter. [laughter] On the day in question, my client had already preceded me into that area of the state. She had friends or relatives in that area of the state. I notified her about the time of day to meet me at South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 131

the courthouse. When I arrived at the courthouse, I went into the office. The probate judge's office was not a large office. It was a small county. There were two desks out front. There were people behind those desks, and I went to the desk where a lady was seated. I later learned that this lady was the wife of the judge who occupied the other seat in the other chair. She looked up and inquired what she could do for me. I indicated that I would like to see the judge. She pointed to him. He was seated at a desk some distance from hers. He was a man who seemed to be somewhere in his fifties, possibly sixties. I was at that time a young man, no more than thirty- one or thirty-two at the time. He had on a straw hat and was in shirt sleeves. He had a cigar in his mouth. The cigar was down to about a quarter of its length. Whether he heard me ask for him, I don't know. Let's assume that there was nothing wrong with his hearing. I did not see him look over in my direction. She pointed him out to me. I walked over to his desk. I had my briefcase. I believed in looking the part. Young lawyers had to look the part. You had to have on your shirt and your tie, and your coat, and you had to have your briefcase. I stood at his desk for a moment. He was working on something, not noticing my arrival. I had to stand there for a moment until he decided to look up, and inquire what he might do for me. When he finally did, without moving the cigar, he said, "Yeah, what can I do for you?" So I said, "Judge so and so, I'm Matthew Perry. I'm the attorney who has been in contact with you for this hearing. I'm connected with thus and such." He looked at me. He swallowed the cigar. [laughter] He began to gasp. There was an emergency. The lady rushed over to him and helped him. He was gagging. She walked him to a room to the rear of where we were sitting. Now, my chore was to stand there and not let on that I was aware that I had caused the man to go into some shock. The difficulty is containing one's self at a moment like this. You could hear her hitting him on the back, and helping him. Eventually, I heard him coughing and everything. I assumed the cigar was dislodged. It took them quite a little period back there. I guess she gave him some water.

Moore: They didn't know the Heimlich maneuver at that time.

Perry: No. The Heimlich maneuver had not yet been invented. [laughter] Finally the two of them came out. He was clearing his throat and everything. He sat down and we proceeded with our hearing. There was no mention of lunch. [laughter] No mention at all. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 132

Moore: Do you remember the probate judge's name?

Perry: The name was Reeves. [laughter]

Moore: Have you had any contact with him later?

Perry: As a matter of fact, I don't know how long he remained in office or how long he remained after that. I learned some years later that he had died.

Moore: Being a lawyer, what is your liability in that situation? [laughter]

Perry: Bear in mind, I got a big charge, once I learned that he wasn't, you know. . . . The idea was that I couldn't dare be seen laughing. The business of stifling any outburst of laughter… And, of course, my client was seated at a chair over there. She must have gotten a big charge out of this, too. [laughter] She had to have a witness with her, because you always have to have a witness. So my idea was to more or less try to maintain our collective composure. But boy, we sure had a chuckle after we left the courthouse. [laughter] I have no idea what the man's racial attitudes might have been. Allendale is a small county; it was then and is still small. I believe Allendale is one of those counties that has a majority black population. At that time, that very small minority white population occupied all of the offices. I went into Allendale any number of times with cases. I never had any more business with the probate court. [laughter]

Moore: I would assume that counties like Allendale, Clarendon, Jasper, along with maybe Orangeburg, were among the toughest to deal with. Am I right in that assumption?

Perry: You are basically correct. Clarendon had a sheriff who literally ruled the place. He was the person who carried out the white community's antipathy toward the black community. Many of the other counties had such a person, either the sheriff or some person in some public position. It might have been the county supervisor in, let's say, a Dorchester County. Orangeburg had a healthy presence of the white Citizens' Council. I've seen Klan South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 133

rallies in Orangeburg when I was a law student. I don't know whether the Klansmen resided in Orangeburg, but I know they had rallies in and around Orangeburg. The sheriff was always a person who leaned very heavily upon the black community. Likewise the police chief. Public officials in general ruled and maintained the separation of the races with a determined effort.

Moore: And took it as a mandate of their office that they were to keep the black population under control.

Perry: Yes. You know that I studied law at South Carolina State College, and took an interest in watching court proceedings. I would go down to the courthouse and watch trials sometimes. As a black person I had to sit in an area of the courtroom that only blacks went to. I was not permitted to take a seat down on the floor where the proceedings were going on. The spectator seats at that level just behind the rail were for white persons only. Black persons had to go up in the balcony.

Moore: There was a balcony designated for blacks?

Perry: That's right. There were colored and white water fountains and restrooms. East was east, west was west. [laughter]

Moore: In those days, I think most courthouses still had spittoons. They weren't designated, were they?

Perry: I never knew of any of them to be designated. If they were, it never came to my attention. [laughter]

Moore: You mentioned Dorchester County. That recalls Mrs. Victoria DeLee. I wonder what sort of relationship you had with her, what sort of memories you have of her activities in that area. Did you ever defend her?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 134

Perry: Yes, I did. I knew her pretty well. Mrs. DeLee was quite a force, quite an outspoken woman, and a very active woman in Dorchester County, who was a part of the movement to desegregate the schools in Dorchester County. I was the lawyer in that case.

Moore: This was with her own children?

Perry: Yes. She was also actively involved whenever a black person was singled out for some kind of prosecution that she thought was racially motivated. I had the occasion to go into Dorchester County sometimes as the result of Mrs. DeLee's having alerted the state NAACP organization about the existence of some problem. There came a time when Mrs. DeLee was leading some demonstrators around the school administration building or around a school because of something to which she was directing her resistance. This was after I had successfully represented her and the plaintiffs.

Moore: In getting them into the school?

Perry: Yes. But, of course, the local school officials were doing something that she considered unfair.

Moore: As I recall, she alleged at one point that her children were being harassed, and the school officials took the position that her children were incorrigible.

Perry: And that might very well be that that was the incident that gave rise to what I'm about to tell you. One of the federal judges issued an order directing that Mrs. DeLee be taken into custody and brought before him for contempt of court, contempt of his prior order that prohibited anyone from interfering with the manner in which the schools were operating. I had to respond and go to her defense. I assembled a group of about a half-dozen lawyers to defend her down in Charleston. We went to battle for her. We made a motion for the judge to disqualify himself because the judge had interacted with the United States Marshals, who had spoken directly with him concerning Mrs. DeLee's involvement.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 135

Moore: And that's an improper relationship?

Perry: Yes.

Moore: Did he disqualify himself?

Perry: He did. He never said he was disqualifying himself, but he simply brought an end to the proceedings.

Moore: So she was no longer charged with contempt of court. I remember having her speak at Columbia College several times, and I believe that she indicated that her home was burned at one point, she thought because of her activities. Do you have any memories of that?

Perry: I remember the allegation. Frequently, Mrs. DeLee called upon Fred Moore, a lawyer colleague in Charleston, to come in. Fred would get our friend Mordecai Johnson out of Florence to come down and help him. The two of them defended Mrs. DeLee's son who was convicted of something in connection with a school bus incident. I believe he was driving the school bus in a wreck, and some people were injured. I was not involved in that trial. I merely make mention of it because from time to time she called upon Fred to defend them. She was constantly, during her active years, challenging the sheriff and the power structure of Dorchester County. She did it regularly. She claimed that her house was set on fire, and that she suffered reprisals of various sorts down there.

Moore: One of those persons who literally put their lives on the line.

Perry: That's right.

Moore: This relates to a comment you made a few minutes ago, that race relations were, in the early fifties, not only segregated, but rather strained. There were whites at the time—I recall W.D. Workman being adamant about this, and there were plenty of other whites—who said that race relations in South Carolina had always been good, calm, nice relations between the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 136

races. And then, all this civil rights stuff came up and it just spoiled it all. There was so much antagonism between the races, and all of that was unnecessary. It made race relations much worse. Do you plead guilty to helping make race relations worse in South Carolina?

Perry: I'm afraid so. To the extent that I represented people who were not satisfied with the status quo, and who thereby disrupted the calm and peaceful situation that Mr. Workman and others like him referred to, you'd have to say that I was a part of it. My own role, however, was to simply take cases into court, or to defend those who were targeted by the power structure against what I successfully alleged, in many instances, were unjustifiable prosecutions. The defenses that I set forward indicated a general dissatisfaction within the black community with the existence of laws that required state-enforced segregation.

Moore: So in the short run, at any rate, race relations really did get worse. There was more antagonism because the whites didn't like the blacks protesting their conditions.

Perry: Exactly. People don't like things that tend to upset the way things have been. People resist change, certainly change in the sociological makeup or approaches of a community. They'd just as soon let things remain as they are because they are accustomed to that. Anything that tends to bring about a change, there's some anxiety. Many people become accustomed to the change and concede that the change is for the better. Many people had taken that stance. But at first, while it's going on it tends to disrupt. It becomes a little disconcerting. Perhaps the methods that are utilized by those who would bring about change tends to be a little disconcerting. On the whole, I think that the black community in South Carolina has gotten good marks for the manner in which change was brought about. I don't know that the approaches taken in South Carolina were any different from the approaches that were taken in other states. Frankly, I doubt that they were, because I happen to know that the racial protest cases, the sit-ins, the marches, the other protests that occurred in South Carolina were pretty much the same that had been conducted in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. But the manner in which state officials in those places reacted, and the manner in which the citizens in those states reacted, perhaps gives us some distinctions in the way things came out. I think the last time we talked, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 137

we talked about the approaches that the governors of the states took, their public pronouncements, their public stances. Not only of governors, but others in law enforcement. Take Bull Connor of Alabama. People like that have a way of bringing out the worst in a community. They cause those who harbor deep-seated antipathies to rise and to act out their resentments.

Moore: You were indicating that there were some local sheriffs in small counties that were inclined in that direction. But we didn't have anyone comparable to the police chief of Birmingham making that sort of stance.

Perry: No. We didn't have in South Carolina anyone that I would liken to Bull Connor.

Moore: Or to George Wallace.

Perry: Or to George Wallace. Or to Ross Barnett. Thank goodness.

Moore: Even Governor Timmerman doesn't come quite to that point.

Perry: He was mild-mannered. I don't know that there's anything that I could say about Governor Timmerman that would place him in a position comparable to that of a Ross Barnett, or of an Orval Faubus.

Moore: He was not a standing-in-the-schoolhouse [door] type, but was resistant.

Perry: Resistant, yes. Very much a part of the status quo. Not willing to back away. But on the other hand, when you compare any of our people with the Faubuses and the Wallaces and the Barnetts—my goodness.

