The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-01-06
COLOR Line 0. K.
Separate High School Law in
Kansas City Valid.
Supreme Court So Decides This
Morning.
NE OPPOSING VOICE.
Justice Burch Dissents Without
Giving Grounds.
Law Doesn't Violate Fourteenth
Amendment, Say Others.

This morning the supreme court
decided that the law providing Off sep
arate high schools for the whites and
negroes at Kansas City, Kas., is valid,
Justice Burch dissenting from the
opinion.
The court arrived at its decision on
the theory that the subject matter
involved in the law Is not one of gen
eral nature, and that therefore it may
be made the subject of special act.
Justice Burch dissented without
stating his grounds. He says that in
order to do so it would be necessary
for him to review the whole question
of general and special legislation as
determined by a long line of the de-
cisions of this court with which he is
not in sympathy; that the other court
work has been 50 great that it de-
prived him of the time for stating
his reasons.
There is no doubt that the "Jim
Crow school question, as it was
called, has raised more disturbance
down in Kansas City than anything
which has happened there for long
time. The feeling between the colored
and white people is very bitter about
the matter, only a few of the more
with the whites in the move for SEN
arate high schools.
The trouble started two years ago
when colOred boy attending high
school stabbed one Of his classmates.
From that time on the demand for
separate schools was most insistent
( The law authorizing the Kansas. Citv
| board of education to provide sepa-
rate schools was passed by the last
legislature. A petition signed by 25-
! GOO people was presented to the Leg
lslature asking for the passage. When
1t came UP to the governor, the col
ored people made a tremendous fight
against it, but the governor signed
the bill.
Then the affair got into the courts.
A colored girl named Mamie Rich
| ardson applied for admission to the
white high school and was refused
1fals was used as 4 test case, and
Inandanus proceedings were brought
in the supreme court to decide the
constitutiOnality of the law
Ihe chief contention was that the
law was special act and therefore
/ contrary to the constitution The de-
clsion of the court is yery long. It
says in part:
IF the subject is one of a general
nature, the discretion of the Iegfs-
iature IS at an end, and if it attempts
10 enact law on such a subject it
must be general and of uniform ope-
ration throughout the state
instances might be multiplied
where the legislature has enacted spe-
clal acts providing for the erection
maintenance and control of both
grammar and high schools. Indeed
the system could not be effectuaIlv
maintained throughout the state with
out the aid of special laws to meet
special conditions.
we conclude that the subject mat
ter OF the amended law is not one of q
general nature and for that reason the
law does not fall under the first clause
IN section H. article 2 of the consti-
| tuition. therefore it was a matter ex-
clusively for the legislature to deter
mine whether heregulation Of the high
school in Kansas City could be accom-
phshed better by general or special
law. Having tried the general law
and having discovered that its ODera-
ton was not satisfactory. it was with
In its discretionary power to amend If
by a special act, and with the wisdom
OF this course the courts cannot in
tertere- Whether or not 4 law of a
general nature can be thus amended
or repealed would present quite an
other question. Since the legislature
might have passed a special law in
the nrst instance, providing for the
organization, maintenance and con-
/ troll of the high schools in each citv in
the state. it can in the exercise of its
discretion, at any time amend or re-
peal any part Of a general law and
enact special provisions for the gov
ernment of any high school There is
no constitutional prohibition forbid
ulng the Iegfslatu ture from amending a
general law by special act.
1t mas been suggested that this law
violates the fourteenth amendment of
the federal constitution but our at
| tention IS not called to any provision
or this amendment which has been
violated