The Portage County Democrat. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-01-04
colored Children in School.

! colored Children in School.
/ The Supreme Court of Ohio has decided
4 that children three-eights African and five
tights white blood, but who are distinctly col
ored, and generally treated and regarded as
colored children by the community where
they reside. are not, as of right entitled to ad-
mission into common schools. set apart under
the act of March 14th, 1853, to provide for
the reorganization, supervision and mainte
nance of Common Schools, for the instruction
of white youths. as. ~. se4f esssia
Justice Peck delivered the opinion of the
Court j Justices Scott and Gholson eoncurring;
Justice Sutlif delivered the dissenting opinion
in which Chief Justice Brinkerhof concurred.
We feel more regret than surprise at the
position which Judge Gholson here occupies
From Judges Peck and Scott we could ex
pect nothing better-and we do not know as
We had any right TO expect anything better
from the ex-lMississippian. The three seem
to be epcased in a triple panoply of conserva
tive stolidity and iuveterate prejudice against
color. tzt f,.5.,i ,si-
Colored citizens are taxed on their proper.
/ ty, equally with white citizens for the support
of Common Schools and in our Judgment, the
decision is no more in accordance with Ohio
law, than it is in harmony with the genius Of
our Government, or the spirit of christianity.
Judge Sutliffis dissenting opinion, in which
Judge Brinkerheff concurred, is a very able
one. and cenelusively shows that the opinion
Of the majority of the court pronounced by
Judge Peck, is counter to all the decisions and
received laws of the State up to the present
time. Why these judges should deem it i'm
.portant at this day, and in this State, to take
a position, in spirit, as relentless as that Of
the bred Scott decision itself will excite grave |
remark, and must, inevitably provoke. great
indignation. - -s,s h .ts,,ea-g,zss
Judge Sutliffs opinion is too long for inser-
tion in our columns, bat its positions, its rea
sonings, fortified By precedents are impregna
BILE. F..s-... ..-7,5 ysss. s+s 7
Judge Sutliff enters into disqpsition to
show the extent of, the meaning of .coIored"
as contradistinguished from white, according
to legni construction and herein cites the Ian
guege Of the statutes. and the constructions of
courts, and further remarks as follows:
Thus the Court in this their first iudicial
construction of the words white porson' asf
contradistinguished from, =. /" black or mulatto'
persons, refused to extend the meaning of
sblack er mulatto," (which they properly terml
the disabilities of the statuteJ further than its
letter requires s7sl susitsq iadi .:aa iiai5
The word "black" is well understood to mean
the negro; and the word "mulatto" is equally |
well understood to denote the offspring of /
white person and negro, and as not expires |
sive of any other class OF persons The letter
of the statue confines the meaning of the
words @black and mulatto," to these two class
es; and the Court thus refused more than a
quarter of a century ago TO extend the mean
ing of these tcofds of cast beyond the letter
of the lato And under the distinction of
classes so expressed by the statue, the Court
expressly includes the shade of color bet,Deen
the nalEdtto and ,ohite" in the general class
of achite persons 2.Ta9 p s7 taZHaf"
It shall be my purpose now to- show that
this judicial construction thus early given BY
the Supreme Court of this State to the word
white" as contradistinguished from :" black ~
and "mulatto,' has never before been departed
from, but has been heretofore again aud again
affirmed, r .
Judge Sutliff proceeds to cite numerous de |
cisions from the Ohio reports. pronounced by
Judges Lane, Wood, Hitchcock, Birchald and /
Others all going to the extent that more thani
half white blood, gives title to equal privileges
with the whites
81 az .tti...... 20 N r;II; -. el
School District No. 6 &c, in Hamilton Coun |
ty, Judge Lane. eaid ,f-s-,
This Court in Gray vs. Ohio, determined
that persons nearer tchite than a muldtto, orI
half blood. we're entitled to the privileges of
whites. The color of the party does not 'suf-
! fcently mark the distinction between the two
races of people," - *s "gWei
think the term white, as used in the law. de
scrioes blood and not complexion, and are sat
| isfed with the construction heretofore given.
The plaintiffs children therefore. are white
within the meaning of the law, though the de
PENDANTS have had the shabby meanness to1
ask from him his contribution Of tax, and ex
clude bis children from the benefit Of the
schools he helped 10 support l s9t
In the case of Chalmers vs Stewart, Judge
Wood said ligp.fs ma maa +,
who white children are, has in principle
been determined by this Court at the present
term. Thacker vs.. Hawke, ct all The ma.
iority or predoninence of blood, either black
or white carries with it conclusive evidence Of
the qualification or disquali6cations conferred
or imposed by our statues"
Referring to Judge Birchards decision,
Judge Sutliff remarks va.dl ads assa
| 7" In the case of Steward vs. Southard II
Q. Rep 4O2. Judge Birchard in delivering the
opinion of the Court at the Dec. term IS48,
took occasion to refer incidentally to the pre-.
Vious decisions Of the Court upon this subject
= with an expression of appreciation. He says
of the case of Lane vs.. Baker. "The only thing
decided in that cnse was that youth of more
: than half ,ohite blood are entitled to the bene
fit of the common school fund, and that he
e concurred in that decision. os @
' Judge Saliff concludes his dissenting opin
ion in the following words:
: Other cases might probably be referred 10