Moore: This relates to a quotation that I found from Kenneth Clark, a professor, who pointed out in 1965 what he considered the danger of certain NAACP leaders like Walter White and Roy Wilkins being what he called too respectable, too statesmanlike. He thought their South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 138

“respectability might make them more vulnerable to the shrewd, psychological exploitation of skillful political leaders. The power of civil rights leaders could probably be more effectively controlled by affability than by racial brutality." It's 1965. I wonder if you think there was a danger. Do you remember any instances where either you or the civil rights leaders were hampered by perhaps being conned by shrewd politicians in South Carolina, while George Wallace wasn't conning anybody there? He was just laying it straight out.

Perry: That's an interesting statement. I'm aware of comments such as Dr. Clark made. I suppose we'll have to leave it for others to judge. I know this, I know that Mrs. Simkins harbored that viewpoint. That was just as if Mrs. Simkins had written those words. She was very critical of any high-profile black person holding forth in an affable, seemingly agreeable fashion, sitting at the table and negotiating. She was very distrustful of such a black person, highly critical of such a person. I mentioned to you that I find myself wondering even now why she hated Reverend Newman so. It may very well be that it has its basis in that kind of reaction. Maybe that's what I'm observing on her part.

Moore: Is that possibly from a sense that these white politicians are so clever, they're going to beat you every time at the table?

Perry: Yes.

Moore: So you've got to rely on the streets and economic pressure, because that's the only thing that they understand. If you sit down at the table with them, they'll beat you, they'll con you every time. Is that it? That they're more skilled at this game than the newcomers from the black community?

Perry: Oh, yes. That's Mrs. Simkins. [laughter] I didn't realize Dr. Clark had said that.

Moore: I was a little surprised at his statement. He had been so closely associated with the NAACP, particularly earlier. John Lewis thought that Thurgood Marshall was pretty cautious, but he thought that Marshall's caution about mass protest was primarily motivated by South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 139

real human concern for the person putting his life on the line. Apparently Marshall thought you could get it done other ways, without putting young people's lives on the line. The thing was not to throw your bodies on the barricade, but let's work this out in court.

Perry: John Lewis is a man very qualified to make that statement. My goodness, there's a man who really put himself out there.

Moore: He apparently has respect for Marshall's view, that Marshall wasn't copping out. He was really concerned about the danger.

Perry: Lewis at the time was a part of SNCC. The approach of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was to be more militant and confrontational than had been the older civil rights leadership.

Moore: It was quite a conflict.

Perry: Yes.

Moore: An argument about the proper technique.

[Tape 10, Side 2 begins]

Moore: Sometime in the mid-sixties you were involved in helping to block the use of state tuition grants to finance students' attendance in private, segregated academies. Would you talk about that a little bit? What are the issues here, and how do you beat that sort of effort on the part of the whites to circumvent requirements to desegregate the schools?

Perry: Yes, I was involved in that.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 140

Moore: It must have been '64 or '65.

Perry: Somewhere thereabouts. We were getting court decrees enjoining the school districts from maintaining racially separate school facilities, and requiring them to begin the desegregation process by admitting the named plaintiffs, and coming up with plans by which they would go to a non-racial school system. State officials, led by the South Carolina School Committee, otherwise known as the Gressette Committee, came up with the plan, and persuaded the legislature to enact a legislative package by which the treasurer of the state was authorized to allocate or pay to parents desiring to send their children to private, non-sectarian schools the costs of defraying the attendance of children at such schools. We saw the enactment of that legislative package as a move to thwart the efforts that we had in place to desegregate the schools. But further, we saw this as a matter that endangered the very existence of the public school system. Theoretically, if all parents decided to avail themselves of this privilege, there would be not many white children left in the public schools. This was a method, we felt, of channeling state funds into the creation, the enlargement, the maintenance of these academies and other private schools that had come into existence for the purpose of maintaining racial segregation. I'm referring to the group of lawyers who viewed the statute. We reported to the state executive committee of the NAACP our views that this was an improper use of state funds. The purpose here was to maintain racial segregation. If we were able to prove that, this was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We felt also that there were strong reasons to believe that this was an improper use of the taxpayer's monies. I drafted the lawsuit. We ultimately prevailed. We got the laws declared unconstitutional. We got the court to enjoin the state treasurer from disbursing state funds for the purposes set forth in those statutes. We proudly boast that we saved the taxpayers of South Carolina possibly millions of dollars. We boast that in large measure, we saved the public education system. That might be bragging a little bit too much, I don't know. Taking to the logical extreme what could have happened, I think that the public educational system that we now know, and that was then in place, was seriously imperiled by such approaches.

Moore: The NAACP hasn't gotten much credit for saving the public schools.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 141

Perry: Oh, no. No one would dare give the NAACP that kind of credit. You asked me one day what did I regard as some of my most meaningful accomplishments. I would have to add that one.

Moore: Do you remember the title of that case?

Perry: The lead plaintiff was J. Arthur Brown. He was then the state president of the NAACP. It was the South Carolina Board of Education and others. [laughter]

Moore: You listed that as one of the major ones, and I'm glad we came back to it to nail that down. In a speech to the Greenville chapter of the NAACP in 1970, you criticized the so- called freedom of choice plan as placing the burden of desegregation on black parents and children, rather than on the school officials, where it belonged. You said, "Integration is not an end, but a means to an end." What was the end, and has desegregation achieved that end?

Perry: Now, you talk about a question. You just asked one! Scholars of diversified racial background around the country are debating this question. Many blacks have come to the view that the effort at desegregating the schools was counterproductive. You are undoubtedly aware of these debates. There's no point in my trying to catalog them for you. I was speaking in 1970. [laughter] I was speaking the prevailing viewpoint at that time.

Moore: I think one can still make a strong argument for that.

Perry: I think a strong argument can be made.

Moore: Isn't the end a more just society, a more equitable society?

Perry: Yes.

Moore: One could argue that in 1995 and '96, in spite of all the inequities, that it's different from, and better than, the 1950s. Would you make that case? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 142

Perry: I think there is strong reason to embrace or to make that statement. I confess that I am not actively studying the scene now, as I once was. I am curious. I tell you that I have some feelings that I don't like the result that I see today. I wonder whether some of what I see today can be laid at our feet, whether those of us who espoused the ending of segregation can be blamed for what we see today. Somehow, I don't believe so. I harbor the belief that we can't be blamed for what we see today. But, unfortunately, there are some things that exist in society today that have to be remedied. I don't profess to have the answer. I applaud the various efforts at trying to create some dialogue, and to come up with some approaches for the solution of the racial divisions that have been identified today. I don't profess to have the answers. But I do think it was necessary that we take the action that we did in having the laws declared unconstitutional. I think we were absolutely right to do that. I'm very pleased that I was a part of that. I just think it was right. I think it's wrong for a state to create distinctions grounded in state law, and in the practices of state officials, that require racial separation. I've got no problem with people doing things on their own. Left alone, the evidence is that many people will indeed settle into communities that reflect their racial background. But I abhor any system that restricts people into those enclaves. I think people ought to be left free to go out and to intermingle, and to engage in a free society without state-imposed restrictions, or without the state in any way protecting those lines, or enforcing them.

Moore: Like before 1948, when the state was enforcing housing covenants.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: The racial problems that persist, are they less a matter of legal matters today, and more subtle and more difficult, perhaps?

Perry: Yes. More subtle and more difficult. In this morning's newspaper, there is one article that focuses upon [State Superintendent] Dr. [Barbara] Nielsen's hate mail, and some sort of an underground newspaper that is highly critical of the racial makeup of her department. The writer of the article to which she refers claims that she has gotten some of her African-American South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 143

staff to donate portions of their skin in order that she may bring about a change in her skin color. Somebody is promoting strife. These things represent the state of mind of whoever is capable of writing such a diatribe. How does one reach a person like that? You can't do it.

Moore: You don't do it by law.

Perry: No.

Moore: Except perhaps you can control that person's behavior. You can't control what that person says.

Perry: Yes. If you are able to identify that person, and if that person violates the law, you can deal with it. There are laws that prohibit the use of the mail for certain purposes. We get them in this court all the time. They impose very severe criminal penalties.

Moore: There is a controversy now about hate speech and hate crimes, crimes that are, in and of themselves, exacerbated by hate, and whether as some suggest, there should be a heavier penalty if the motivation seems to be racial hatred. I wonder if you would care to comment on what is happening there. Should universities try to regulate statements of hate or racial disparagement, or is that in violation of the First Amendment?

Perry: The courts have upheld the right of people to speak in a fashion that others do not approve, even in the racial category, on First Amendment principles. Even the Ku Klux Klan has been able to win its right to do things in a fashion that might offend some other people, as long as they don't assault anybody or shoot anybody. They've got the right to march down the street and to speak in angry and uncomplimentary terms about people of other races. It's their right. The First Amendment gives them that right.

Moore: I saw a reference to the fact that at one point, you served for a few months at the national level as NAACP counsel when there was something like a strike or a lockout, or some kind of disagreement. Was it between Wilkins and the legal staff? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 144

Perry: The national NAACP board, of which I was then a member, took an unfortunate action. I say unfortunate because I did not approve of it, and I voted against it. It terminated a young lawyer who was one of the staff attorneys hired by the then-general counsel of the NAACP, Robert Carter. Bob was a great friend of mine. Bob was, at the time, out of the country. This young staff lawyer had made some statement that got publicized in a Northern newspaper, stating some philosophical approach to matters that some members of the board disagreed with. So they voted to fire him. Bob was a very strong-willed person, and brilliant. He argued Brown v. Board of Education in the Supreme Court. Through the docketing process in the Supreme Court, that Kansas case was at the top of the list, so all of the other cases come under it. Briggs v. Elliott, which was of course the most compelling case, was argued by Thurgood Marshall and John W. Davis. Bob Carter argued Brown v. Board.

Moore: The Kansas case?

Perry: Yes. Other lawyers argued the other cases. Lou Reading, for example, argued the Delaware case. Spot Robinson argued the Virginia case. George Hayes argued the District of Columbia case. You had all of these lawyers there, but Bob was an outstanding lawyer. He later became a federal district judge, and he is in senior status up in the southern district of New York. What the board did was fire a member of his staff, and he became very incensed about it. When he returned to the United States a couple of days later and learned about it, Bob was furious. His relationship with the board had already deteriorated, and I cannot point exactly to what was at issue. I know that he and some of the people on the board did not see eye to eye on some things. Bob immediately resigned from the office of general counsel, and simultaneously, all of the lawyers on his staff resigned. So the NAACP was suddenly without a legal staff. There was, of course, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, a separate corporation, but the NAACP itself was suddenly without a general counsel. I, as I pointed out to you, was then a member of the NAACP board, and was a member of the national legal committee. I had some prominence in the organization, so I was asked to serve as special counsel, that is, to take over and sort of ride herd on pending cases around the country while the organization searched for a new general counsel, or until this South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 145

situation could come to an end. We didn't know whether we could have persuaded Bob Carter to come back on.

