State ex rel. Gaines v. Canada.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1938
• Docket Number: No. 35286.,35286.
• Citation: 113 S.W.2d 783
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of LLOYD GAINES, Appellant, v. S.W. CANADA, Registrar of the University of Missouri, and the CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, a Body Corporate.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

113 S.W.2d 783

STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of LLOYD GAINES, Appellant, v. S.W. CANADA, Registrar of the University of Missouri, and the CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, a Body Corporate.

No. 35286.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, February 25, 1938.

Appeal from Boone Circuit Court. — Hon. W.M. Dinwiddie, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Sidney R. Redmond, Henry D. Espy and Charles Houston for appellant.

(1) The verdict and judgment are against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the law applicable to the case. (a) Neither the Missouri Constitution nor statutes authorized respondents to exclude relator from the School of Law of the University of Missouri solely on account of race. 4 Thorpe, Fed. & State Const. 2190; Mo. Const. 1865, Art. I, Sec. 3; State ex rel. Humphries v. Thompson, 64 Mo. 26; Laws 1889, sec. 7667, p. 266; Laws 1909, sec. 32, p. 889; Mo. Const. 1875, Art. XI; Laws 1870, pp. 136-138; Mo. Const. 1875, Art. X, Sec. 19; State ex rel. Publishing Co. v. Hackman, 314 Mo. 33; Laws 1929, sec. 11, p. 24, sec. 73, p. 61; Laws 1931, sec. 11, p. 28; Laws 1933, sec. 45, p. 87; Laws 1935, sec. 60, p. 113; Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 487, 182 Atl. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Secs. 9216, 9346-9349, 9616-9624, 9639, 9657, R.S. 1929; Lincoln University v. Hackman, 295 Mo. 118, 243 S.W. 320; State ex rel. Hendricks v. Sweaney, 270 Mo. 685, 195 S.W. 714; Roach v. School Board, 7 Mo. App. 567, 77 Mo. 487. (b) In the absence of constitutional or statutory authority, an administrative board cannot exclude a qualified resident from the tax-supported State university solely on account of race. Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 Atl. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706; Foltz v. Hoge, 54 Cal. 28; Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, 6 Pac. 129; Chase v. Stephenson, 71 Ill. 383; State v. White, 82 Ind. 278; Clark v. Board of Directors, 24 Iowa, 266; Board of Education v. Tinnon, 26 Kan. 1, 39 L.R.A. 1020; Connell v. Gray, 33 Okla. 591; Crawford v. Dist. School Board, 68 Ore. 388, 137 Pac. 217. (c) The University of Missouri is a public institution. Sec. 9657, R.S. 1929. (d) Respondents failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the State of Missouri had furnished relator with the substantial equivalent of the legal education afforded white residents in the School of Law of the University of Missouri. Dixon v. McDonnell, 92 Mo. App. 479; Berger v. St. Louis Storage & Comm. Co., 136 Mo. App. 36, 116 S.W. 444; Bathe v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 152 Mo. App. 87, 132 S.W. 743; Menzenworth v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 249 S.W. 113; Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121; See, also, series of cases Re People ex rel. Bibb v. Mayor, 179 Ill. 615, 54 N.E. 421, 193 Ill. 309, 61 N.E. 1077, 56 L.R.A. 95, 209 Ill. 461, 70 N.E. 640, 221 Ill. 275, 77 N.E. 429, 223 Ill. 542, 84 N.E. 664. (2) The court erred in holding that relator was not entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus against the respondents to compel them to admit him to the first-year class of the School of Law of the University of Missouri at the next registration period upon his paying the lawful uniform fees and meeting the lawful uniform requirements demanded of white residents of Missouri seeking admission to said class. (a) Section 9657, Revised Statutes 1929, expressly authorizes the admission of relator to the School of Law. (b) Respondents were under a plain, ministerial legal duty to admit relator to the School of Law on the same terms as any qualified white resident of Missouri. Secs. 9639, 9657, R.S. 1929; Piper v. Big Pine School Dist., 193 Cal. 664; Smith v. Independent School Dist., 40 Iowa, 518; Woolridge v. Board of Education, 98 Kan. 397, 157 Pac. 1184; State v. Duffy, 7 Nev. 342. (3) The verdict and judgment of the court are contrary to and in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States for the reason they deprive relator of his property without due process of law. (a) The action of the respondents in the premises was State action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 346. (b) The State of Missouri, through the arbitrary and illegal acts of respondents in the premises, deprived relator of his property without due process of law. (c) The judicial sanction of this discrimination against relator amounted to depriving him of his property without due process of law. (4) The verdict and judgment of the court are contrary to and in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States for the reason they deny relator the equal protection of the law. (a) The action of the respondents in the premises was State action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (b) Respondents cannot force relator to abandon present advantages of attending the School of Law of the University of Missouri for the slender hope some day instruction in law may be introduced into Lincoln University. (c) The State tuition scholarships for Negroes are no substantial equivalent for the legal education afforded white residents of Missouri in the School of Law of the University of Missouri. Sec. 9622, R.S. 1929; Laws 1929, p. 61, sec. 73c; Laws 1931, p. 28, sec. 11; Laws 1933, p. 87, sec. 45; Laws 1935, p. 113, sec. 60. Section 9622, Revised Statutes 1929, has been repealed by the subsequent appropriation acts so far as the scholarships are concerned. Mo. Const. 1875, Art. X, Sec. 19; State ex rel. Vastine v. McDonald, 38 Mo. 534; State ex rel. Publishing Co. v. Hackman, 314 Mo. 33, 282 S.W. 1007. (d) In the absence of a substantial equivalent an attempt by the State to exclude relator from the present advantages of the legal education afforded white residents of Missouri in the University of Missouri amounts to denying him the equal protection of the law. Whether by attempted legislation — if Sections 9616 to 9624, Revised Statutes 1929, be so construed. Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 84. Or by administrative action, such as the resolution by the respondents, March 27, 1936.

