Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1890-04-17
KANSAS SCHOOL LAW.
No Separate schools Allowable For whites
and Blacks-The Olathe case Decided by
Judge BurrIs.


schools, which has been in the district
court here since last October was sot-
tied by Judge Burris, who decided that
under tho laws Of the State OF Kansas
boards OF education in cities Of the Sec
ond class have no authority to establish
or maintain separate schools for white
and colored children. This decision is
in keeping with the decision Of the su-
preme Court in the celebrated case OF
Tinnon VS.. he Board OF the City Of OF
tawa, reported in the twenty-slxth
Kansas.
Last summer the city Of 0lathe built
two ward school houses and the colored
parents applied TO have their children
admitted thereto. But they we're re-
fused and test case was made by APP
plying for writ OF mandamus 10 COM
pei the admission and instruction OF
Luella johnson, a colored child nine
years old After various bitches per-
emtory writ was granted yesterday to
take effect on May 10, the last day
of this school year The colored
people are represented by J. J. Nelli-
gan. while Judge J. p Hindman repre-
sented the cause OF defendants.
The following is brief synopsis Of
the conclusions Of Judge Burris:
Has the plaintiff a right under the
facts and the laws of this State to q
peremptory writ In this case2
First, has she a right to be admitted
as pupil into that school, and II so,
tbn,. .nnnna ts pha ,,.ranmfst11,s daprfvad
Of that right by the defendants?
The evidence and conclusions Of fact
show that she is a child OF school age;
that she resides in the Third ward at
the distance OF about $50 yards from
said school building; that she is quali-
fed TO enter one OF the grades taught
therein, and that there Is no other pub
lie school taught nearer to her than
about 1850 yards. She is, therefore,
clearly entitled TO attend that school
unless there is some sufficient legal
reason why she ought to be deprived OF
that right
The evidence shows that She with all
the other colored children in the city,
were assigned TO two rooms, set apart
for their use, in the store building, in
the First ward. No reason was assigned
by defendants for such discrimination,
except that in the opinion of said dc.
PENDANTS 1t WAS for the BEST Interests of
said colored children, and also for the
best interests Of the white children,
that said colored children and said
white children should be educated
separately and no other reason
could have been assigned for such dis
elimination, except that said colored
children, including the plaintiff, were
in fact colorod children. No reason as
signed by the defendants, or which is
suggested by the evidence, legally JUS
titles the acts OF the defendants in es-
tablishing or maintaining separate
schools for said colored children.
1t Is claimed by the defendants that
the demand for the admission OF this
child was TO a grade which she was not
at the time qualified to enter. 1t is
wholly immaterial whether that is SO or
not She may not have known which
was her proper grade Her father may
not have known, her attorney may not
have known, The superintendent may
not have known. She ought TO have
been received and then assigned to the
grade to which she belonged. II de-
PENDANTS have power to separate the
colored from the white children and as
sign the former to buildings or rooms
by themselves, that power is conferred
by one or the other or both OF two sec
NJ 81 4ttA nd nd
that was ever an open question 1t was
authoritatively settled by the decision
OF the Supreme Court in the case of the
Board OF Education Of the City OF Otta-
wa VS.. Leslie lennon [26 Kan, p. II.
But 1t is contended by defendants that
the plaintiff is not prohibited from at
tending the Third ward school merely
or solely because she is a colorod child,
but for the reason that the defendants
believe that 1t is for her best interests
and for the best interests OF the other
colored children and for the best inter
ests OF the white children that the
plaintiff and tho other colored children
be sent TO a separate school
This opinion Of defendants docs not
strengthen their defense an iota The
question is not what is the opinion OF
the mem bcrs of the board Of education
and Of the superintendent of schools Of
0lathe, but what is the law II is not
what would be the bost fer tho plaintiff,
but what are her legal rights?
To adopt this theory would be to sub
stitute the opinion of the school officers
for the acts Of the Legislature. and TO
have general law of the State moan
one thing in one place and another in
another place. Or it might mean one
thing at one time and something else at
another time. Neither boards Of edu-
cation nor courts are clothed with leg
islative powers Under the laws of the |
State the plaintiff has a right to attend |
school in the school building in the Third |
ward of the city of olathe She is being |
wrongfully deprived Of that right by the |
defendants, and she has a right to per- |
emptory writ of mandumus against de- |
fendants, commanding and requiring |
them to admit her as pupil into said /
school 1t Is therefore ordered that |
such a peremptory writ be issued and |
served upon the said defendants, and
that they be required to make return Of
said writ by the 18th day of May, $780,
showing their compliance therein, and
il is further ordered and adjudged that
said defendants pay costs of suit