Evening star., 1949-11-13
Continued From Page C-1J

able insofar as they denied Mr.
McLaurin educational facilities
The judges nevertheless refused
his petition for an injunction.
Mr.. McLaurin then requested
a court order requiring the uni
versity to admit him to the grad
uate courses he desired. University
officials did so on the segregated
basis. He challenged that as un'
constitutional but lost when Fed.
eral judges on November %. 1948
found, In part, that:
"1. The United States Constitu.
ton does not authorize us to OBJ.
|literate social or racial distinctions
which the State has traditionally
recognized as a basis for classified
ton for purposes of education ano
other public administration. The
18th amendment does not abolish
distinctions based upon race OF
color. nor was it intended te
enforce social equality between
classes and races.
~. 1t Is the duty of this court
to honor the public policy Of the
State in matters relating to its in
ternal social affairs quite as much
as it is our duty to vindicate the
supreme law of the land.
"3. The Oklahoma statutes helG
unenforceable in the previous
order Of this court October 6
1948) have not been stripped ol
their vitality to express the public
policy of the State in respect tx
matters Of social concern.
a. We conclude that the classi.
fication. based upon racial distinc.
tions as recognized and enforced
by regulations of the University ol
Oklahoma, rest upon a reasonable
basis. having it's foundation in thu
|public policy of the State. and doe.
not therefore operate to deprive
this plaintiff of the equal protec.
ton Of the laws"
Asks Reversal s.
Asking the Supreme Court tt
reverse that finding. attorneys fol
Mr.. McLaurin base their appea
on these main contentious:
Access to education is so vita
that 1t requires the highest con.
stitutional protection" The Fed,
eral Constitution prohibits Gov.
ernment classifications" based or
race or ancestry. The order o.
the Oklahoma education officials
as well as the segregation policy
in general, strike at persona
rights of the individual and not
merely to rights of racial groups
The Plessy VS.. Ferguson case o1
1896 should be reversed as un-
constitutional under the l4tt
amendment. which prohibits
States from enforcing laws that
abridge privileges of citizens
or deny any one the equal pro-
lection of laws.
The Texas case attacks validity
OF State constitutional and statu-
tory provisions requiring separa-
ton Of races in schools.
Heman M. Sweat, q Negro, has
attempted for more than three
years to enter the law school al
the University Of Texas. In May
1916. he petitioned the Travis
County Court to compel admis-
sion. The court ruled he was
being denied equal protection OF
the laws because no provision had
been made for legal training for
him and other Negroes. It gave
State education authorities six
months to provide a legal instruc-
ton course substantially equal
to that offered white students.
The State Legislature had au-
thorized establishment Of a uni
versity for Negroes at Houston,
with immediate opening Of a tenn
porary law school at Austin. The
county court dismissed Mr..
Sweatt's petition and the Texas
Court Of Civil Appeals in Feb
ruary. 1948. affirmed that judg-
ment.
The Texas Supreme Court In
September, 1913, denied Mr..
Sweatt's motion for q writ Of
error.
Eouality CHALLENGED