The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-12-01

10 private property. Pursuing the argument
the court applies another rule of interpre-
~tation, to-wit: That instruments must be con
sidered as forming a compact and unique
whole and must not be regarded in detached
portions. Under that rule. the sections o
The state constitution quoted, could not bt
brought into harmony with the rest OF the in
strument, save on the theory that they pro.
vided for the future elevation of the negro
beyond the restrictions Of the law. And
finally, 10 the opinion of the court the rule
of construction declaring that the meaning
Of an instrument was decided at the time
it went into force, and not affected by sub.
sequent fluctuations in public opinion,
should be s.ringenlty applied. Led by this
course of reasoning, the judges arrived a;
the conclusion that there was nothing in
the state constitution which could be
held to be %repugnant to the law OF
May Is, 1869. There is something in
the course OF reasoning similar to that
adopted in the celebrated bred Scott decis-
ion. and the following logical deductions
from the legal principles involved viii seem
as harsh as the celebrated phrase which
AOAbAo VIC OcoAo NAO Aoh0O cO OibIn
cast upon the memory OF Chief Justice
fancy:
There is but one construction which will pre-
out stat constitution aud that i. 10 hold that it
was made ana adopted b. and for the exclusive
use and enjoyment OF the white race.
In the light of the foregoing history, cons.itu-
constructions thereof, it Is very plain and OBJ
vious to Us thai persons of the African race were
not in the minds or contemplation of the wise
they prepared ans agreed upon the above quoted
sections, or of the people of The state when they
raLlfied and adopted the constitution con tain
ing such provisions.
In the second place the court took up the
consideration of the law of May Is, 1869,
with reference to the provisions of the con-
stitution of the United States. There are
several clauses which are considered as bear
ing upon the matter, but the two strongest
are the following:
tb Section GtI'IaG 2 Of astiS e 4, of t the cp fSs H,51tH@a of Of
each slate shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities OF citizens in The several states"
The fourteenth amendment declares
mo state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the p ivileges or immuni-
ties of citizens of the United States"
The court held in regard to the first of
their provisions that, since the passage of
the fourteenth amendment, the state is obliged
20 provide for colored children the same ed
ucational faculties hat it provides for white
children; but the manner of their education
is left to the state, and it is entirely optional
with the state whether it shall provide
epaSate or mixed schools. This opin-
ion is sustained by a recent decision
- ~ o. n.
also by a late Virginia decision, which, how-
ever, arrives at the same conclusion by a
course of argument. AS to the
clause of the fourteenth amendment, quoted
above, the decision of the Supreme Court OF
the United States in the New Orleans
slaughter house casesis binding authority. 1t
was held in those cases that the amendment
citizenship of the United States
as contrs-distinguished from, and in
dependent of the citizenship of a state, and
the amendment was designed merely to
protect the rights OF a party as a citizen of
the United States, and not to control in any
way those rights or privileges which he en-
ioyed as a citizen of the state. Under such
an Interpretation the clause could
not apply in the present case.
The court holding that sit is a
familiar rule of the constitution of the
union, that the sovereign powers vested in
the state governments by their respective
constitutions remain unaltered and unim-
paired, except so far as they were granted
to the government OF the United States"
al tho cAuorainptu IF tho cfofo onr-
allied by the constitutional amendments in
he following particulars:
i. The state can not in the future, while n
of the Federal Union, change her con-
so as to create or establish slavery or !,
Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
,onvicted-thus protecting the new class of citI-
.ens, 1. e., negioes and lnulattoes, from being
gain reduced to slavery.
2. The state can rot deny to, nor deprive a cit
zen of the United States, 1. e., any negro or mu-
alto, of those national rights, privileges or i'm
nunities which belong 10 him as such citizen.
3. The state must recognize as its citizen any
itizen of the United States, 4. e., any negro or
nulatto, who is or becomes a bona hde resident
herein.
4. The state must give 10 such, 1. e., to such
legro or nulatto who is or who becomes a bona
lde resident therein, the same rights, privileges
nd immunities secured by her constitution
nd laws to her other, 1. e., to her white citi-
ems.
This doctrine is a broad and liberal one,
nd the following conclusions of the court
pply it fairly:
The legislature, under our state constitution
s il existed without the limitation imposed
pom the sovereign power of the state by the
ith amendment as hereinbefore stated, had the
over to provide for the education only of the
yhite children of the state; but since its ratin-
nc system of public schools would be
eneral. uniform ana equally open TO all which
i'd not provide for the education of the colored
hildren of the state. 1t being settled that the
must provide for the education OF
colored children as well as for the white
we are required To determine whether
he legislature may classify SUCH children, by
olor and race, and provide for their education ],
4 separate schools, or whether they must attend !
he same school without reference to race or !
olor. In our opinion the classification of :
cholars, ON the basis of race or color, and their :
in separate schools, involve questions
domestic policy which are within the legisla-
I've discretion and control, and does not amount
D an exclusion of either class. In other words,
ne nlacinO of the white children of the state in f.,