Fred L. Williams, Nick T. Cave, William S. Hogsett and Ralph E. Murray for respondents.

(1) The Constitution, laws and public policy of the State of Missouri do not entitle a negro to admission as a student in the University of Missouri. Separation of white and negro children for purposes of education is expressly required, and separate facilities therefor are provided. Sec. 3, Art. XI, Mo. Const.; Secs. 9216, 9217, 9346, 9347, 9348, 9349, R.S. 1929. Separation of the white and negro races for purposes of higher education is also required, and separate facilities therefor are provided. Sec. 5, Art. XI, Mo. Const.; Laws 1870, p. 136; Secs. 7176, 7177, R.S. 1879; Laws 1887, p. 270; Secs. 8140, 8141, R.S. 1889; Laws 1891, pp. 22-23, secs. 1, 6; Secs. 11511-11521, R.S. 1919; Laws 1921, p. 86; Secs. 9616-9624, R.S. 1929. The foregoing statutes clearly establish the public policy of the State requiring separation of the white and negro races for purposes of higher education. Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 Atl. 594, 103 A.L.R. 706; 6 R.C.L., p. 709; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 731; Rutledge v. First Presbyterian Church, 212 S.W. 860; St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 655; Pike v. State Board of Land Commissioners, 19 Idaho, 268, 113 Pac. 447. Section 9657, Revised Statutes 1929, cannot properly be so construed and applied as to open the doors of the University of Missouri to negroes, because: (a) Section 9657 is in pari materia, and must be construed in harmony with other statutes relating to the same subject, which provide for higher education of the white and negro races in separate schools. State ex rel. v. Patterson, 207 Mo. 144; Keeney v. McVoy, 206 Mo. 67; Little River Drainage Dist. v. Lassater, 29 S.W. (2d) 718; State ex rel. Lefholz v. McCracken, 95 S.W. (2d) 1241; State ex rel. v. Thompson, 19 S.W. (2d) 646; State v. Naylor, 40 S.W. (2d) 1084; State ex rel. v. Hostetter, 79 S.W. (2d) 470; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 728. (b) For the period of sixty-five years since the original enactment of what is now Section 9657 (Laws 1872, p. 168), the section has been construed by the officers of the State, upon whom the duty of interpretation falls, as not opening the doors of the University of Missouri to negroes. This settled administrative construction, acquiesced in by the General Assembly, is decisive. State ex rel. Gass v. Gordon, 266 Mo. 412; Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 709; Ross v. Railroad Co., 111 Mo. 27; State ex rel. Hanlon v. Maplewood, 99 S.W. (2d) 143; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 689. (c) To construe Section 9657 as relator construes it would lead to an absurd and anomalous result. A statute must be so construed as to harmonize it with reason and to avoid absurd consequences. St. Louis v. Christian Brothers College. 257 Mo. 552; Verdin v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 171; State ex inf. Folk v. Talty, 166 Mo. 560; Moorshead v. United Rys. Co., 203 Mo. 166; Fischbach Brewing Co. v. St. Louis, 95 S.W. (2d) 339. (d) The real object and purpose of Section 9657 is, and from the beginning has been, not to deal with eligibility for admission, but to regulate the matter of tuition and fees to be exacted from those admitted, to the University of Missouri. Laws 1839, p. 175; Laws 1872, p. 168. (2) The refusal to admit relator as a student in the School of Law in the University of Missouri is not a denial to relator of the equal protection of the laws. Separation of the white and negro races for purposes of education does not infringe the rights of either race guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 551; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 544; Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 87; Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 504; Younger v. Judah, 111 Mo. 310; Bertonneau v. Board of Directors, 3 Fed. 296; Wall v. Oyster, 36 App. D.C. 50, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 185; State ex rel. v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 211; McMillan v. School Committee, 107 N.C....