The Phoenix index., 1939-11-18
Maryland Testing
((Continued rom Page II

ton of the United States shall
have the same right in every state
and Territory to make and enforce
contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence. and to the full and equal
benefits of all laws and proceedings
for the security of persons ano
property as is enjoyed by white
citizens, and shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, penalties, taxes
licenses, and exactionS Of every
kind, and to no other.
Every person who, under color OF
any statute, ordinance, regulation
custom, or usage, of any State OF
Territory. subjects, of causes to be
subjected any citizen OF the United
states or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the depriva-
5ion of any rights privileges, OF
| immunities secured by the Con-
Stitution and laws, shall be liabl1
tn the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other
,roper proceeding for redress"
DIFFERENTIAL $5O0,0O0
1t is estimated that the total
sifferenct in the salaries paid Me-
gro and white teachers throughout
the state is approximately one
half million dollars annually. The
olaintiffs in the present action ano
in previous actions on the same
coint maintain that this differen-
5ial is Instituted solely on the ba-
sis of race and color which they
avsr is unconstitutional.
Since 1908 the State of Maryland
has maintained salary schedules
by statutes which provide for high
r minimum salaries for white
teachers and principals than fo,
Negro teachers and principals with
the same qualifications and ex-
perience. Maryland is the only
tate with such a discriminatory
salary schedule in the statutes.
Since 1908 the Negro teachers
and principals of Maryland and in
terested citizens have been petit
tioning the legislature to repeal
these statutes and pass ones pro-
viding for equal salaries. These ef-
forts have been. unsuccessful.
In 1896 attorneys for the Nat
ional Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People were re-
quested by the Negro teachers and
principals to take the necessary
legal action to remove the discrim-
nation. The first case was peti.
ton for a writ of mandamus fileo
in the Circuit Court of Montgomery
county the latter part of 1886 on
behalf of William Gibbs, a Negro
teacher-principal, to require the
| board of education of Montgomery
county to equalize salaries.
equal SALARIES IN
NINE COUNTIES
A check of, the records of the
board of education of Montgomery
county and the scales of salaries
revealed that white high school
teachers received an annual salary
of $1571, as compared to $3.50 for
colored teachers, or difference OF
$712; that white elementary teach
ers received an annual salary OF
1882 as compared to $631 for color
ed elementary teachers, or a dif-
ference of $731. 1t was found, also,
that the schedule of salaries in the
county for white janitors provided
$500 a year, which was $3.50 year
more than the average salary of q
Negro elementary teacher and $10l
more than the average salary of a
Negro high school teacher.
The defendants filed demurrer
WIS overruled and the defendants
required to answer. The case was
settled by an agreement with the
county board to equalize salaries.
The second effort at equalization
was made In Calvert county ir
November. 1887 and here, as in
Montgomery county, the legal case
was settled out of court through
an agreement by the board of edu-
cation to equalize salaries. AT the
present time, salaries have beer
equalized in nine out of tmenty-
three counties in the state.
Further actions were withheld
pending the last meeting of the leg
islature where it was hoped salariee
would be equalized. Instead the
legislature where it was hoped sal
aries would be equalized. Instead
the legislature increased the Salarl
scale for white teachers, but re.
fused to touch the Negro salaries.
thereby increasing the differentlal
FIRST HEARING ON
DIFFERENTIAL
Thereupon action for an injunc-
ion was filed in the District Cour
of the United States for the DistricA
of Maryland by Walter Mills, th,
crescent plaintiff, for an injuncticn
to restrain the state board OF edu-
cation from distributing the Equal
izing Fund" of Maryland on the
basis of the discriminatory salary
schedules in the Maryland Code
Motion to dismiss was filed by the
state officials. After argument.
Judge Chestnut rendered an opin-
lon on March l, 1889, that the CON-
plaint should be dismissed unless
the County Board OF Education wa;