« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
proceeded to endeavor to procure from ommended that the petitioner be furnishthe Board of Education a decision" ed with a copy of the report and that he from which an appeal might properly be be advised to confer with the supervising taken. That the reader who is at all principal regarding the matter. A copy interested in this story of an improved of this report was sent to the petitioner. method of establishing the color-line, a May 9th petitioner's counsel addressed method very likely to invite imitation a letter to the secretary of the board askelsewhere, may understand the difficul- ing whether he was to understand from ties encountered by the petitioner in this the report of the committee that the recase in his unsuccessful effort to secure- instatement of the children was refused. not the vindication of what he claims to The secretary replied, May 9th, that the be his rights—but even any adjudication report “covered all the issues raised.” at all on his claim, the subsequent pro- May 25th the petitioner addressed a letter ceedings are given in somewhat tedious to the supervising principal, giving in detail. Without this full presentation, detail his reasons for objecting to the however, the final outcome could not be transfer of his children and setting forth so well appreciated. A consistent policy, his belief that they were transferred on like a golden thread, runs through the account of color. To this letter no reply entire conduct of the case, indicating that was received. June 6th the petitioner there is much more involved than the again wrote asking for a reply to his letter question of admission or rejection of the of May 25th. To this letter no reply was applicant's children to the particular vouchsafed by the supervising principal. schools in question, that a deeply-laid June 22d the petitioner again addressed plan for separation of the races is here the board, recounting the letters to the revealed.
supervising principal, the latter's failure On February 24, 1904, written applica- to reply, and again requesting the board tion was made to the Board of Education to take up the consideration of his petition for a restoration of the children to their of February 24th, and to grant to him the former positions in the public schools. reinstatement of his daughters in the pubThe secretary of the board, on February lic-schools from which he claimed they 26th, stated by letter that the communi- had been illegally transferred. June cation had been received and referred to 29th the petitioner again addressed the the Committee on Teachers. March 1st board a communication, asking that the inquiry by letter was made of the board board take "speedy and definite action” whether the committee was instructed on his application, to the end that he when to report. The secretary replied might know his status as a parent and that there were no instructions as to time. the status of his children" as pupils in the March 3d the petitioner addressed a letter public-schools of the city of Burlington." to the president of the board asking that To this communication the secretary of the he exert his power to secure an early re- board replied, July 26th, that “the superport on the petition. On March 7th vising principal will doubtless make reply the president of the board replied that he to the communications, which you state did not feel that "a reasonable time had that you addressed to him, in due season. elapsed” for a report on the case. March Until his reply is made known to the board 24th the Committee on Teachers made and a report on the allegations which you their report to the board, stating that the make is submitted by a committee, it is supervising principal had made the trans- not likely that the board will take any fers “for the purpose of more nearly further action.” equalizing the number of pupils in the The board took no further action. The classes and grades” and to add to the State Superintendent of Public Instrucefficiency of the work, etc., and they rec- tion had officially informed the petitioner
that until the local Board of Education shown that the colored school, which peshould act he could not entertain a com- titioner's children had been ordered to plaint, nor “could” any legal action “be attend, did not offer the same educational taken in connection therewith by his de- advantages as the school from which they partment.” Here, then, was such a were removed, since the increased numsituation of affairs that, to all appear- ber of grades in the school required fewer ances, the petitioner was without a rem- recitations per week and shorter periods edy, unless some power could be found of recitations in a number of the branches to compel the board to act in the matter taught. It was claimed on behalf of the and to reinstate his children if they were, local board that the transfer was made to under the law, entitled to such reinstate- equalize the classes, since the total numment.
ber of pupils of the various grades in atThe petitioner, then, through his coun- tendance at the colored school was small, sel, had recourse to an application to the while, on the other hand, it was disclosed court for a writ of mandamus—the pre- that if the truant-law should be enforced cise remedy which proved effective in the the colored children out of school would Pierce case above alluded to.*
fill the colored school without a transfer A rule to show cause why a writ of of those in attendance at the “white" mandamus should not issue was allowed schools. September 21, 1904. In accordance with The case was submitted to the Supreme · the established practice, which might Court, November Term, 1904. In due seem to have been devised to prevent course the court announced its decision persons of small means from having re- not to pass at all on the questions raised course to the courts for vindication of by the application for a writ of mandamus violated rights, witnesses were examined and which had been at so great expense before a commissioner, the depositions submitted to it, on the ground that the were written out and printed to be sub- applicant for the writ should first have mitted to the court which could much proceeded by appeal from the action of better hear the witnesses direct on the the local Board of Education to the State argument of the rule. This involved an Superintendent of Public Instruction and expense almost prohibitive to one of the from his decision to the State Board of petitioner's means, but the case, with Education. As a precedent to support counsel's briefs, was printed.
