Rensselaer Union, Volume 7, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 December 1874 — AN IMPORTANT DECISION. [ARTICLE]

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

The Itisbt of Colored Children to the Bene 111* of Public School* Denied Decision of the Supreme Court-The Question To Be Taken to the Supreme Court of the United State*. I On the 25th Judge Buskirk, of the Su- ! preiuc Court, tiled an opinion, on the | appeal of the defendants in the case of | the colored umn Carter vs. the Washington school authorities, wherein he sought , (lie aid of the courts to compel them toadmit his children and grandchildren to the bent-tits of the public schools. The decision of the lower courts was in favor of the pluintiffon the fourth reason urged i in support of his claim, viz.: That the j taw excluding colored children from the schools was unconstitutional because it violated tsec. 1, Art. 8 of that instrument. The Supreme Court, however, | now reverses the decision of the court bei low; and among other things decides j that the act of the General Assembly providing separate schools for colored children is not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. After giving a succinct history of previous litigation and quoting the section of the Constitution relied on by the plaintiff—the clause decreeing the establishment of common schools, and declaring that tuition therein shall he free without charge, equally open to all—the Court said the application of the rules o construction heretofore laid down to the various provisions of the Constitution would conclusively demonstrate that the provisions of the section relied upon did not apply to the children and grandchildren of the appellee. The Court continued: Oue of the cardinal rules of construction is, that courts shall give effect to the intent of the framers of the instrument and of the people in adopting it. As it is manifest that neither the framers of the Constitution nor the people in adopting it intended that the children of the African race should participate in the advantages of a general and uniform system of common schools, we possess no power to adjudge to them what was not designed for them. Another rule of construction is, that, in placing a construction upon one’section ot 1 clause, courts are required to examine the whole.instrument and to give effect, if possible, to the whole instrument; and if different portions seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize them if possible, and lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative rather than one which may make some idle and nugatory. There is but one construction which will preserve the unity of harmony and consistency of our State Constitution, and that is to hold ‘that it was made and adopted hv and for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the w hite race. It would he monstrous to hold that the Constitution, in adopting, and the voters of the State in ratifying it, intended that the common schools of the State should be opeu to the children of the African race, when, by the same instrument, that portion of such race as then resided in the State w ere denied all political rights, privileges and immunities, and the further emigration of that race into the State was prohibited by the thirteenth article of the Constitution, w hich received the almost unanimous approval of the voters of the State. ' Another important rule of construction is that the meaning of a Constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time w hen a court has occasion to pass upon it. A Constitution is infallible, and cannot bend to COB.yentenee as modified by public Opinion. Atis therefore tin- duty of the court to declare the law as it is written, leaving to the people in their sovereign capacity to make such change as new conventions may require ~ ~ Having reached the true construction of the Constitution of this State as it came from the hands of its framers and received the sanction of her qualified voters, the next step is to find out the extent of its qualification as changed by the Constitution of the United States. Sec. 2 of Art. 4 of the Constitution of the United States declares: “That the citizens of each State sliall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of .citizensin Lha several States.” This section,at an early date, received a construction n the case of Cartield rs. Carycll which has ever since been recognized and approved.' It relates only to “ those privileges and immuflities which are fundamental.” and which all may, he comprehended tinder the following heads: Protection by the Government, with the rights to acquire aiid possess property of every kiud and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the Government may prescribe for the general good of the whole. Unquestionably all doubts, where any existed, as to' the citizenship of colored persons, and their right to the equal protection of the laws, are settled. But neither of them were denied to them in this State before the adoption of the amendment. At all events, the statutes classifying the youth of the State for school purposes on the basis of color, and the decisions of this court in relation thereto, were not at all based upon a denial that colored persons were citizens, or that they arc entitled to the equal protection of the laws. It would seem. then, that these* provisions of the amendment to tin- Constitution contain nothing conflicting with the statute authorizing the classification in question. Any State is. forbidden- to make or. enforce- any law which-will ■ abridge —the —privileges —or I—immunities 1 —immunities ot~ citizens of the United States. This involves the inquiry as to what privileges or immunities are embraced in the inhibition of this clause. We are uot aware that this has as yet been judicially settled. The language “of the clause, how eve;-, taken in connection with «t&efc provisions of the amendment and of the CmiSTttatio'ri of which ix..forms a part., affords .strong reasons for believing that it includes such privileges or immunities as are derived from, or recognized by,-the Constitution of the United States. Ail the privileges of the school system of this State are derived solely from the Constitution and ■ laws of the State. The question under consideration is the same that has been heretofore determined in this State, that a classification of the youth of the State for school purposes upon any basis which does not .exclude either class fi'ont'equo) school advantage* is t:o infringe'incut of the equal rights of citizens secured by the Constitution of the State. The- court, therefore, reversed the judgment of the court below. The attorneys for appellee excepted to the opinion’' and judgment and—announced their intention to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, flrst. hovyever, asking the State Co*. rt to grant a rehearing. °