The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-06-28
Supreme COurt-Special Term.
Before Inaficn Roosevelt

JUNE 27--1he people, &C., on the relation of Bar.
nett rs. the Trustees ofMe College OF Physicians and
Surgeons.-This is an application of James p. Bar
nett colored person, for writ Of mandamus, TO be
directed to the Trustees of the College of Physicians
and Surgeons, in the city Of New York, to compel
them to restore the petitioner as he expresses it,
dent" The trustees object, preminarily, that the
court has no urisdiction that the discretion OF adj
hitting or refusing student rests exclusively with
the trustees; and that if there be any appeal it is to
of the courts of law. This point, it appears to me- in
part, least is well taken. The college, although
public institution, and endowed BY public bounty,
was established and its corporate existence created,
by the Regents Of the University under act of the
Legislature authorizing and requiring them to VI
sit and inspect all the colleges which were, or
might be, established within this State, and to
examine into the system Of education and dis
cipline therein and to make BYLAWS and ordi-
nances, and confer diplomas as they might deem
proper. And one Of the conditions ofts charter was,
that the Board Of Trustees, as well as the subor-
dinate board of president and professors, should
carry and put into effect all the ordinances of the
Regents of the University respecting the said Col
lege as well with respect to educating, all other
matters and things. Thus it will be seen that the
ustees Of the College are only y and that
Regents Of the University Why then, it may be
asked, was not that tribunal specially provided by
law to review the acts of the Trustees in all cases,
appealed to by the petitioner in this instance before
were, domestic jurisdiction would seem to be pecu-
arly appropriate for the hearing and determination
OF such questions. And in the of Philips against
Bury, (Skin. 475) Lord Holt held that the suffi.
cheney of the sentence Of such jurisdiction, is
10 be called in question in the common law courts,
nor any inquiries to be made into the reasons or
causes Of the deprivation Their conduct it is true,
in the exercise of the trust committed to them ought
Gas Lord Mansfield said in the case Of the King
against Dr. Askew, Burr, 2,lS8) to be fair, can
did, and unprecedented; not arbitrary caprcious, or
biased: much less warped by resentment or dislike"
But their justice and authority it would seem, must
ct least be first appealed to- before their motives can
be called in question. The Regents, for aught that
appears, might have reversed the action OF the
Trustees; they might have held that the rights OF all
citizens whether white colored, were 80 absolutely
and universally equal that no STUDENT however dark,
could lawfully be excluded from college or school,
even should his admission involve the dispersion of
the whole establishment. Or, they might have held
that the constitutions and laws both Of the State and
of the United States recognise difference between
the two races that practically, the universal and
long established usages Of society, always have been,
and still are founded on the like recognition; and
that if the welfare of the institution and the greatest
good Of the greatest number depended on 1t, the
Trustees, supposng their motives good, were right In
excluding single Individual whether on the ground
OF disease, deformity, or disposition, or color.
(Const. Of New York, Art. g. Const. U. S., Art. !,
So. 1B. s., $50, S217, 232). But the Regents were
net appealed to. There IL no ground for complaining
Of decision which they have had no op-
portuDity to make. If the right to review
their decision, actually made, would have been at
least questionable, how much more doubtful must