Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1860-06-30
The Two DeclsIOns--WhIte or
GOlOred.

Since the Supreme Court Of Ohio has be-
come Republican, pure and simple" il has
made two decisions relating to the negro.
This is the first case:
The Board of Education of Logan, in Hook
ing county, excluded certain mulatto children,
fiye-eighths white, from attending the white
school. The parents of the children brought
suit, and the case finally came before the Su-
preme Court, ON error. Peck, G. j., deliver
ed the opinion Of the court, and sustained the
Board in the exclusion of the children. The
right of admission, or the duty of exclusion,
depended on the construction of the statute of
1853, which divides the children Of the State
into two classes, white and colored, and
provides for schools for both. II becomes nee
essary for the court to decide whether n mulat-
to child belonged to the white or to the colored
class. The court in endeavoring to ascertain
the intent of the Legislature, followed the
line of argument pursued by the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the bred Scott
case, when it sought to ascertain whether the
Constitution contemplated the citizenship of
the negro. "ln determining says Justice
Peck, what is TO be understood by the terms
white and 'cOlored, as used in this act (of
1859 we may hook 10 the state of things ex-
isting at the time" He then proceeds to say
that they had been n prescribed and degraded
race in Ohio, prohibited from voting, and re-
stricted in the privilege of immigration. The
Legislature could not have meant to include
such persons in the class "white." lie then
quotes Webster's definition of "colored peo-
pie" to-wit; BLACK people, Africans, or their
descendants, mixed or unmiXed,' and adds
that such is the common understanding of the
phrase. From all of which the court sensibly
concludes, that mulatto children are not white;
and that the Legislature of 1853 did not in
tend to include them in the class which it
designated phite; and that mulatto children
belong, with the wholly black, to the colored
class.
The second case is this;
Amulatto, resident of Butler county, proffer-
ed his vote to the Board of Trustees o fhis town
ship, or ward, and his ballot was rejected. He
instituted suit against the Board, which at last
came before the Supreme Court for adjudica-
ton. Constitution Of Ohio had defined the
qualifications of an %elector. He must he a
white male citizen Of the United States.
Therefore, the same question, identically,
which was adjudicated in the former case, was
again presented to the consideration of the
court, to wit. Does the molatto belong to the
Whife, or the cOiOred class of our inhabitants ?
In determining the meaning of the makers of
'ho SoHati'utiOhi Preclscly the saihe nHe Oh
argument was applicable as employed in the
school case; the prescription of the race-the
definition of Webster-and the popular under
standing of the word "colored.'' The same
conclusion seemed unavoidable, viz; That the
mulatto belonged to the colOred class of peo-
pie, was not white, and therefore was not en-
titled to vote.
But the court, in the very face of its DELHI
crate decision of a few weeks before, adiudged
TO the mulatto to be white; hat the makers of
the Constitution designed to include him in
the class of white citizens of the United States;
and asserted therefore his right to vote.
These decisions clash directly. They are
utterly irreconcilable. Either the court err
red when it declared mulatto children not
white; or it erred when it declared mullatto
adults not colored,-LogdR Gazette.