Moore: How did that work out?

Perry: It did not work out. Bob went on and became a partner in a big New York law firm. His credentials were such that the law firms just snapped him right up. He remained in that law firm for a while, and not too long thereafter was appointed a United States District Judge in the southern district of New York. I began to travel from my South Carolina office to New York. I went up to New York every week for about a year. I interacted with lawyers around the rest of the country where cases were then pending under the auspices of the office of general counsel of the NAACP. There were many such cases. In some instances, I went to those states and appeared in court with the local lawyers who were involved. I went into Rhode Island and into New York City itself, and into Texas, and Illinois. In other instances, I simply called and more or less dealt with the various lawyers, and as new matters came in, I was able either to refer them over to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, or to contact lawyers in the various states myself. A case arose in Virginia during that period, and I was able to contact my colleagues in Richmond with whom I interacted regularly anyway. I put the case in their hands.

Moore: Help me understand the difference here between the legal staff of the NAACP and the Legal Defense Fund. I guess I had assumed that all legal work was done through the Legal Defense Fund, but that's not so. How is that division of labor made, and why was there a division of labor?

Perry: We'll need a special session on that.

Moore: Is that right?

Perry: Yes. And I'm going to identify some cases for you on that. That was a major thing. But, briefly, let me say this. Back in the 1930s, when all of the legal work was under the umbrella of the NAACP itself, the NAACP came to realize that the nature of the tax laws of the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 146

country was such that you couldn't raise money tax-free in the name of an organization that devoted part of its effort to the passage of legislation and other things that were prohibited under the tax laws. Through discussing the matter with some tax lawyers and academicians on the national scene, Thurgood Marshall came upon the idea of creating a separate corporation which would devote itself solely to the subject of litigation, and would not involve itself in the areas of legislation and political activity which at that time were prohibited under tax laws. They came up with the idea of creating, under one of the provisions of the tax code, section 501c, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It was just a gimmick for the tax laws. They were really one and the same. As long as Thurgood Marshall remained the principal, the most vocal, the most prominent figure nationally, in the legal sense, it was easy to do. This new tax-exempt corporation had to have its own board, and at first the boards were interlocking. Some of the same people on the NAACP board were also on that board. It was easy to carry them in the same direction. Over time, through attrition, they grew apart. Not in terms of their philosophical approaches to what had to be done to alleviate the problems that affected the black community, but managerial and staffing problems. So Bob Carter, you see, was hired by Thurgood Marshall, as was Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, and the lawyers who later became prominent in their own right. They were all a part of Thurgood Marshall's NAACP staff. When the new corporation came into being, some were put over on the Legal Defense Fund. Others were left with the NAACP. At first, they were all in the same offices. As a South Carolina cooperating attorney, I would go to New York, and if I was dealing with an NAACP matter, I dealt with Bob Carter. He had an office right next to Thurgood Marshall. They were physically together. But Bob Carter would write to you on a letterhead that said "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Robert Carter, General Counsel." Thurgood Marshall would write you on a letterhead that said "NAACP Legal Defense Fund." Or Bob Carter, who was also the general counsel for the NAACP, would likely write you a letter on NAACP Legal Defense Fund letterhead, "Robert Carter, Assistant Counsel." So he wore two hats in that regard. As a lawyer out there in the field, I wore two hats. The public simply knew that I was representing the NAACP. They did not know that often times I was working under auspices of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It made no difference to Mrs. DeLee, you know. [laughter] South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 147

Moore: It only makes a difference to the people contributing tax-exempt, tax-deductible money for the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, not to the more political NAACP. So you served for about a year?

Perry: About a year, before they hired Nathaniel Jones. He and I became good friends. He's a good buddy of mine, and he later became a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Moore: All of these friends who were good friends got judgeships.

Perry: Well, we became high-profile. [laughter]

Moore: You got a lot of good experience, too.

Perry: We did. Fritz Hollings, in mentioning why he chose me, said, "Matthew Perry had more experience in the federal courts than any lawyer in the state." He answered some critics of his more recently who were criticizing him for not picking a black successor when I took senior status. He said, "The seat was not ever intended to be a black seat. I'm going to continue trying to find the most qualified person. When I selected Matthew Perry, there was no doubt in anybody's mind that he was one of the most qualified people to come along, because he had the experience." That's a compliment, on the one hand, but trying to justify his failure to name another black.

Moore: I just wanted to check on the accuracy of these statements that I've found about you. It's said that you won seven Supreme Court appeals that overturned convictions of over seven thousand persons, sit-in demonstrators, etc. Does that sound roughly accurate?

Perry: That sounds roughly accurate. However, I do feel that I have been given credit for some Supreme Court victories that, while I was a part of them, I can't garner all of the credit. But yes, there were some seven thousand people who were convicted of various offenses, and we South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 148

got reversals for all except some seven or eight such people. That's quite a record. I don't think Mr. Clarence Darrow or anybody else can claim a record quite like that. [laughter]

Moore: That was a personal triumph, and I suppose the cause was so obviously legitimate.

Perry: Our causes were justified.

Moore: It's said that you saved twelve or more men from the electric chair, and helped keep South Carolina free from electrocutions from 1962 to 1976. Were you the main lawyer to whom those that were condemned to die came to? Were they only black cases? I know John Delgado and David Bruck weren't operating in the 1960s and early seventies. Were you handling most of those cases at the time, or only for blacks?

Perry: There were some whites, too. The lawyers representing these people would often seek my assistance, because of my familiarity with court procedures, my supposed ability to identify issues which might attract the attention of the appellate courts, and thereby bring about a reversal. We saved a lot of people from the electric chair.

Moore: Would you like to make a statement on capital punishment? Are you flat-out opposed to capital punishment, or are you for it in some instances?

Perry: I never had to express a philosophical view. We argued that the death penalty was, as it was carried out in South Carolina, essentially an instrument of racial suppression. We conducted surveys that tended to support what we alleged. Our detractors hastily tell you that these cases were case-specific, that each person who had been sentenced to die in the electric chair was sentenced based upon the facts of that particular case, and that we were wrong in pointing to an overall statistical survey. We were able to point out that in rape cases the evidence was that over a forty-year period, where blacks were convicted of committing that offense against a white female, the black more often than not was given the death penalty. In those cases in which the black male had been accused of committing that same offense against a black female, he was just about never given the death penalty. When a white male had South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 149

committed the offense of rape against a white female, he was, for the most part, given less than the death penalty. He was in many instances sentenced under the assault and battery with a high and aggravated nature statute, which at that time had a maximum penalty of ten years, I believe, in prison. I think that statute has been amended in recent years. I believe it's now twenty years. In those cases in which the white male was tried for committing the offense against a black female, and there were many, you're not talking about a situation in which the proclivity for committing the sex crime exists only in the black male, the white male was never given the death penalty. More often than not, he was acquitted outright.

[Tape 10 ends. Tape 11 begins]

Moore: You were saying that in an alleged assault of a white man upon a black woman, he was never given the death penalty.

Perry: There was one exception. That exception later was reversed, and the man was acquitted the next time around. Down in Beaufort, the then-solicitor for the Fourteenth Circuit was Randolph "Buster" Murdaugh. He brought to trial a white Marine in the Beaufort County Court of General Sessions, charged with raping a black female. He got a verdict of guilty, and without recommendation that was the standard then. The man was sentenced to die. On appeal, he won a reversal of his conviction. In a retrial, he was acquitted. I mention that because "Buster" Murdaugh was one of the gangbuster prosecutors. He was one of the most effective prosecutors that I've ever seen in a courtroom. That's the only known instance in which a white male was ever sentenced to die for the rape of a black female. The state Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. So we were arguing that the death penalty in rape cases was an instrument of racial suppression. We argued that the statistical evidence bore us out. The counter-argument was that in every one of the instances that informed our statistical study, the cases were fact-specific, and that you couldn't just look at the result and come out with the argument that we made. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 150

Going to the crime of homicide, we found a similar disparity. In the case of a black person who committed a homicide against a white person, often the sentence was death by electrocution. In a large percentage of the death penalties for a homicide, it was a black person accused of committing that offense against a white person. In those cases in which a black person was accused of killing a black person, almost never was that person sentenced to death. He was, in many instances, convicted of manslaughter. For involuntary manslaughter, you could get up to thirty years, or as low as two years. What a disparity. Often the sentences fell somewhere in between. Now let's go to white male vs. white victim. In some rare instances our statistical survey revealed that he was given the death penalty. But those were rare instances. In the vast majority of instances, he got a manslaughter conviction. We're speaking of convictions now, not acquittals. Where a white male was accused of committing that offense against a black victim, he was never given the electric chair. He was, in some instances, given a manslaughter sentence. He was often acquitted, more often in the case of a white male versus a black victim than a black male versus a white victim. I came to the view, and argued it strenuously, and I believe the evidence bore me out, that the death penalty, as it was then carried out in South Carolina, was an instrument of racial suppression. You asked my own personal view. I harbor the view espoused by Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, that has later been embraced by Lewis Powell and Justice Blackman, that the death penalty is improper. I do believe that society can and should find a better method, one that is more humane. Make no mistake about it, there are people who commit horrendous crimes, and upon conviction, they ought to be punished. No doubt, were a member of my family, or anyone close to me, to suffer vicious attacks, were I given the choice of what kind of punishment they should receive, out of the emotions of the moment, I would undoubtedly state a different point of view. I'm human like anybody else. Looking at it objectively, I embrace the view that it is improper. Yet I have seen many instances in which I have to agree that if you're ever going to have a death penalty, that's the one where you've got to do it. I've seen those cases. I've got cases in this court. I've got a case, and I'll tell you privately, that if the death penalty is proper, that's the one. So I have the capacity, you see, to render a judicial decision.

Moore: Given the law that obtains. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 151

Perry: That's right.

Moore: In 1972, at the Democratic National Convention, the Women's Political Caucus challenged the South Carolina delegation as having too few women. Here, you are sort of on the other side, you're defending the delegation against this charge of discrimination. Tell me about that incident.

Perry: [laughter] Don Fowler, my good friend. Was Don then the chairman?

Moore: I think he was chairman of the party.

Perry: Don came to me indicating the existence of the challenge that had been made against the delegation to the National Democratic Convention that was to be held in Miami. A number of women had challenged the makeup of the delegation. I think there were thirty-two in the delegation. I've forgotten how many women were in the delegation, probably twenty-five or thirty-five percent of the delegation, as opposed to the fifty or fifty-one percent that women had in the total population. There was a general disposition that a delegation ought to reflect the makeup of the population. I've forgotten what the black makeup was. Was there a challenge to the racial makeup?

