New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-06

at least, TO WHICH Arkanba3 anu h0nO~~NJ A-~S
probably be added, are on record as having
decided that the school officers may lawfully
maintain separate schools for whites ana
blacks; while Illinois, Iowa ana Michigan
courts have considered that, under the laws OF
those States, colored children have the right,
they insist upon it, to attend the same schools
with tho whites What view will be taken pS
the Federal judiciary is yet to be learned; we
believe that no case has been carried to the
Supreme Court at Washington. As the ques-
ton is so unsettled, and opinions are 80 con-
f1icting, it ia certainly desirable that the SUBJ
ject should be illuminated by every practicable
means. Let us hope that the New-Jersey plan
of casting light upon it by burning the school
house will bring all views TO agreement.
The right, whatever it may be- of the child
rem of the State to attend the public schools is,
primarily, gift of the State 1t cannot be
traced to the Federal Constitution, nor at
tributed to the National Government. The
schools are the creatures of State laws, are sup
ported for the most part by State taxation, and
are chiefly subject TO State control and direc-
ton. Congress has given some aid by way OF
endowment, and il such gifts Rave been
coupled with any conditions, such conditions
may restrict the freedom Of the States authority.
But no question of this sort has ever attracted
attention. There would be little ground to
question the sovereign authority of the State to
teach the children either IN mixed or separate
schools, ut pleasure, if it were not for the
recent constitutional amer dments declaring a
certain equality between the white and colored
races. Is this equality satisfied by providing
equally good schools fol- colOred children and
& b,,k IL
qure that the cOlOred children should be adj
mitted to the same buildings and classes as the
whitesY In the Indiana and Ohio cases, which
are the most comprehensive and instructive OF
the decisions in favor of the right of State to
separate the races, the law cOntested-passed
just after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amend
ment-directed that all children, without regard
to race OF color should be included in the enum-
Grafton for school Purposes but that cOlOred
children should be enumerated in separate lists
and organized into separate schools; these
schools. however, to have all the rights and
privileges of the others. Then, for districts
where there might not be enough colOred child
rem living within such distance as would admit
of maintaining schOOl.hOuse for them, the law
directed that the trustees should provide such
other means of education for cOOred children as
should use their proportion, according to num-
Der, of school revenue, to the best advantage.
A negro father who was dissatisfied with the
provision made by the trustees tor his children
lit was, apparently, wholly inadequate one
besought the Court to command the trustees to
admit them 70 the white school. The Court re-
fused. The comp Anants lawyer urged the Four
teenth ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS several other OBJ
iectons founded on the State Constitution But
the Judges said that the Amendment only gave
the coored people equality of rights it did not
entitle them to dictate in what buildings or by
what teachers or in what manner their children
should 10 instructed. Equality of rights does
not involve the necessity OF educating white and
colored persons in the same Schools any more
than il does that of educating children OF both
sexes in the same schools, OF that Of keeping
different grades Of scholars in the same school.
The Amendment does mol forbid any classical
ton of pupils which n State chooses to make,
provided substantially equal school advantages
are given to all. Under it, the common school
system adopted by any State must be general
that is, it must embrace all parts of the State
il must be uniform-which does not mean that
all schools shall be of the same size and grade,
or teach the same branches, but that all schools
of the same grade must have the same system
of government must require the same quaii
cations for admission, and must teach the same
branches. And the schools must be equally
Opcn to all-but this does not mean that
every person, old and young, male OF female,
has the same right to attend every school, but
that each school is to be open to all persons of
n class which the Legislature shall describe.
The Legislature is free to classify pupils by age,
sex or advancement, and equally free to
classify them by color, and to designate various
schools for various classes. Exclusion of
children Of one class from the school building
designated for those of another is not an OK
cIuson OF them from the benefit Of the public
school system, il suitable and appropriate
schools are provided for them. COlOrcd child
rem have no more rieht-sO far as the Amend |
ment goes-tO insist on being taught in the same
building, than they have to claim to sit in the
s,me seats, or 20 into the same classes. Sub
stantially the same view was taken by Judge |
Learned, of our Supreme Court, in a decision
rendered at Albany in 1872.
The decisions in Illinois, Iowa and Michigan |
did not turn much on the Fourteenth Amend |
ment. but were to the effect that the laws OF the
States themselves gave the right. The Iowa |
school officers said that they had arranged sep
arate school for coored children because public |
sentiment in the district was opposed to mixed |
schools. and they claimed that they had the |
authority to do this as part of their discre-
tionary power IN arranging and managing the |
schools. But tie Court answered that the |
officers had no discretionary power to violate |
the equality OF right of all the young people. |
They could not require children of Irish parents |
70 attend one school, and children of German |
parents another; or command children of Cath |
olic parents to attend ono school, and children |