its decision the court cited a then recent In the taking of the testimony it was case, in which the court had refused to
*One word of explanation here may be of service power of withholding the part of state funds which to the lay reader. A writ of mandamus issues out might otherwise be apportioned to the district of of the Supreme Court to compel subordinate offi- the offending local officials. Counsel reasoned, cials or bodies to do certain things which the court following the analogy of the road official's case, that shall have decided ought to be done. It is a rule this power of withholding money was not a specific established in New Jersey that this writ will not remedy since it was conceivable that the local auissue where the applicant has another specific rem- thorities, in a given case, might prove obstinate and edy, i. e., can secure his specific relief by some other suffer the schools to be closed if need be, for want of means. Thus it was held where mandamus was the state funds, or, if the community's prejudices applied for to compel a road overseer to repair the were sufficiently strong, the local schools might be roads and objection to the issuing of the writ was kept open by private support rather than obey the made on the ground that there was a remedy by order of the State Board." In such a possible case, indictment of the official for non-performance of the aggrieved individual would be as completely duty, that the remedy by indictment was not spe- without a remedy as in the road official's case. Thus cific, that the recalcitrant official might suffer im- reasoning, and relying on the Pierce case, where the prisonment as a punishment and still the roads facts were identical with the facts as alleged in this remain unrepaired. Accordingly the writ case, counsel asked in the usual manner for a writ granted and the overseer was commanded to per- of mandamus. But the workings of the judicial form his official duty. Now the New Jersey State mind are sometimes disappointing and one who reEducational Law provides no means of enforcing lies solely on what he conceives to be logic and the obedience by local school authorities to the orders rules of ratiocination to forecast judicial action in a of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction given case, is liable to go astray. or of the State Board of Education, beyond the
grant the writ to the applicant until he intendent of Public Instruction respectshould have first exhausted his remedy fully asking for a determination of the through the State educational authorities. case. No response by decision or otherBut in this last-mentioned case, which · wise was made to this letter. On August now became in the eyes of the court a 22d, counsel again addressed the State precedent for refusing to consider the Superintendent of Public Instruction, merits of an application for mandamus stating that their client had started the where the charge is exclusion from a proceedings in good faith for the mainschool because of color, the court justi- taining of his rights; that as a citizen fied its action on the ground that the case and taxpayer he was entitled to have the at that time before it was distinguishable question of his right passed upon by the from the Pierce case, where the question regularly constituted tribunals of the of exclusion for color was involved and state of which he was a citizen and taxin which a mandamus was allowed. In- payer and that the circumstances of the asmuch as the case we are considering is, case were such that further delay was if the facts alleged are sustained by the practically a denial of a hearing. To proofs--and whether they are so sus- this application and to these communicatained or not was what the court was tions no response has been made. With asked to pass upon-precisely such a this long and seemingly unwarranted case as the Pierce case, it is just a little delay, the conclusion would appear to be puzzling how the court could refuse to justified that no decision is intended to hear this case on the ground that it had be made. refused to hear a former case because If a decision adverse to the petitioner that former case was not like the Pierce could, on the facts, be made, there is no case and, consequently, not like this case, apparent reason why it should be delayed. since according to the old mathematical Thus, after an expenditure of money formula, “things equal to the same thing which he could ill afford, a citizen and are equal to each other."
taxpayer guaranteed certain rights by the By this deliverance of the Supreme law of the state cannot find a tribunal to Court the petitioner found himself, in the adjudicate his charge that he has been game of shuttlecock and battledore, back deprived of those rights solely on account where he was at the beginning, and, of prejudice of color. Thus is established nothing daunted, he again applied to the in New Jersey, by what seems like official State Superintendent of Public Instruc- hocus pocus, the color-line in the publiction, resolved to follow up his decision, schools, without any change in the statute if need be, by an appeal to the State Board and without incurring the inconvenience of Education, and the latter's decision, if of opposition involved in an effort to adverse, by a second application to the amend the law. Supreme Court, which might then, per- That the spirit of this article may not haps, consent to hear him.
be misunderstood, it should be stated Accordingly an application was made that the writer believes in separate colto the State Superintendent of Public ored schools, where there are enough Instruction and the sworn testimony colored children to warrant their maintaken by both sides for presentation to tenance, for the two-fold reason that such the Supreme Court was submitted by the schools, taking in the greater part of the petitioner's counsel. This was on April colored school-children in a community, 7, 1905, and the Superintendent, not un- avoid the practical difficulties arising naturally, took time to consider the mat- from race prejudice, and that they offer ter. Nothing further was heard of the a career of usefulness for the more ambicase and the petitioner's counsel addressed, tious people of color as teachers—a career July 6, 1905, a letter to the State Super- they could not hope to have in white or
mixed schools. In nearly every com- amend the statute in the sight of the world.