Moore: No, I don't think there was. It seems to me that there were nine or ten blacks.

Perry: Don asked if I would handle it. He was speaking for the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party, which had authorized him to identify a lawyer to represent the delegation. We knew how the delegations were selected. I had been a delegate to the state convention. The challenge was referred to a hearing officer. The hearing officer was a lawyer living down in Mississippi, who came in here and served as a hearing judge. Witnesses were presented. Here I was defending the delegation against the challenge. I came to know how the delegations were made up. My principal witness was Don Fowler, who pointed out the extent to which information concerning precinct meetings had been disseminated throughout the state, the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 152

manner in which the precinct meetings were held, and how everybody had a right to attend the precinct. In order to get to go to your county convention, you had to have started at the precinct. You had to get elected at the precinct level to be a delegate to the county convention. You had to go to the county convention in order to be nominated to go to the state convention. He described it, and he described the fairness of the total process. Women, blacks, everybody in the community were encouraged to attend, and nobody was excluded from the right to attend, and many people did in fact attend. In the end, it came out with the statistical makeup that you and I have just now observed. It took us a full day to litigate the matter here before the hearing officer. The hearing officer had been appointed by the Democratic National Committee, and these challenges were being heard in every state around the country. Ours was not the only one. The national women's group, I don't know whether it was NOW, was really pushing these challenges. But we had a good time. The hearing officer concluded that South Carolina had unfairly limited the makeup of its delegation in this fashion. Don called and made his report to me, and wondered if I would accompany him to Washington to appear before the credential committee that was meeting before the convention. I did. We filed some exceptions to the hearing officer's report. My exceptions challenged his findings. Pointedly, I argued that the evidence was to the contrary, and I reviewed the manner in which the precincts had met, and how the full population was on notice about the precinct meetings that you had to attend in order to get elected. The party couldn't just reach out and grab you, and put you on the delegation. Here we were, at a big credential committee meeting in Washington. The chairwoman of the credentials committee was Patricia Roberts Harris. I argued the South Carolina position. The majority voted to overturn the hearing officer, and ruled in our favor. But there was a minority report that was made, and that minority report was going to the floor of the convention. The delegation went on to Florida. Don called me from Florida. I'm here arguing a case in federal court in Columbia. He says, "Matt, we need you. Would you come down to Miami?" The minority report with respect to the South Carolina challenge will be the first order of business on the convention floor. That was the convention that nominated George McGovern. There were lots of demonstrators. There was all kinds of excitement. I got permission from Judge Martin. He put a delay in the trial and permitted me to go to Miami. Don met me at the airport with a group from the South Carolina delegation who went. They took me in, got us in South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 153

under the stage of the convention floor, in a back door to the convention hall, down a corridor. There was a way you could get in by coming out right under the stage onto the convention floor. The delegates from all over the country were in their seats. Bill Jones of Greenwood, who was then the solicitor to the Eighth Circuit, the father of the present solicitor up there, he was a part of the delegation, and quite an orator himself. For some reason they wanted me to argue. Bill gets a hold of me and he says, "I want you to know, nobody in this room can argue better than you can." He literally pumped me up psychologically. But a member of the South Carolina delegation was Senator [J.P.] "Preacher" Harrelson, a state senator from one of the lower state counties [Colleton County]. Preacher wanted to argue it himself. He didn't like the idea of them bringing me down to argue it. He wanted the convention floor. They had to vote to let Preacher make one of the arguments. So the question was which one of us would go first, me or Preacher. Bill Jones, who did not want Preacher to be the last word, said, "We'd better let Preacher go first. Let Perry go last." But before even we could be heard, the performance of the minority report had the first shot. Let me tell you what I was up against. This national women's caucus had put together quite an aggregation. Bella Abzug took the podium. The mere sight of Bella Abzug excites the female population to a frenzy. [laughter] Can't you see her come out with that sweeping long dress, that wide-brim hat? She doesn't have to say anything. Bella Abzug, the only thing she's got to do is just get up there and make a gesture, and the women in the audience go bananas. [laughter] That's those that are with you and those that are against you. [laughter] She had a certain magic to her persona that could bring women to their feet, and a lot of men, too. Somebody else got up, and since the word had gotten out that I was going to speak, they put on a black minister from down in Louisiana, a rather eloquent gentleman himself, arguing against the South Carolina delegation. So now comes our turn. Preacher Harrelson made quite an emotional pitch. I learned from many of my friends from around the country, "You better be glad y'all didn't let it rest with that fellow." [laughter] There was something about his style that turned off many of the delegates, particularly black delegates. I took the floor, and, reportedly, I did right well. The convention voted the minority report down, and sustained the credentials committee majority report and the South Carolina delegation was seated.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 154

Moore: Did you stay for the rest of the convention?

Perry: No, I stayed an additional day. I had to come on back, because I had a pending case.

Moore: Was that an exciting episode?

Perry: It was. It was exciting and interesting. By the way, I got criticized. I was not present, but I later learned that the Black Caucus of the convention had met. Every time a national convention meets, you have caucuses that get together, and one of them is a black caucus. There's a women's caucus, and perhaps all sorts of other kinds of caucuses. The black caucus had met, and had decided to support the minority report. Here I was, well-known to many of the people who sat in the black caucus. My appearance sort of disrupted their resolve. A very good friend of mine was a black female who was then the secretary of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Deloris Tucker. Deloris' picture was recently in People magazine, where she's taken on gangsta rap. She's a great spokesperson against this filthy rap music. She says that it's just ruining the young people. That's one of her present causes. I knew Deloris well. She and I were friends in the NAACP, and she was also prominent in Democratic Party politics. She was present, and she took me around to meet several of the blacks who had already resolved. She told them, "This fellow is taking this position. I think we need to rethink our position." I think she helped turn things around. It was interesting.

Moore: Did you get any flak from South Carolina women?

Perry: No. The South Carolina women, some of them were very idealistic. There was a professor at the University of South Carolina. I have forgotten her name. I do remember the name of the man that she later married. He was a professor Zimmerman, who was a law professor. Margaret, that was her first name, she and I became very good friends. She was very much a part of this women's challenge. One of the people who was very much a part of this was Vickie Eslinger.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 155

Moore: A part of the challenge?

Perry: She was a part of the challenge. I knocked the props from under Vickie by establishing that Vickie had not attended the precinct meetings in her precinct, and therefore, she was not a delegate. Vickie and I became good friends. There were several others. Mrs. Cecinia from down in Dorchester, her husband was prominent, over one of the mental retardation agencies. Mrs. Cecinia was a delegate, and so I was arguing for her, to sustain her position, and she was very supportive of me, as were the other females on the delegation.

Moore: The ones that had made it. Alice Cecinia.

Perry: Alice Cecinia. Yes.

Moore: In '72, you were touted by the three black legislators at that time as a candidate for a state judgeship. You had a good many endorsements from newspapers around the state. What happened?

Perry: I never offered officially as a candidate. There was a movement undertaken first by black lawyers around the state, who were ever mindful of the total exclusion of blacks from the judiciary, and who were very insistent that the time had come for some one or more blacks to be elected by the General Assembly to judgeships. The movement started from among the ranks of black lawyers. Inevitably, my name was touted as a person who the black lawyers felt might be a proper candidate for a judgeship. They didn't care how it should come about. The black members of the state legislature began to focus upon it. It was suggested that I ought to come and start meeting some of the legislators, and let it be known of my desire in this respect. Sure enough, I attended one or more receptions of legislators, and began to shake some hands. I didn't mention to anybody that I'm a candidate for a judgeship. An atmosphere began to develop. At that time, there was only one person who had, in recent memory, been elected to a state judgeship who had not been first a member of the state legislature. That was Louis Rosen from Orangeburg. Let's add Rodney Peeples to that. But Rodney was in the firm of [Speaker of the House] Sol Blatt. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 156

Moore: Just as good.

Perry: Just as good. So my name never went to the floor of the legislature as a judicial candidate, but considerable interest was stirred up.

Moore: That same year, you were handling the reapportionment case. I got some impression there might have been some relationship between your winning reapportionment and people cooling on the idea of your becoming a judge.

Perry: I think many legislators just weren't ready to elect a black to a judgeship. For whatever reason, certainly not yours truly. Remember, the cases that I had handled were not designed to win friends and influence people. I never thought I'd live to see the day anyway. I didn't think I would live to see the time when any black would be elected to any judgeship in South Carolina, and certainly not me. I had challenged our state officials in so many ways. Somehow, I just didn't harbor any belief that it would ever come about. Surely, I felt, if it should come about, I had the ability to do the job. Many people say I had an abiding ambition to become a judge. I've heard that said. Let's put it this way: I didn't reject the idea. I was flattered when my name was suggested by black lawyers. Perhaps I engaged in some idea that that would be wonderful if it should ever come about, but I didn't harbor any belief that it ever could. Therefore, I didn't get my dander up over it. Ironically, when Senator Thurmond suggested the possibility to me, and when we finally decided to let him put my name into the hopper, it's amazing that many of the letters of support came from people whom one would never have expected that they'd have the capacity to speak in favorable terms about me. That's really something, to have a man like Gressette speak well of you. [laughter] McNair, Bob Davis, and others gave a big going-away reception for me after I had gotten approved by the , and they let him speak. He said, "When I first became aware of our honoree, he was all the way over on one end of the spectrum, and I was all the way over on the other end. I didn't think there would ever come a time when we would be able to harmonize our views and come together. But over the years I observed him, and he operated as a professional in every sense of the word. His integrity was such that no one could South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 157

challenge it." He said some of the most beautiful things about me, and I just had to sit and reflect, how on earth did I come to merit having this man make these statements?

Moore: You have to believe that there has been some movement in the state over the thirty years before that, some progress.

Perry: Exactly.

Moore: I want to get back to the reapportionment case, but you've led beautifully into the appointment to a judgeship. I am anxious to find out how becoming a judge, first on the Military Court, changed your life and your opportunity for service in the struggle for civil rights. What sort of meaning has that had for you? Did it end your service for civil rights, or did it simply put it in a different arena?

