The Siege of Port Gibson

Down in Mississippi, said Lawyer Nathaniel Jones bitterly, "those who resist change now realize that they can accomplish more by manipulating the legal system and the guys with the black robes than if they go out publicly in the white robes of the K.K.K." Jones, who is general counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, had good reason for his angry observation. Last week the N.A.A.C.P. narrowly averted financial disaster. Ironically for the organization that so often used the law and its own national resources to break segregation in one Southern town after another, the trouble came at the hands of a group of whites in one of those towns who found a way to turn the law to their own advantage.

The battle began a decade ago, when the N.A.A.C.P. led a boycott against white merchants, some of whom were public officials, in Port Gibson, Miss. The aim was to force such changes as the desegregation of the local schools, bus stations and hospital, the hiring of black policemen and the elimination of such terms of address as boy, girl, shine and uncle. In February 1967 the boycott was eased after the town hired its first black policeman. Twice more--after Martin Luther King's assassination in 1968 and the police shooting of a Port Gibson black in 1969--the N.A.A.C.P. again turned the boycott screw. But by then the Mississippi legislature had enacted a civil and criminal law banning any "conspiracy" to prevent a citizen from exercising a "lawful trade or calling." The antiboycott bill was backed by then State Representative Robert L. Vaughn, one of the boycotted businessmen.

Thus armed, the merchants went to court in 1969 to seek an injunction against and damages for the N.A.A.C.P.'S acts. County Chancery Judge George Haynes found last August that the N.A.A.C.P., another local group that backed the boycott and 132 individuals had "unlawfully conspired to and did destroy and damage" a dozen white businesses. He also ruled that the action was backed by illegal force and threats and was a prohibited secondary boycott since private merchants did not have the power to grant public demands. The damages and attorneys' fees: $1,250,699. The N.A.A.C.P. immediately began planning an appeal, arguing a violation of the First Amendment and the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws. But under another Mississippi law, even if an appeal is filed, the original judgment must be paid within 40 days unless a bond equal to 125% of the total is posted.

Never rich, and weakened by a fight over who will succeed longtime Director Roy Wilkins, 75, the N.A.A.C.P. was in real fear of a financial debacle. Earlier this year it barely managed to post a $262,000 bond in a libel suit it lost a trial to a policeman from another Mississippi county. By last week an emergency round of fund raising--Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson even passed the hat on the street in front of his office--had produced only $763,374 for the Port Gibson bond. At the same time a frantic series of court appearances was producing negative answers.

The Port Gibson merchants went not exactly gloating. "We're not trying to destroy anybody," said Waddy Abraham, who runs the Jitney-Jungle grocery store. "I'm just trying to keep fron being destroyed." But their lawyer Dixon Pyles made it clear that if the judgment came due and the N.A.A.C.P. did not have enough money, "we say too bad and start to execute on the judgment," perhaps by trying to seize asset; of the N.A.A.C.P. and other defendants.

New Boycott. On the deadline day the organization managed to squeal through at the last moment with an AFL CIO pledge to make up the $800,001 needed to post bond. Simultaneously, a federal district court judge temporarily stayed the judgment and scheduled hearing for this week. But the threat to the N.A.A.C.P. remains. Many lawyer believe that the association is by no means sure to escape paying damages Its difficulties may even be growing. Since the original decision, which enjoined future boycotts, a new boycott of the twelve merchants has been back in effect. The N.A.A.C.P. is not officially supporting the action, but the merchant are out taking pictures and looking as if they are gathering evidence for another lawsuit.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.