LINTON SATTERTHWAIT. just, the fair thing to do, would be to Trenton, N. J.
officials of candor, sincerity and an that constitute the supreme menace to earnest and conscientious desire to further democracy, nothing is more discouraging the highest interests of society are all too to the friends of free institutions than the rare at the present time; and when in spectacle apparent on every hand of earnaddition to these things a public servant est and true-hearted men and women evinces the profound insight of a philos- devoting all their energies to the promoopher and the broad vision of a true tion of measures that at the very best can statesman, which enable him to disting- merely prove partial or palliative, while uish clearly between fundamental causes often their only result would be to relieve of evil conditions and remedies that must temporarily the hurt-in other words, necessarily be applied to reach the tap- something anodyne in character, soothing, root of crime, vice, poverty and moral affording brief relief, which might easily deterioration, and apparent immediate lull society into a dangerous sense of secauses and remedies that are essentially curity while the evil more firmly rooted palliative or partial in character, the phe- itself in the body politic. nomenon calls for special consideration. The reply given a short time since by
Mayor Tom L. Johnson to the Ministers' blackmail, graft and official corruption, Union of Cleveland affords a striking which no possible foresight can prevent, exhibition of the seeing eye, the feeling and it cannot be adopted by a decent adheart and the broad intellectual vision of ministration." the truly philosophic statesman so sorely He then passes to a careful examinaneeded in public life to-day.
tion of the result of the attempted supThe Ministers' Union of Cleveland pression by crusades and that of adminaddressed a communication to the Mayor istrative repression. The attempted suprelative to municipal control of vice in pression by crusade he believes under that city. In reply Mr. Johnson entered present social conditions to be at once into a somewhat extended examination of ineffective and fraught with very serious the subject of vice and its effective treat- evils, in that it results in dispersing the ment, dividing the subject into a consid- moral pollution throughout the municipal eration of the immediate repressive meas- body, thereby starting new centers of ures needed and the fundamental treat- corruption in quarters hitherto unpolment required to reach the chief causes luted-centers that in the nature of the of vice, crime and poverty.
case frequently become pest-holes whence
contagion becomes widespread long beMAYOR JOHNSON'S REPLY. fore the evil is suspected by or known to
the authorities, because hidden in secWith a broad, generous spirit that is a tions regarded as ultra-respectable. The marked characteristic of the man, Mr. Mayor's views in this respect are in agreeJohnson freely grants the disinterested ment with the conclusions of many of the motives and praiseworthy desires of the most earnest social reformers whose deep clergymen, at the same time claiming for study of the grave problem entitles their himself and his administration the same views to serious consideration. In the earnest and sincere desire “to make second place, Mr. Johnson insists that Cleveland a good place to live in, to pro- experience has amply proved that this mote the happiness of the people, and to method is thoroughly ineffective. It has surround them with such freedom from failed, and signally failed, wherever it has temptation and such encouragement in been tried, and “I doubt,” he observes, right living as will discourage vice and “if there is a city in the country in which promote morality.”
there has not been, at one time or another, The aim of the city administration in a formal crusade against vice; but I coping with the extremely difficult prob- equally doubt if a time or place can be lem, he asserts, is precisely the same as named where such a crusade has effected that of the clergymen. The only differ- even temporary betterment.” Moreover, ence, in so far as any difference may exist, “it invariably results in blocking the lies in the best method for dealing with courts.” He then gives the results of the evil.
the last attempt to carry out this plan in “There are three courses or policies," Cleveland, which ended in a dismal failobserves the Mayor, “which may be followed with respect to public dances, winerooms, disorderly houses, gambling, and “Six
years ago our police court dockets the liquor traffic: First, official toleration; were choked and the courts themselves parsecond, attempted suppression by cru- alyzed by the liquor cases alone. At that sade; third, administrative repression. time some sort of a crusade was being made. The first course, we would agree, could Saloonkeepers were arrested wholesale, not be followed by an administration many of them arrested many times. The seeking the end which you and I have in result, however, was that by uniting and view. It is usually accompanied by securing legal counsel at a very small