The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-12-04

ty shall have been convicted-thus protect
ing the new class of citizens. I. e., negroes,
and mulatoes, from being again reduced to
'2. The state cannot deny TO nor deprive
a citizen of the United States, I. e., any ne
gro or mulatto, of those national rights,
privileges, or immunities which belong to
him as such citizen.
SO. The state must recognize as its cit
izen any citizen of the United States, !. e..
any negro or mulatto, who is or becomes
bona. fide resident therein.
~. The state must give to such, a. e., to
such negro or mulatto who is or who be-
comes a bona-fide resident therein, the
same rights, privileges, and immunitles
secured by her constitution and laws to her
other, 1. e., to her white citizens"
From the concluding portions of the
opinion the following points are taken;
"The Legislature, under our state con-
stitution as it existed without the limitation
imposed upon the sovereign power Of the
state by the Fourteenth Amendment as
hereinbefore stated, had the power to pro-
vide for the education only of the white
children of the state, bit since its ratitica-
ton no system of public schools would be
general, uniform, and equally open TO all
which did not provide for the education OF
the colored children of the state. 1t being
settled that the legislature must provide
for the education of the colored children as
we'll as for the white children. we are re-
auired to determine whether the legIsla-
ture may classify such children, by color,
and race. and provide for their education
in separate schools, or whether they, must
IL ooLonl, mi III oIfp afpPnnln
to race or color In our opionion, the class
ifcaton of scholars on the basis OF race or
color, and their education in separate
schools, involve questions OF domestic poll
cy which are within the legislative dlscre-
ton and control, and do not amount to an
exclusion of either class. In other words,
the placing of the white children OF the
state in one class and the negro children OF
the state in another class, and requiring
these classes to be taught separately, pro-
vision being made for their education in
the same branches, according to age, ca
pacity, or advancement, with capable teach
ers, and to the extent Of their pro rata
share in the school revenue, does not
amount to denial of equal privileges to
either, nor conflict with the open character
of the system required by the constitution.
We are very. clearly OF the
opinion that the act of May 10, 1869, is
constitutional, and that, while it rem aims in
force, colored children are not entitled to
admission into the common schools which
are provided for the education of white chill
dren. In our opinion the court below
erred in affirming the action of the courtin
special term, and judgment is reversed,
with costs, and the case is remanded to the
court below, with directions to that court
to override the judgement of the court in
special term, we overriding the demurrer
to the petition for mandate.
The attorney of the appellee excepted
to the opinion and Judgment of the SUI
preme court, and announced his intention
to appeal to the supreme court of the Uni
ted States first, however, asking the SUI
preme court of Indiana to grant him a
hearing in the case.
Of course Republican newspapers will
never tell their readers the truth of the
case. They say the decision was caused
by the recent Democratic victories