Bluford v. Canada

• Decision Date: 06 April 1940
• Docket Number: No. 42.,42.
• Citation: 32 F. Supp. 707
• Parties: BLUFORD v. CANADA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

32 F. Supp. 707

BLUFORD v. CANADA.

No. 42.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, Central Division.

April 6, 1940.

Charles H. Houston, of Washington, D. C., L. Amasa Knox, Charles H. Calloway, James H. Herbert, and Carl R. Johnson, all of Kansas City, Mo., and Sidney R. Redmond, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Nick T. Cave, of Columbia, Mo., Kenneth Teasdale, of St. Louis, Mo., and William S. Hogsett, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

COLLET, District Judge.

To the petition herein defendant interposed a motion to dismiss on the ground that facts necessary to the relief sought are not stated.

Plaintiff, a negro citizen of Missouri, on January 1st, 1939, and again in August, 1939, duly applied to defendant, Registrar of the University of Missouri, for admission to that institution as a student in the graduate school of journalism. The defendant as Registrar was in complete charge of all registration and admission. Admittance to the University was refused plaintiff by defendant upon the ground that she was a negro. In doing so defendant was carrying out the rules and regulations of the statutory governing body of the University, the Curators of the University of Missouri. The University of Missouri is the only state educational institution in Missouri where graduate instruction in journalism may be obtained. Such instruction is there available to students of the white race. By this action in each of the two counts plaintiff seeks $10,000 in damages from defendant personally for his action in refusing her admittance to the University.

The action is based on Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,¹ and Section 43, Title 8, U.S.C.A.² Jurisdiction of this court is derived from the second clause of subdivision (1) and subdivision (14), of Section 41, Title 28 U.S.C.A.³

Missouri has followed the policy of segregating the white and colored races in its public schools.⁴ Pursuant to that policy it has built and maintains Lincoln University, a state university for negro students. Prior to the decision in the Gaines case⁵ the governing body of Lincoln University was charged with the discretionary duty of providing an opportunity to negro students for instruction and training "up to the standard furnished at the University of Missouri."⁶ Subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gaines case the Legislature has made that duty mandatory.⁷

In substance the petition states that defendant knew that graduate instruction was not offered at Lincoln University or elsewhere in Missouri except at the University of Missouri upon either of the dates she applied for admission to the University of Missouri; that, therefore, she was entitled under the equal protection clause to admission to the only institution in Missouri at which such instruction was available; that defendant denied her that constitutional right, for which denial she has been given a cause of action against defendant personally by Sec. 43 Title 8, U.S.C.A., supra.

The petition does not allege any demand by plaintiff or any other negro for instruction in journalism at Lincoln University, nor does the petition allege that the governing body of Lincoln University had ample time to furnish those facilities after plaintiff first sought admission to the University of Missouri. The omission is not inadvertent. On oral argument counsel, with complete frankness, stated plaintiff's position to be that although plaintiff should be the first to request the desired instruction she is entitled to it at the University of Missouri instanter, if it be now furnished there to white students and is not immediately available at Lincoln University. If her position is well taken no allegation of advance notice to the authorities of Lincoln University of her desire for the instruction demanded is necessary. On the other hand, if the State be entitled to an opportunity to furnish the instruction at Lincoln University before it or its administrative officers (such as the defendant), be convicted of violation of the equal protection clause, then the petition should be amended or defendant's motion sustained.

Plaintiff contends that the question is determined by the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Gaines case. In that case it was definitely determined that provision by the State for higher instruction for negroes, elsewhere than in Missouri, did not satisfy the requirements of the equal protection clause (305 U.S. loc.cit. 350, 59 S.Ct. loc.cit. 236, 83 L.Ed. 208)—the obligation being imposed "upon the States severally as governmental entities." It was also determined that "a mere declaration of purpose, still unfulfilled," was insufficient to meet the constitutional requirement in the absence of a mandatory duty to fulfill that declaration. The discrimination was not excused by its alleged temporary nature id., 305 U.S. loc.cit. 352, 59 S.Ct. loc.cit. 237, 83 L.Ed. 208. Yet the latter expression was in the light of the fact that the State Supreme Court had not construed the obligation of Lincoln University to furnish the facilities as mandatory (id., 305 U.S. loc.cit. 346, 59 S.Ct. loc.cit. 235, 83 L.Ed. 208), "but on the contrary took the view, * * * that the curators were entitled under the state law to refuse such an application and in its stead to provide for petitioner's tuition in an adjacent State."

The primary duty and objective of this court is to follow the direction of the Supreme Court. That same obligation rested upon the Supreme Court of Missouri upon remand of the Gaines case. When the latter court reconsidered that case in the light of the opinion of the Supreme Court, all indications point to an earnest and sincere purpose to seek the same objective. The direction of the State Supreme Court to the trial court in the Gaines case was that if, at the next school term, the facilities (Law School) at Lincoln University were substantially equivalent to those offered at the University of Missouri the writ should be denied, otherwise the writ was to issue. If the Gaines case should be construed as plaintiff contends, i. e., to give to her the right to enter the University of Missouri on any day when the facilities she demands are not available at Lincoln University, then it must follow that the Missouri Supreme Court did not follow the direction of the Supreme Court when it allowed the authorities at Lincoln University until the next term to furnish the facilities. It is safe to assert that the State Court had no intention other than to follow the Gaines case, nor can the good faith of the State in carrying out the mandate of that case be questioned in view of the prompt establishment of a creditable law school for negroes. While this court is not bound by the State court's construction of the opinion of the Supreme Court, much respect is due the former court's opinion that the Gaines case did not deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to provide facilities, demanded for the first time, before it abrogated its established policy of segregation. But if plaintiff's contention be correct, that policy must for practical reasons be abrogated at least during the period necessary for the establishment of the demanded facilities at Lincoln University. The language of the Supreme Court does not imply such a requirement: "It is urged, however, that the provision for tuition outside the State is a temporary one,—that it is intended to operate merely pending the establishment of a law department for negroes at Lincoln University. While in that sense the discrimination may be termed temporary, it may nevertheless continue for an indefinite period by reason of the discretion given to the curators of Lincoln University and the alternative of arranging for tuition in other States, as...