Perry: Certainly it ended that period of my life at which I was able to be the legal advocate for a segment of the community. I could no longer be out there carrying the cases into the courtroom. As a judge, first on the United States Court of Military Appeals, and later as a United States District Judge, I had to conform my activities to that that is proper for a judge. I could no longer go out and take controversial positions. I could only react to cases that came before me. When cases come before me, I have to deal with them in a judicial fashion. I am able to decide cases based upon my own interpretation of the law. There has been at least one case where my partiality has been impugned. Perhaps we will get to talk about that at some point. But on the whole, I think most of the lawyers agree that I have acted properly, that I have been professional in the way that I've handled things. To be sure, I have removed myself from consideration of certain cases. Anytime the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has been a party, I have removed myself from the case. While I believe that I have the capacity to be fair and impartial, I honestly do harbor that belief, I recognize that there would be the appearance, and that there would be those who would observe the process who would doubt my capacity for impartiality. A judge is required to be not only impartial, but is also required to maintain the appearance of impartiality. In the clerks' office, they do not assign me to any case in which that organization, which some describe as my erstwhile client, is a party. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 158

Moore: Is that about the only reason for excluding yourself from a case?

Perry: If I am related to a party, or if I am closely aligned with an individual, it wouldn't be proper for me to preside. I have, on occasion, removed myself from a case if one or the other of the litigants is someone that I know very well, or had some close relationship. Unlike some of my judicial colleagues, who own stock in a lot of companies, I am not one of those, and do not find it necessary to disqualify myself because of stock ownership.

Moore: You don't have holdings that would cause you to be accused of personal gain?

Perry: That's right. Some of my colleagues are wealthy in their own right, and they have extensive holdings. They have considerable risks. If those companies come into court, why, they're automatically disqualified.

Moore: I once heard you comment about the Reconstruction Congressman Robert Brown Elliott, and how much a biography of him had meant to you. I wonder if you could comment on why he is appealing. What sort of other heroes, historical or living, do you venerate?

Perry: Apart from the pleasure that I got out of reading Peggy Lamson's book, The Glorious Failure. . . [The Glorious Failure: Black Congressman Robert Brown Elliott and the Reconstruction in South Carolina, 1973]

[Tape 11, Side 2 begins]

Perry: It was amazing to me that a man could evidence such a determined and independent spirit that Robert Brown Elliott displayed during a time in which he was surrounded by elements of society who would just as soon he hadn't existed. The vast majority of the newly freed blacks were not educated. Somehow, this man had managed to acquire an education. Mrs. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 159

Lamson and others have disputed the origins of the nature of his education. They say he claims to have gotten it at a school called "Eden" over in England, but that an investigation of the rolls at Eton, which still exists as a school, do not reflect his presence. Everyone agrees that he did indeed have a splendid education. Some of the things that he was able to accomplish as a political figure of that period are rather astounding. To be sure, there have been many criticisms about the quality of the service of many blacks who served in the Reconstruction-period legislatures. I suppose, even looking at Ms. Lamson's review of that period, that there were many blacks who were not of the cut that we would like to see serving. Robert Brown Elliott stands out as an exception. Some of the speeches that he made when he got into the national Congress were just superb. Some of them were just downright outstanding. They commend themselves to modern-day orators. [laughter]

Moore: Are there other heroes or people that just grab your imagination, that inspire you?

Perry: Undoubtedly. It's certainly no secret, you would have discerned by now, if I hadn't already said it, that Thurgood Marshall stands right up at the top of the list. [laughter] But so does Robert Carter. Constance Baker Motley, a superb lawyer and brilliant woman, just one of the most remarkable advocates that it's been my pleasure to associate with. William Robert Ming was a part of Thurgood Marshall's brain trust of active lawyer-practitioners. He also had been a law professor. Judge William Hastie was once the dean of the law school at Howard University. He was appointed, by President Truman, Governor of the Virgin Islands, and then later, a United States District Judge in the Virgin Islands, and later, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He was one of the truly great lawyers and judges. Those on the national scene come to my mind at the moment. There were others that I never had any personal contact with. Charles Houston, who was the man Thurgood Marshall credits with being the mastermind of the legal assault. While I never had any contact with Mr. Houston, I just love everything I read about him.

Moore: That's an interesting list of people. I'd like for you to say a little bit more about the reapportionment plan that you got the Supreme Court to overturn in 1972. I suppose that was the coming of the single-member districts in the state legislature of South Carolina. I wonder if South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 160

you could tell me a little bit about the story, and if you have any evaluation of what that plan has meant for South Carolina, whether it has been generally good or bad, in terms of race relations.

Perry: It can be said with some great degree of accuracy that before we brought that lawsuit, you had multi-member legislative districts. Each county had so many members among its legislative delegation. Some small counties only had one representative, but most had two or more. I believe Richland County had eleven. Some had seven, some had five. In order to get elected to the House of Representatives, you had to have a majority of the electors to vote for you. If you fell below the fifty percent, you couldn't get elected. The white voter simply showed no appetite for electing a black to the House of Representatives, or to any other office. It was blacks who were accused by politicians of bloc voting, but here was a manifestation of that concept. [laughter] It had been that way since the turn of the century, or since the latter part of the nineteenth century. Of course, I don't know anything about the quality of the black candidates who had offered themselves. It seems to me that there were some pretty good people who offered themselves. Conceivably, they were recognized as being a little too active or a little too idealistic. Maybe they wouldn't have been elected in any event. Blacks could not be elected and were not elected, with three exceptions that occurred in 1970. Herb Fielding got elected from Charleston, Ernest Finney got elected from Sumter, and I.S. Leevy Johnson. That was an aberration, because this was the very first time that blacks had been able to get elected in this century. The basic premise on which we were operating was the same. You couldn't get elected in multi-member legislative districts, even though there were these couple of exceptions that we pointed to, which did not occur until 1970. We had been thinking about this fight, even back during the sixties. It took us some time to come up with a theory on which we might articulate our concerns. Many of our approaches to legal battles we had been debating and formulating for a period before we actually took it into the courts. Finally, we came upon the approach that we took in McCollom v. West. There were two cases. Stevenson v. West was the Senate reapportionment case, and McCollom v. West was the House case. Matthew McCollom was then the state president of the NAACP. ----- Stevenson was the vice president. [laughter] We challenged the use of the multi-member district, and we alleged that the manner of requiring a candidate for the House of Representatives to run at large in a county that elects several legislative members operated in a fashion to deny South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 161

blacks the right to get elected. Blacks were thereby denied equal protection of the law. The better method would be to require the legislature to be apportioned into single-member districts, and thereby allow each single-member district to elect its own representative. In this fashion, people would have a better opportunity to get elected. We stitched together considerable arguments, which I cannot now instantaneously resurrect for you in support of this concept. We prevailed.

Moore: And it increased considerably the number of blacks who were elected.

Perry: As a matter of fact, the very next election after that decision, there were several blacks elected. It was a dramatic increase, something like twelve or thirteen.

Moore: I think it jumped from three to thirteen.

Perry: I'd like to think that it has been beneficial. We haven't been proud of every person who got elected, but that's true not only among blacks, but it's true among whites. This business of expecting only the finest black, the one that you'd love to see there, you're not going to get that. You're going to get some who are good, and some you would just as soon not come close.

Moore: Just like in the total population.

Perry: Absolutely.

Moore: Some would argue that the single-member district, by drawing lines that placed enough blacks in a district that they can be sure to elect a black representative, by the same token puts more whites in adjacent districts, and that those representatives then have no responsibility to blacks, and that that has contributed to the rise of the Republican Party.

Perry: Yes, there is quite an argument in that respect. It has some validity. The lines of the various districts have been drawn and redrawn over the years. The court didn't set up the legislative districts as a result of our suit. It simply required the legislature to reapportion itself South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 162

into single-member districts. We've seen the occasional reapportioning of the legislature to reflect the attitudes of those in the legislature, and to reflect whatever the Justice Department lets them get away with. We've got some suits pending now. I'm one of the three judges on the current suits over the most recently approved lines for the Senate, and of the House.

Moore: Those suits are brought by blacks alleging that. . . ?

Perry: No. As a matter of fact, in one of them, the suit is brought by a white senatorial candidate. They are alleging that the districts as now constituted were constituted for racial reasons.

Moore: And the Supreme Court has begun to frown on that. So it's going to be a major issue for some time. I thank you very much. It's been a wonderful session, and I look forward to the next one.

[End of Session 6. Session 7, February 6, 1996, Tape 12 begins]

Moore: Today, Judge, I propose we talk mainly about Orangeburg, the circumstances surrounding the so-called Orangeburg Massacre. Nearly a year before, you were called in the spring of '67. There was a student boycott of classes. The administration had decided to fire or not renew the contracts of three professors. I believe they were all white, and one or more of them were sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, so they were special professors that had been sent in. They were informed that they weren't to come back the following year. The reason, the students thought, was that these professors, particularly one named Thomas Worth, had engaged in a good deal of consciousness-raising with the students. When the students got this word, they boycotted, and three of the student leaders were suspended. I think that you were brought in on that case to represent those suspended students.

Perry: I was. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 163

Moore: I wanted to ask you who brought you in on that case, and what can you tell me about that suit, and the negotiations that ended the boycott?

Perry: You've just indicated the thing that touched off the student unrest. Isaac ["Ike"] Williams, who later became a state field director for the NAACP, was then a student at South Carolina State.

Moore: He was president of the senior class, I believe.

Perry: The reason I mention his name is he was actively involved in the expression of concerns that emanated from the student body, possibly serving a leadership role. From my perspective as a lawyer, and as a member of the public, I became aware through reports from the news media that there was unrest at South Carolina State. Reportedly, some of the unrest came from a perception of the then-president of South Carolina State, whom the students and, I later learned, many of the faculty regarded as being somewhat autocratic. That was by no means the only source of the unrest. There was resentment towards the state legislature, which had consistently elected only white members to the Board of Trustees. There was a feeling that the state did not adequately fund South Carolina State, and that the general attitude of state officials toward this, the only state-supported institution of higher education that focused upon blacks, was considered as a stepchild. At some point during the various manifestations of student unrest, the president or possibly the faculty council headed by the president, promoted a rule that prohibited any student demonstrations on campus without the prior approval of the president. I believe that's essentially how the rule read. On an occasion which precipitated the suspension of the students, and then the resulting lawsuit, there was a student rally on campus that proceeded to the front yard of the president. Whether the students were aware of that rule that I just recited, I don't know. The relevance of the rule is that it was later pointed to as a basis upon which the faculty council voted to suspend the students. What the students sought to convey to the president and others, I cannot honestly tell you today. Benner Turner, the president, was not physically on campus at the time. He was out of town. The students perhaps didn't even know that he wasn't there. He learned South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 164

about it immediately, and upon his return, convened the faculty council. The faculty council met, and they identified three students who were thought or alleged to be the leaders of the student rally. The faculty council voted to "suspend" these students for various periods. The reason I put the word "suspend" in quotes is because the periods of suspension ran for several years, something like four years.

Moore: The equivalent to expulsion.

