The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1879-02-28

children, being of African descent, are
not allowed to attend the same public
schools as those in which children of
white parents are educated.
Is this deprivation of a right grant
ed by the constitution OF the United
States? The complainant says that the
action Of the defendants deprives him
and his children of the equal protection
of the laws, and therefore impairs
right granted to him and them by the
fourteenth amendment to tho constitu-
ton OF the United States.
Is there any denial of equal rights in
the resolution of tho Board of Directors
of the city schools or in the action of
as set out in the bill? Both races are
treated precisely alike. White chill
dren and colored children arc compelled
to attend different schools. That is all.
The State, while conceding equal privi.
leges and advantages to both races, has
the right to manage its schools in the
manner which in it's Judgment will
best promote tho interest of all.
The State may be of opinion that it
is better to educate the sexes separately,
and. therefore establishes schools in
which the children of different sexes
are educated apart. BY such a policy
can it be said that the equal rights of
either sex are invaded? Equality of
right does not involve the necessity of
educating children of both sexes, or
children without regard to their attain
ments or age in the same school. Any
classification which presumes substan-
TALLY equally school advantages does
not impair any rights and is not pro-
hibited by the constitution of the Uni
ted States. Equality of rights does not
necessarily imply identity of rights.
These views have been held by the
Supreme Court of Ohio-in respect to q
law under which colored children were
not admitted as matter of right into
the schools for white children.
State VS.. McCann, ct ais, q Ohio
State 19s. See also State vs.. Duffy, 7
New. 342, and People vs.. CASTOR, I3
Abb. IN. W 1GO, where substantially
the same doctrine is held. Sec also the
able concurrfng opinion of Mr.. Justice
Clifford in Hall VS.. De CUR, 90 U. S.
49l.
In the State of Georgia there is law
forbidding the intermarriage of white
persons and persons of African descent.
1t was held by Mr.. Justice Erskine,
of the United States Court, that this
law was not obnoxious to the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution.
Ex rel. Hobbs and johnson, Woods
537.
The argument in support of this de-
cision is that the law applies with equal
force to persons OF both races. Its pro-
hibition applies alike to black and
white, and the penalty for disobedience
falls with equal severity on both.
These authorities, it seems to me,
fully sustain the views above an
nounced by this court.
But complainant's argument is that
by the constitution of the State Of LOU
isiana separate schools for white and
co1Ored children are prohibited, that
the actions and doings of the defend
ants set out in the bill are in violation
of the plaintiffs rights under the con-
stitution of the State, and is a denial to
plaintiff of the equal protection of the
laws Of the State, and that the board of
the city schools and the other defend.
ants in the bill, in this matter repre-
sent the State; that their acts are the
acts of the State, and consequently that
the clause of the fourteenth amend
ment to the constitution OF the United
States which declares "No State shall
deny to any person within its jursdic-
ton the equal protection of the laws"
applies to this case.
Whether the Board of Directors of
city schools, Rogers, the Chief Super
intendent of Schools, and Gordon, the
Principal of the Fillmore School, are
the State of Louisiana, or represent the
State of Louisiana so that their acts are
to bo considered the acts of the State, it
is unnecessary now to decide. Conced-
ing for the present that their acts arc
the acts of the State, does it follow that
this court can take cognizancc of their
doings, under that clause of the consti-
tuition relied on?
If am not in error in holding that
the requiring of white and colored
children to attend separate schools, even
when such schools arc supported at the
public cost, docs not deprive either
class OF their equal rights, it would
follow that as between citizens of the
same State this court has no jurisdiction
OF the case presented by the bill.
IF am right in the view presented
the claim OF complaint amounts to this,