Evening star., 1936-01-24
Liberal-Minded
Court Decisions

TO the Editor of The Star:
Donald G.. Murray, colored student,
made application for admission to the
law department of the University of
Maryland and was refused on the ground
of race, although he presented the requi-
site educational qualifications. The
statutes Of Maryland provide for the
separate education of the races in the
primary and secondary schools main
tanned by the State, but make no such
provision for higher and professional
education. The University Of Maryland
is State institution which had been
patronized by white students only
The National Association for the Ad-
vancement of Colored People brought
suit in behalf of Murray on the ground
that the authorities of the university had
no right to exclude him in the absence
of specific law. The lower court sus-
tanned the contention of the N. A. A. c. P.
and required the university to admit the
colored applicant. Murray was then
admitted to the classes pending the deci-
sion of the Court of Appeals. This court
of final jurisdiction sustained the deci-
sion of the lower court and young Murray
is now continuing his studies.
The ulterior purpose of the National
Association for the Advancement Of Col
ored People is not to force co-education
of the races in the State Of Maryland.
The Legislature of this State is compe-
tent to establish scholastic separation of
the races in the realm of higher and pro-
fessional education as well as in Sec
ondary schools and the primary grades.
But while the Legislature has failed to
do this, it has at the same time omitted
to make any provision for higher and
professional education of colored youth
on a parity with that intended for the
white race.
In several Southern States, notably in
West Virginia and Missouri, whose con-
stitutions forbid the co-education of the
races and which maintain no profess
sional schools for Negroes, special pro-
vision is made for colored students to
pursue such courses in the universities
of more liberal States.
Race distinction, but not race dis
elimination, in schools has been sane
toned by the Supreme Court of the
United States. But wherever this dis
tinction exists the separate provision
for the two races must be substantially
equal to harmonic the arrangement with
the fourteenth amendment. Distinction
without discrimination never works out
in experience. Separate but equal accom-
modations for the races Is the policy on
which the South operates, but the theory
is never exemplifled in practice. Wher-
ever separate schools or separate cars
exist the colored are apt to be accorded
inferior accommodations.
The National Association for the Ad-
vancement of Colored People has insti-
tuted similar suits in several Southern
States, not with the hope of breaking
down race distinction, but race diScrimi-
nation. The purpose is to require the
States which operate separate schools
to accord equal facilities to both races.
The Court of Appeals of the State Of
Maryland has upheld this principle.
Other Southern States are expected to
follow suit when the matter is brought
to judicial determination.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland
declared null and void the grandfather
clause in the constitution of that State
as being repugnant to the fifteenth
amendment prior to the comprehensive
decision of the Supreme Court to the
same effect. This court also outlawed
jim-crow cars within the limits of the
State, in so tar as interstate passengers
are concerned. This, believe. is the
only decision of record where jim-crow
cars have been declared illegal.
The recent decision of the Maryland
Court of Appeals in the suit brought by
the N. A. A. c. P. is in harmony with the
general trend of this State.
KELLY MILLER.