Perry: Exactly. That precipitated a student boycott. Reverend Newman, who was then either the state president or the state field director of the NAACP, had some pipelines through the student NAACP on the campus. He and the adult leadership in the Orangeburg community felt that something needed to be done about that situation, because it was certainly not good to see the students boycotting. He contacted me. I thought about it, and had the students come here to Columbia and sit down with me. I learned that what they had done was to engage in a campus protest, but that other than engaging in that protest, it did not appear that they had done anything else that should have prompted their expulsion from school. It did not seem to me, on the basis of my interviews, and what I had been able to pick up through interacting with Reverend Newman and the others I talked with, that any of the students had violated any principle of state law. With respect to the institutional rules that were cited as a basis for their expulsion, that clearly was an unlawful rule. It violated the First Amendment. I gradually stitched together in my mind a concept that if the expulsions were solely upon the basis of the application of that rule, then the expulsions were unlawful. While a private institution might have gotten away with this, no state-supported institution could. It's the state that is prohibited from violating these constitutional provisions. I proceeded to draft the lawsuit. You have to understand a bit of personal anxiety that began to set in on me. Dr. Benner Turner was an old friend. He had been my old law school dean. I had developed a special relationship with him over the years. He regarded me as one of his prime students. He held me out with a sense of pride. When I drafted the lawsuit and put it together and got ready to file it, I felt a bit of uneasiness personally. So I drove to Orangeburg, and I went into the president's office and sought permission to see him. I was escorted into his office, and he welcomed me. I chatted with him, friendly, in an South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 165

effort at renewing old times. He was obviously now tense and emotional, because he was the object of the outrage, not only from the student body, but I later learned, from members of the faculty who were looking on him somewhat askance. The governor's office and the trustees were beginning to experience some anxiety over the perception that he had become too autocratic. So I said, "Dr. Turner, you know of my affection for you, and for this institution. There is, at present, student unrest that I understand grows out of the suspension of these students. While I acknowledge that I have not been on campus and am not privy to everything that has occurred, my information is that a rule has been averred to as the basis upon which the suspensions were made. I wonder if it is not possible for the faculty council to reconvene and reconsider its action. I believe that it would remove the cause of the student unrest, and whatever the problems are here, I sense that they can be dealt with if some form of dialogue were created with the students and others who might be concerned." This was the essence of my remarks, and I was most deferential to him. You know, he was my teacher, my dean. [laughter] He responded in a negative fashion, saying, "No, we cannot allow the students to run the school. We've got to have obedience to the rules." I then reluctantly said, "Well, Dr. Turner, I've been asked to seek relief for these students in a court proceeding. I thought that I ought to let you know before I proceed any further in that regard, and to let you know that I sincerely regret that I will have to take that kind of action. I just want to beg you to consider calling the faculty council and seeing if you can't do something about this." He considered me one of his prime students. I was his exhibit A. He had expressed pride in me. By now, I was a well-known lawyer in the state. He was pointing with pride to me as a product of the institution. But now the autocratic nature of his personality came to the fore. He twisted his shoulder. Once you were really getting to him, and we had seen this over the years as students, his shoulder would go, and he was getting ready to let you have it. [laughter] He rolled his shoulder, and said, "Well, if you're going to sue, you go ahead and sue. The people out there, if they want to run the school, let them run the school." Again, I made a plea. "I don't want to do this. You've got to understand, this is my alma mater. This is not something that I look to with pleasure. But I can find no justification for a rule such as this one, as the basis upon which the right to attend a public institution is based. If there were other reasons that might have justified the expulsion, I certainly would like to know it." South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 166

Well, by now, the dialogue between us had just about run its course. Regrettably, he didn't ask me out, but the conversation turned into cold, unresponsive, unproductive discourse. I remained respectful and indeed, deferential to him, but nevertheless, every bit the lawyer. [laughter] I returned to Columbia, and the suit was already prepared. I got it into the federal courthouse that afternoon. I got a temporary restraining order directing the immediate return of the students into the school. Judge Hemphill, to whom the case was assigned, scheduled it for a hearing. At the evidentiary hearing that we had, he agreed with me, and ruled that the rule was unconstitutional, and that the expulsion of the students under the aegis of that rule was a violation of the First Amendment.

Moore: You just asked for a summary judgment, and only the judge was involved.

Perry: That's correct. It was not a jury trial. Under one of the rules of procedure, under Rule Sixty-Five of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal judge can issue an injunction based upon a proper showing that a constitutional provision has been violated. This was a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. A federal judge can, under that same rule, issue a temporary restraining order, can do so ex parte, that is to say, without affording the other side an opportunity to be heard, if that judge is convinced that a party is being irreparably harmed by reason of the alleged violation of a constitutional right. That was the basis upon which the temporary restraining order was issued. Then he ordered that the hearing on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction be set for argument on a certain date, something like a week or two after. At the evidentiary hearing, at which representatives of the school were able to appear in response to our suit, they had nothing of moment to say. We carried the day.

Moore: Do you remember who represented State College?

Perry: I don't remember if the attorney general did. My sense is that it was somebody from the state attorney general's office.

Moore: So you won the preliminary injunction. Do you move then toward a permanent injunction? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 167

Perry: In the ordinary case, later, a judge, having issued a preliminary injunction, unless the parties come forth with more evidence, will make that preliminary injunction permanent. Whether he ultimately did that, I cannot tell you honestly that he did. The temporary restraining order is what got them back into school, and the preliminary injunction more or less confirmed what the judge had already done with the temporary restraining order. On the heels of that, the boycott was ended. But the student unrest was not thereby squelched in its entirety. The president had surrounded himself with his guards. Dr. Turner had gotten to the point where the campus security people accompanied him about the campus. This was before the present administrative building was constructed. The present administrative building is right down there at the edge of the campus. That was built during the tenure of Dr. [Maceo] Nance. The president's office used to be down on the ground floor of the old library. When Dr. Turner would leave the president's residence in the morning, that's down near the other end of the campus, near the football field, campus police would drive in front of him and another one would follow behind, when he would leave the president's office to go home for lunch—this is driving through the campus. You're talking about a president on campus, driving through his students and other people milling about the campus, being escorted by campus police. Now, I never saw this. Reverend Newman mentions this in a news article of that period, during which he pulled off the gloves and chastised the president for his autocratic style. I remember that news article very well. It was in the nature of a letter to the editor, in which Reverend Newman, sort of uncharacteristically, got on a person. Sometime thereafter, they decided that Dr. Turner had to be retired. The governor sits on that board ex officio, and generally, back at that time, could just about direct the course of action, assuming the members of the board found themselves in agreement with him. [laughter] They customarily did. [laughter] A decision was made that President Turner, who was not yet eligible for retirement, but was within x number of years of his point of eligibility, would advance his retirement date to the present. I was quietly given an offer to be the next president.

Moore: Is that so?

Perry: Having said that, I'm going to leave that to you and Governor McNair. [laughter] South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 168

Moore: But it was an offer you could refuse, I guess.

Perry: Yes. I had no experience as an educator or as a school administrator. I had been a practicing lawyer. While I felt that I could get in and learn to do the job just as I might learn to do any other job, I felt that I had a role in the legal community. Hallie and I discussed it, and I advised him that I'd rather continue practicing law. Query whether that was, in retrospect, a wise decision. We will never know. [laughter]

Moore: I suspect it was a wise decision.

Perry: So, they turned to Maceo [Nance]. Maceo made a very fine president. He was, at that point, the business manager or the vice president for business affairs.

Moore: President Turner, what happened to him?

Perry: In retirement, he left South Carolina. I learned through an old friend who later died, Mrs. Pierce in Orangeburg, with whom Hallie had a very friendly relationship, and with her daughter who still lives there. Mrs. Pierce had befriended Dr. Turner when he first came into Orangeburg prior to the arrival of his family. He maintained contact with her. His home was over in Georgia. He comes from the Columbus, Georgia region. But in retirement, he returned to Missouri, which may have been the home of his wife. I cannot personally confirm that. Later, within the past five or six years, he died.

Moore: But he remained retired. He didn't take up any position in any other institution?

Perry: No, he did not.

Moore: I wonder if you knew anything about the negotiations in ending the boycott?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 169

Perry: No, I'm not privy to that at all. I can recite for you that, once we got that result from that court suit, the students felt the freedom to end the boycott. By the way, and Ike knew this, I've never been a fan of student boycotts. I have maintained steadfastly that young black students need every moment that they can get in a classroom. When the civil rights movement around the state began to involve young people, they had many justifiable complaints about many of the schools and about conditions in the schools. Ike Williams is one of them, he would rush in and urge a student boycott. I was his enemy on that. You do not take these young people out of school. Let's fight this through other means. One of the things that I insisted upon was the fact that young people need every ounce of education that they can get. While I acknowledge that I would prefer a first-rate education over that of a second-rate one, if the second-rate one was all that was available, get that until we can move something else in place. But I lost that battle several times. My viewpoint meant nothing to those students at South Carolina State who were insistent upon dealing with that situation.

Moore: I wonder if you recall what your response was to Reverend King calling in the school children in the Birmingham situation.

Perry: Those were not boycotts. There was nothing wrong with that, as far as I was concerned. Taking a day out of school to make a point, there's nothing wrong with that. That's a brief interruption. That's a different thing. But a boycott, that's a sustained withdrawal from school. Arguably, you could keep that in place throughout a semester, or a year, or whatever. That's the kind of thing that I never countenanced. I was loud, I was pointed, I was clear. I was insistent. [laughter]

Moore: And you sometimes lost.

Perry: I oftentimes lost. [laughter] But I think Reverend Newman appreciated my point of view. To the extent that he had some input, I think he carried forth my point of view. I think he agreed with me. But I think he was against suppressing students' innovative approaches. He was more accommodating to young Ike Williams and those who really wanted to carry forth.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 170

Moore: It was almost the role of the NAACP to defend demonstrators and others almost of any stripe if they got into trouble. Am I right?

Perry: Generally speaking, yes. But it always was with reference to some demonstration that was aimed against the racial practices of the period, as opposed, let us say, to a labor strike.

Moore: I understand that in October of '67, you went to Orangeburg and met with some NAACP members there to talk about the bowling alley. I wonder what you could tell me about that meeting, and why someone didn't make a complaint that would allow you to bring a civil suit against Mr. [Harry] Floyd [owner of the all-white All-Star Bowling Lanes].

