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

- IN any manner norf 10 any exten9
lmPalrea, weakened or taken awav anyy ~ IL
IsssIVed rights OF the S iates, IS they bad' ~ .us
az ~ oesn inlIs recognized by every d. paTfment
0r the national government from its rneenIt
MhAt was then intended TO be exare
hsd tnat TIE fourteenth amendment
govsrnm"n, 1eiegated TO the federal
sonsInmeht The power 10 reeulate Ia
control the domestic instiiutions or ssste ana
tations nnon To- wn, Il imposes some imi-
slavery and the eQua proiection 49, as 10
ei w OF ne United states aud of Inc sisies
s.rucllon olihe fourteenth amend NOM On
arc grathed TO know that the vieTS b amu we
spnsfsS ISL nave been, in ali substantial reSnacfs
sos,ained by the highest judicial tribunal I, SsTISS,
oo ouI sho the one especially CHARGE v.s,h y
CONSTRUCTION and Interpretation OF H. - ne
high court The ~ th9 solemn decision OF that
Ioustug 10 the CITIZEN OF the star osa
have he-s security and protection W. ere tbey
selves. Win the states them
Others =, 9 da, sx rel Crimes VS.. McCan and
lnat state uses the following lsnynga. NOurV OF
II wotid seem, then that under The oon.,,..
ciassifsS H' Jaws OF this state the night TO
ann sdoot purposes. on the basis %, COLO, 10
edncatSoa nSsign them to separate Schools for
riIeanon, both upon welI-recognizs w
pIlnelpIesa and the repeat d adiudfcstionS lssai
ciaIiy n . hrnly established TO be now i1di.
Dusl IL claimed that the law a1tborztro.ho
visionS = D IN question coniravenes The nroo
tion OF ths If yi5eh amendment of the constitu-
rogated thereby. y" 10 thereiore, alb
exiSSteedd siionably all doubts. wheresoever thev
anu tnelr right 10 the equal nroteciion aS 1hs
nraaMs, are settled By this amendm,ent Rnff
state before these Were denied TO them i'm this
AZ IN the adoption of this amendment
a events, the statu es CLASSIFYING Inc von,S
q tne snate Ior school purposes on the bass OF
thereto, were not at ali based uron a dentni
mat coloIed persons Were CT liens. or thst tbav
ere enutieo 10 the equal protection Of nc fa1s
II would seem, then, that these
oIthe amendment contain nothing confiiciing
~ \" ones y sa.ule authorizing the class fcstioh
S2uching the point in controversy in This caSe.
cisime5 b Me un1eIstand hat the contrary is
feIied on, IN behalf OF the plaintiff is that vvSscb
I0 nPc any stale I" make o. enforce any iaW
OF cItlzsns of the United States
"IhlS involves the inquiry a. 70 who -
- - % tuHunltles are embraced IN IN inn b-
has as yet been judicially sefT ed. me Ia, y ms
vi the Clause, however, taken in connecfio6 wifb
otnef PROVISIONS Of the amendment AID or the
OF which il forms n mart efFon ae
strong reasons for believing hat il fncl1deSonI
sue privileges or immunlties as are 1917
rom, or recognized by the consfitn Ion 80 ,So
United -tates." ol the
co IA 6Tos ,er Interpretation opens into a heldo Of
conjecture imitlesS as he range of snecnIaNSa
theories, and might work sucb imfsffo1s
ne power OF the states to.manage and regulate
eneH Iocal INSTITUTIONS and affairs as were never
Ontemplated by this amendment 0'Ni
III this construction be correct, The cIansa hos
,IPPLS1'lVH - thls case, Tor all the PRIVILEGES
~ we sSnooi system of this state are derived
soIely rom the constitution and Laws 81 10
Soase. II me seneraI assembly should mass a
"a" repair all laws cr,ati z ana regulating
Ihe system, ii can not be claimed that The iT6
amendment could be interp sed To prevent n
sIleFoUS an abr1dgement of the nri yiiages -f,h,
citizens of the state. for thew r5uld t6es.h ne
deprived OF privileges derived nom The sfate
Snu not OF privileges derived from the Uniled
But we need not now further discrss This
Inc cIsnse in aue Heanlng and exact limits of
VOWED IN this case. For, conceding thotfne lith
not only provides eo1al secnTifiss
c III al out suaIantees equality OF rights to the
OF the United States. il remainS 10 ~
seen whether this privilege has been abridged
IN tle case before us. The law in ouest3on
surely does not a attempt to deprive coIoref ner-
sons OF any rights. On the contrary, it Teccg-
nlzes tnelr right, under the constitution of the
state, TO equal common school sdvsno
.ases, anu secures TO them their equal
ppnIIR reSnI.t Of the school fund. 1t
in which this right shall be enjoyed by All
classes OF persons The regulation f this right
edly ii should be do e in a manner TO promote
me pest interests of all. But this tass must. Of
~ 80 De IeIt 10 the wisdom and discretion
some proper authority. The people have
committed IL 10 the general assembly,. and the
presumption Is that IL has discharged its duty in
accordance with The best interest of all. At an
events, the legislative action is conclusive. I'M
less IL clearly lnfringes the provisions of the con-
"At most, the fourteenth amendment only
.nords 10 colored citizens an additional gar
OF equality of lights 10 that already Sc
cured by the constitution of the state"
"The question. the efoie, under consideration
the same that has, as we have seen, been
heretofore determined in This state. that a class
lncalon OF the youth of the state for school pur-
poses. upon any basis which does not exclude
either class from eq al school advantages, is no
Infringement of the equal rights of citizens Sc
cured by the constitution OF the state.
we nave seen that the law, in the case before
Us, works no substantial inequa lily
Di scnooI privileges between the
children of both classes in the locality OF fine
parCes. Under the Lawful regulation of equal
educational privileges, the chi dren of each class
are required &c attend the school provided FOR
the official control of all. The plaintiff.
then, can not claim that his privileges are
abridged on the ground OF inequality ofscnool
for his children, nor can he decide
where his children shall be instructed, or what
shall perform that Office, without OBJ.
privileges not enjoyed by " hite cifizens.
of rights does notinvoive the necessity
u eoucallng white and colOred persons in The
,aIne schooi any more than 1t does that of edu-
;atlng children of both sexes in the same school,
tnaG dlfierent grades of scholars must be kept
n the same school. Any classification which
substantially equal school advantages
S not prohibited by either the state or federal
'onstitution, nor would il contravene the pro-
Visions of either. There is. then. no ground
lpon which the PLAINTIFF can claim nat his rights
lnoer the Nth amendment have been IN
The foregoing opinion, having been rendered
lnce the ratification of the 18th amendment, is
l nd eGyn IN point and is entitled to great weight
~ SChoLOcAdIlOu, cunning as II QOcS IFOm "a
court distinguished for its learning and ability.
RIGHTS OF THE STATE.
How far, then, have these amendments opera
ed to change the constitution of Indiana, or i'm
'osed limitations or restrictions upon the sover-
power of the state?
We answer in the following particulars:
l. The state can not in the future, while a
of the Federal Union, change her con-
titution SO as to create or establish slavery or
Involuntary servitude, except asa punishment
or crimes whereof the party shall have been
onv1cted-thus protecting the new class of citi-
!. e, negroes and mulattoss, from being
gain reduced to slavery.
z. Inc state can rot deny TO, nor deprive a citi-
EN- OF the United States, l.. e., any negro or mu-
alto, OF those national rights, privileges or inn
nunIt1es which belong to him as such citizen.
3: The state must recognize as its c't,zsu any
ltlzen o. the United states, 1. e., any negro or
who is or becomes d bona fde resident