Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1849-01-19
Supreme Court in Bank December
Term, 1913.
Reported for the Ohio State Journal, by II. Girls
void, Esq.l


tuesday, JANUARY =, lo45'
No. al. Hugh G. Stewart, ct al. V. Will
liam r. Southland. Error. Faye,te. BIRcu-
ARD, c. }. Held, |. Tina. a declaration aver
ring that the plaintiff is a resident of a GER
tain school district, having children which he
is DESTROYS to have taught in said school, and
that the defendants, directors of the school
district, contTiying to deprive him Of the ben
ehl OF having his children therein educated,
unIawGuIly admitted colored children into the
school, whereby the plaintiff has been depriv-
ed OF the benefit and advantage of having his
children taught in said school, is bad on de-
murrer. .. That an officer acting within
the scope Of his duty, is only responsible for
an injury resulting from a corrupt motive
Judgment reversed,
If we understand the legal form Of the
above report, the following statement of the
case would be a correct one.
The defendants were directors Of a public
school, and DESTROYS Of knowing what their
duties were, consulted that clause of the Con.
%stituiion of Ohio which refers to education,
and the act of Congress granting public lands
for the purpose of aidingin the establishment
Of schools, and finding that no preference was
to be given 10 one class above another, and
that no distinction was to be made, threw
open 10 all within the district, the doors Of
the school with which they were connected.
This grieyously wounded the feelings Of the
plaintiff, who was unfortunately strongly tine
tured with colorphobia, and more in anger
than in sorrow he refused TO let his children
attend school where colored children were ad.
United. We think we can fully appreciate his
disappointment and rightly estimate the in
t%ensily Of his suGeriugs. He had congraula-
ted himself on having his children taught at
the expense of the colored people Of Ohio,
and that without being contaminated by in
tercourse with them, for he did not suppose
although their property was taxed for school
purposes-that any school directors in his
neighborhood would admit black children
within the hallowed precincts of a log school
house. But his anticipations were not real
lied. The tables were turned, and sad to re-
late, colored children were educated az his
expense, and that too, in a house which he
and his were debarred from entering, for it
is not to be supposed he would demean him
self by STOPPING to such practical amalgama-
ton as TO send his children 10 a school where
colored children were admitted.
The longer he brooded over his wrongs,
the greater appeared the injustice done him,
until a lawsuit was rcsorted to with the hope
1t might prove a panacea. lie %triumphed (;
the decision was in his favor; he was de-
clared to be in the right and the directors in
the wrong. The directors however, were so
unreasonable as not to be satisfied with the
award, and by Writ of Error threw the case
into The Supreme court, where the decision
Of the court below was reviewed by Chief
Justice Durchard, who reversed the previous
decision, much to the plaintiffs surprise and
chagrin.
Thus it seems that although the defend
ants, by admitting colored children into a
school where the plaintiff expected to send
his own, deprived him Of the advantages Of
said school, yet such act is no ground for
damages, and no reason why the contrary de-
cision Of an inferior court should not be re-
ycrsed and that the directors, in admitting
colored children were only acting within The
scope Of their official du:y, and as the injury
they did the plaintiff was without any corrupt
motive, they should not therefore be held re-
sponsible for his lacerated feelings.
We should be glad to see a fuller report
of Judge BuTchard's decision, for we infer,
from the brief report quoted, it involves an
opinion upon the conslitutiOnality Of the
Black school law.