Perry: I do remember the meeting, but why we didn't proceed in the fashion that you suggest is what I may have a bit of a problem putting together. We had a meeting. It was in one of the conference rooms at Trinity Methodist Church, right across the railroad corner in Orangeburg. That's where we had many such meetings in Orangeburg. There were several people there, the minister of that church, other ministers, other persons who were prominent in the Orangeburg community, some people from the college campus. I outlined my views on the appropriateness of a lawsuit. I suggested my willingness to intervene in their behalf. I cannot tell you now why we did not proceed. Cleveland Sellers, who was then very much involved in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and others, were present in the Orangeburg community. I didn't know it, and I don't believe Reverend Newman knew it. You had various organizational representatives bent on doing something about racial practices. The NAACP was only one of them. In our view, everyone was welcome; there was enough to go around. [laughter] So, it's not that anyone would have resented the notion, except that SNCC was known to advocate some tactics that were not exactly those that your NAACP leadership was espousing. It didn't mean that the NAACP leadership was against SNCC, but it was the fact that the NAACP leadership didn't exactly adopt certain approaches that that organization did. Here were these very bright young people, and Cleveland Sellers without a doubt was a bright young man, and later became a Ph.D., and others were in there already interacting with the students.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 171

Moore: By the time of that October meeting?

Perry: Yes. That was already underway, except that we didn't know it. So here I was counseling with a more senior group of adults about the approaches that had served us pretty well up to that point. Here was a group advocating a more direct approach.

Moore: I got a hint from something Jack Bass wrote that you, in talking with this group, couldn't say without directly soliciting a client?

Perry: We were always careful about that.

Moore: You couldn't say, "Oscar Butler, make a complaint, and I will defend you." Somehow, they may not have understood that what you were really suggesting was that one of them stand up.

Perry: I think that's a fair observation on Jack's part. Jack, as you know, is very perceptive. [laughter] I'd say that he makes a pretty good call on that.

Moore: Why did neither the Justice Department of the United States or even the state government of South Carolina enforce the law in the case of the All-Star Bowling Lanes? Why was the enforcement of the law dependent on young blacks demonstrating for rights that the law had already established?

Perry: Because the general position on the part of the state was that the state was not willing to actively interject itself into a matter so controversial as this. While I have no doubt that Governor McNair had a sense that the conduct of the owners of the bowling alley was unlawful, as an elected governor, he was also sensitive to the attitudes. . . .

[Tape 12, Side 2 begins]

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 172

Perry: So the question, what should be the role of state government, was more or less that of one of reserve. At the time, you have various other state officials in other states who were making headlines every day. Wallace was still a factor in Alabama. Faubus was still a factor in Arkansas. In South Carolina, a South Carolina governor, I guess, had to decide how fast he might go, or the extent to which he should go, taking into consideration the kind of statewide constituency that he had. In this instance, the governor's office did nothing. Sometimes, when we don't know what to do, we do nothing. [laughter]

Moore: Couldn't he have argued very forcefully with whoever resented his taking any action that he was under oath to support the constitution?

Perry: Oh, yes. Without a doubt, he could have. Boy, would that have been a wonderful thing.

Moore: But it was unrealistic to expect.

Perry: It was unrealistic to expect.

Moore: What about the Justice Department?

Perry: The Justice Department rarely interjected itself independently. It often came and joined us in lawsuits and gave us backing, certainly at the appellate stages. They left it to us at the beginning. The Justice Department was in the business more of reacting than it was in enforcing the law at that time. Well, we're talking about a period when Ramsey Clark was the Attorney General, so, let me not say that with absolute certainty. Ramsey Clark and his Justice Department did indeed send in Marshals, and they interjected themselves. They had a very active civil rights division. But in this instance, they didn't come in.

Moore: It always seemed so strange to me that the enforcement of the law is so often left to those who have been victims. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 173

Perry: That is correct.

Moore: It's a difficult thing for me to understand. I understand the reality of it, but it's difficult to understand how people justify their unwillingness to enforce the law.

[Tape stops, then restarts]

Moore: Let's move to the week of the shooting at Orangeburg. I think it took place on a Thursday. In the week before, there were very tense times. I just wondered what you were hearing and what you were doing. Did you go down there?

Perry: No, I did not go down there. I learned that the students were demonstrating with respect to the matter. I was handling many other concerns of the civil rights community. The fact that there were demonstrations going on was nothing strange or surprising. But the intensity of it had grown to the point that we later discovered that occurred on the night that the students were shot. My information about what was going on was coming essentially through news reports. I don't know how actively involved Reverend Newman was in respect to what was going on. I don't think he was active other than in the fashion which we've already observed, that is, in bringing together the community's leadership. My sense is that the SNCC people had more or less gotten the attention of the students, and more or less took charge. Sellers obviously was a student leader.

Moore: I'm primarily interested in getting your response from Columbia to what was happening down there from what you knew about it. I wondered what the sources of your information was. People weren't calling you from down there so much as you were getting it from the news?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 174

Perry: Mrs. Simkins had a pipeline into what was going on. Nathaniel Abraham, who is a publisher, went into Orangeburg and probably witnessed much of what was going on. I had the impression that he interacted with Mrs. Simkins during that period. Mrs. Simkins would frequently call and interact with me. I've already observed to you that she was not a fan of Reverend Newman's. [laughter] To this day, it's just a mystery to me why she was so unreceptive to him. On the other hand, she would frequently call me, and we would interact. I would let her know about the status of legal matters. I had a sense that she was generally appreciative of our legal efforts. When I would appear in an audience, she was among those who applauded and gave some recognition to me. On the other hand, my association with Reverend Newman was one that she. . . . [laughter] On the night the students were killed, she called me. It was after midnight. I was in bed. She's the one who told me about it. Apparently, someone had called her, and my sense is that it was Nathaniel Abraham. I believe he was down there. She got her information from some source, and I do know that she interacted with him regularly. She called and said, "Mr. Perry, do you know they're down there killing students in Orangeburg?" I got out of bed and talked with her. She said, "The Highway Patrol is down there shooting up the student body." She was rather snappy in the way she said things. With that kind of information, I didn't know how to react to it. I called the Newman residence, but I don't believe Reverend Newman was home. I was searching about to try and come to grips with this. I called around. We're talking something like one or two o'clock in the morning. She called me again. She said, "These people down there are shooting up people." I must have stayed up for the rest of the night. There was nothing I could do. There was no point in me physically going to Orangeburg. It was not my role to do anything in physical terms. The following morning, the word was out that three students had gotten killed, that several people, including Cleveland Sellers, were in jail. Sellers had also been shot. He was also brought up here to the state penitentiary. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had as its preferred lawyer a friend of mine in Atlanta named Howard Moore. Howard was a very accomplished lawyer with whom I frequently interacted. Thurgood Marshall frequently convened lawyers in national conferences, and Howard Moore was one of those lawyers that I had come to know. He had earlier worked with Donald Holloway. Howard called me to say that Cleveland Sellers and one or two other people had been arrested in connection with this thing, South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 175

and would I associate with him in trying to secure the release of Mr. Sellers and others? I may have gotten a call from other sources also, to see about those who had gotten arrested. I know that Reverend Newman and the state NAACP leadership immediately showed its concern. I went to the state penitentiary and I spoke with Cleveland Sellers, and with others. Sellers appeared to be a bright young man.

Moore: Was this the first time you had met him?

Perry: This was the first time I had met him. I knew his relatives. He had an aunt who lived in Spartanburg who had been a neighbor of ours when we lived there. I knew his mother. He was a bright, upbeat young man. He was very happy to see me. When you're in jail, I guess you're happy to see anybody. [laughter]

Moore: I understand that they put him on death row. Do you have any recollection about that?

Perry: I don't know where they had him, but they probably put him someplace special. He was regarded as literally public enemy number one. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where they put him. Howard said that he would be representing them, and wanted me to represent them with him. He would have one or two other lawyers. We went about the business of securing their release. Along the way, I learned that the SNCC people had decided that they did not want me to be a part of the legal team. The young people of SNCC took a dim view of what they perceived to be my seeming middle-class appearance. This was a point in time in which the young people of SNCC had started wearing the big Afro and the dashiki, and the chains around the neck. Many of them wore jeans. Some of the lawyers who represented them started doing that. I began seeing Howard wearing jeans and sporting a beard and wearing a chain. There were a couple of lawyers in Virginia, not those that I interacted with most frequently, Oliver Hill and some of the others. Some of those who represented them there, one of whom became famous nationally and got in trouble with the bar, would not wear a tie and insisted upon wearing a chain, and wearing the big Afro. I never did that. I always felt that a lawyer has to look like a South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 176

lawyer, and has to act like one, and has to adopt approaches in a courtroom that are in conformity with the manner in which legal proceedings are conducted in an American courtroom. This is the age of protest. You've got young people who are challenging the very pillars of society. They wanted their lawyers to project that kind of image. I'm surmising that it is that thought process that rendered me unacceptable. Sellers never discharged me. My sense was that he was very pleased to see me, and to have me as his representative. I got a call from Howard. He said, "Matt, my people don't like you." [laughter] He said, "I hope you don't mind. You won't be involved in this." I said, "That's quite all right. I had more than I could handle already." [laughter] Fred Moore of Charleston was tagged to be their local counsel. He, along with Howard Moore, represented Sellers and others in the case. They were charged with riot in the Court of General Sessions for Orangeburg County. They had a big trial down there, and they got convicted. They lost on the appeals, and had to serve their time. I had business in Orangeburg in the courthouse, and happened to see the sentence. It was quite a setting around there.

Moore: You saw. . . ?

Perry: I didn't attend the trial. I pointedly stayed away from the trial proceedings. I was by then a well-known lawyer, and I had many concerns which demanded my attention. I didn't have time to sit around watching that trial. After the verdict of guilty, Chief Strom came over to me. He said, "I want you to know something." It was easy for him to say, since I wasn't involved in the trial. He said, "You could have won that case." I don't know if I could have or not. The approach of the law enforcement people was that Sellers and others had come in there and stirred the students up, and that some of the students had thrown rocks and bricks at the police, and that this was what precipitated the shooting. The SNCC people just didn't like me, didn't like my approaches, didn't like the approaches of the other lawyers with whom I traditionally associated.

Moore: Do you think that justice was rendered there, or was this the excitement of the moment?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 177

Perry: It's a little difficult for me to say, since I did not attend the trial and never read the transcript. But I know Howard Moore was an excellent lawyer. I can personally attest to his skills. He was a very fine lawyer. Judge [John] Grimball, then the resident circuit judge from the Fifth Circuit, which is Columbia and Kershaw, was the presiding judge in that trial. Judge Grimball thought highly of Howard's performance. What brought about the conviction…I was complimented by those who thought that a grave mistake was made in not involving me in the trial. There was a general feeling that I had much to offer in a courtroom.

Moore: According to Jack Bass and Jack Nelson, in the book The Orangeburg Massacre, they wrote that the charge of rioting was on February eighth, which was the night of the shooting, and that Judge Grimball ruled that there was not any evidence to sustain that on the eighth. So the focus was put on the sixth, which was the confrontation at the bowling alley.

Perry: I had forgotten that.

Moore: The defense pointed out that if you convict them, you're convicting them of rioting on a date that the judge said there was no evidence of it. The prosecution said there was precedent that the time of a crime doesn't have to be precisely the same as that for which they were indicted. It would seem to me the date of the crime would make a very great difference. But in spite of that, they were convicted. It may be that Chief Strom was thinking that you could have made a stronger case of that, or that jurors would have been more willing to listen to someone without an Afro. There does seem to be something pretty emotional about the decision to convict.

Perry: That's my sense. I think Jack Bass and Jack Nelson attended much of this. They followed it very carefully, and they wrote, I think, a very fine account.

Moore: Can you give me some sense of the impact that the Orangeburg shootings had on you?

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 178

Perry: I was devastated. We had not had any display of violence of this sort during my experience in the civil rights struggle. Surely, our people had been arrested. In some instances, there had been allegations that they had been mistreated. They had been sprayed with water during the earlier demonstrations. The police had utilized what they suggested was appropriate force, and we suggested it was not. But never had the police gone to this extreme before. This was out of the ordinary. It was the first such incident. Kent State occurred the following year, didn't it?

Moore: Two years later.

Perry: Down at Jackson [State University] . . .

Moore: That was in '70.

Perry: This was your first one. This was a break in the manner in which the police had responded to the protest movement. They hadn't done that in Birmingham. They had turned dogs loose on them, and they had watered them down with hoses. John Lewis had been beaten across the head. They had killed a few boys down in Mississippi.

Moore: Those were law enforcement people, but not on duty. They did it surreptitiously. I was going to ask if you thought Orangeburg tended to make South Carolina more like the other states in the strength of the resistance to the demonstrations and the movement. You're suggesting that it's even more violent than most of them. I think in Alabama, Jimmy Lee Jackson was shot by police officers.

Perry: Yes, there were instances of police shootings. In Montgomery, didn't they kill a Catholic priest down there?

Moore: In Selma there was a Unitarian minister named [James] Reeb who was stricken to death by a mob. That was not by the police. The response of the black community, as you understand it, to it. . . South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 179

Perry: It's difficult to describe the entire emotional response of the black community, other than to tell you that my own general sense of devastation was in many respects mirrored by those with whom I interacted. People said the police just simply violated the law. There were charges from the police that the students acted first, that the police were only reacting. This was a public relations response that they gave. McNair suffered the aftermath of that. He was never forgiven, certainly by persons such as Mrs. Simkins. She never forgave him. She felt that he created, or certainly tolerated, the buildup of the situation there, and that he placed people on the scene who he ought to have known were capable of responding in this fashion.

Moore: The Highway Patrol apparently was armed with shotguns loaded with buckshot designed to kill deer, rather than birdshot. Birdshot would have stung and wounded, but it would have to be almost point-blank to kill. Why would Chief Strom not have armed those men with birdshot rather than buckshot?

Perry: I don't know. I don't know whether he knew. After all, the Highway Patrol had another commander. The State Law Enforcement chief only knew what his people were armed with. He loved the idea that he was the chief. When he was on the scene, he assumed the command post. He wasn't the person who gave the command to fire. It was this legal representative from the governor's office. When he was on the scene, he purported to speak with the governor. Reportedly, he is the person who set off the chain of words that passed down among the ranks of the patrolmen that gave them what they perceived to be the authority to fire. I think if Bob McNair can be laid with the blame—he wasn't there, you can't say that he directed this, but this fellow who served as his legal advisor made a poor choice. He was a regrettable choice to be on the governor's staff. He ought not have been present in Orangeburg. I know that Bob McNair regrets very much that incident. Unfortunately, this happened on his watch.

Moore: You were the lawyer in the civil case of the families of [Delano] Middleton, [Samuel] Hammond, and [Henry] Smith against the highway patrolmen. Tell me about that case. Was it one you ever thought you could win, or do you have to go into every case thinking you can win? South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 180

Perry: You have to go into every case thinking you can win.

Moore: That would be a tough case to win.

Perry: I'm afraid so. The Justice Department had already secured an indictment, and had prosecuted these officers in a criminal trial. They were found not guilty. We brought civil lawsuits and utilized the same evidence that the Justice Department had used. We did not prevail. The jury found against us. I know there was a feeling on the part of the families of the deceased that this should have been done. Unfortunately, we did not succeed.

Moore: What is your judgment about the justice in both the criminal case and the civil case?

Perry: I don't feel good about it. Bear in mind, I was not involved in the criminal trial. You have to understand that the individual defendants, the highway patrolmen, were defended by claiming that they had already been attacked by rock-throwing students, and students who threw other missiles at them, and that what they did, they did defensively under their perception that their well-being and the lives of passersby were in danger. The jury bought that defense, and found them not guilty. That same approach was made in the civil case.

Moore: And it worked.

Perry: It worked.

Moore: The shootings themselves, the criminal trial and the civil trial gave some evidence at where South Carolina was at that moment in history.

Perry: I think it did.

South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 181

Moore: That was probably why it was so devastating to you and to the black community, and to many of us in the white community, too. It brought us to very suddenly to the reality that we hadn't come as far as we had thought.

Perry: Very definitely. Add to everything we've said that…the concept that juries are very reluctant, certainly in this part of the country, to rule that a police officer has acted improperly. When you've got the power of the state, from the office of the state attorney general to the top police officials, claiming that what the police did was proper, that they acted with restraint, and that they acted only in response to what they perceived as unlawful conduct, you get citizens on a jury who accord the police a certain presumption. That's what happened. It's a sad moment in the history of our state. Very sad.

Moore: What is your view of the role of Cleveland Sellers in that crisis?

Perry: I don't know what his role was. I know that he was active as a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. I know that he was a highly motivated young man, as all of the SNCC leaders were. I know that he came into the Orangeburg community with his colleagues, and they involved themselves in the student community in a fashion that persuaded the students to go out and demonstrate against the bowling alley, and to assemble themselves and protest against the practices that prevailed at the bowling alley. Whether he and the other SNCC leaders can get the blame for what the students did. . . . For example, the students allegedly built a bonfire on the edge of the campus, and fed the fire to keep it burning. Reportedly, and the police testimony was, and there were other people in the community called by those in defense of the police who claim that vehicles drove along the College Street area, which is the street along by the railroad, that missiles came from the ranks of the students, and on occasion, struck passing motor vehicles. There were police officers who claimed to have been struck by flying debris. Before the police shot, a policeman allegedly fell after being struck by a flying missile of some sort. The police were able to claim that they thought the officer had been shot. There had been testimony that they heard gun shots fired from the direction of the ranks of the students. I doubt the credibility of some of that. Sellers was among the ranks of the protesting students. That's how he got shot. Query: was he urging the South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 182

students, if indeed they were throwing missiles? And I don't know if they were or not. Students with whom I have interacted, and questioned, denied that any of them threw any missiles or that they saw anybody else do so. It's a little difficult to stitch things together, if missiles were thrown. Query: whether Sellers and other SNCC people urged this level of response. Normally, when an NAACP-led protest was afoot, the students and other participants were generally urged not to give a violent response, to be submissive. This was the Martin Luther King approach, turn the other cheek. John Lewis had been attacked without striking back. But now SNCC had taken on a more active stance—if you strike me, I'm going to strike you back. Whether that attitude had now found its way into the Orangeburg response, I don't know. Who was then the national director of SNCC? Was it H. Rap Brown, or had it become Floyd McKissick? Stokely Carmichael had become the national leader of SNCC. The advent of his leadership was what gave SNCC a more direct approach. He was the one who coined the phrase "Black Power." After his tenure, H. Rap Brown came to the fore nationally. His stance was, "Burn, Baby, Burn." So you had a different approach being taken by SNCC.

[Tape 12 ends. Tape 13 begins]

Perry: Which philosophical period, or where the thinking had progressed among the SNCC leadership at the time of the Orangeburg confrontation, I am not able to say. Julian Bond had at one time been the secretary of SNCC, or held some such office. This was back during the time when the young SNCC people were just bright, intelligent, but active young students who were insisting upon the utilization of their constitutional rights now, instead of next year or hereafter. It was a refreshing and very enlightening period. Stokely Carmichael came to the fore right on the heels of this. John Lewis, Julian Bond, and the many other young people, Diane Hunter, a student at Fisk, and several others had become nationally prominent as very bright young leaders of student movements. But Stokely Carmichael came in, and he heightened the level of activism, and urged that the business of being nonviolent was not the response that we need. We need a more positive response than this. He introduced a new concept.

Moore: The original nonviolent stance of SNCC did evolve to a sense of retaliation if necessary. I think it was making the transition at about that time. I think it was at about that South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 183

time that the concept of "Black Power" was beginning to be heard. It was about this time that some of the white organizers in SNCC became persona non grata.

Perry: Certainly that was the case when H. Rap Brown emerged. It may have started under Stokely.

Moore: A good deal of talk about black awareness. SNCC was still pushing that. Cleveland Sellers was pushing that. At Orangeburg, they set up a Black Awareness Coordinating Committee, which was an active smaller group while the NAACP student group in the fall of sixty-seven and into sixty-eight was a large group of I think three hundred members. BACC had a much smaller membership but was more militant.

Perry: So this was a local component, really, of SNCC.

Moore: I guess it might be considered that, although my understanding is that it arose independently. It is the group that Sellers interacted with most after he got there. I read a quote that seemed pretty interesting. It's one that I understand that Cleveland Sellers liked very much. It said, "Black awareness could result in a re-examination of integration so that integration will become a force of cultural exchange rather than a force for cultural absorption." In other words, the black awareness movement was afraid that integration was meaning simply assimilation into the white culture, and that that was not what it should be. That you can have integration without absorption.

Perry: He was not alone in that. People examined their thoughts about this period of evolution. Everyone was examining and re-examining his and her notions about how best to adjust to the emerging concepts. I don't suppose there was a single answer to this thing. Our own approach was simple. We were out there to strike down, and to have the courts strike down, all of the legally-imposed delineations based on race. I don't think that I ever was on the podium giving leadership to one or the other point of view. My role was always as a lawyer.

Moore: To break down the barriers. South Carolina Political Collections Oral History Project Matthew Perry Interview, Page 184

Perry: Yes.

Moore: What happened beyond that was something that was less controlled by the legal system.

Perry: Exactly. There were people who were fully capable, such as the ministers. The minister generally gave superb leadership. Many of them had advanced training in philosophy and sociology, and the various concepts. I must tell you that that is not my background. Much of what I saw, I was able to deal with in my own terms, armed with the Constitution. [laughter] I set about to vindicate the rights of whoever my client was.

[End of Interview]