McFarland v. Goins

• Decision Date: 02 November 1909
• Docket Number: 13,990
• Citation: 96 Miss. 67,50 So. 493
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM J. MCFARLAND ET AL. v. ROBERT GOINS

50 So. 493

96 Miss. 67

WILLIAM J. MCFARLAND ET AL. v. ROBERT GOINS

No. 13,990

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 2, 1909

FROM the chancery court of Jasper county, HON. SAMUEL WHITMAN Jr., Chancellor.

Goins appellee, a negro, was complainant in the court below McFarland, tax collector, and Thigpen, treasurer respectively, of Jasper county, appellants, were defendants there. From a decree overruling the defendants' demurrer to complainant's bill, the defendants appealed to the supreme court.

Goins the appellee, enjoined the appellants, tax collector and treasurer respectively of Jasper county, from collecting a special tax levied by the board of supervisors for the support and maintenance of an agricultural high school established in the county under Laws 1908, ch. 102, p. 92, authorizing a county to establish an agricultural high school for instruction of its white youth and to support the school by a tax on the taxable property in the county. The bill of complaint alleged that appellee is a resident citizen and freeholder of the county, a negro, having children of educable age, and that the law in question, under which the school was established, is unconstitutional in that it abridged the privileges and immunities of himself and other citizens of the county and state of his race and denied to himself and them the equal protection of the law.

Decree affirmed and cause remanded.

Thigpen & McFarland and Deavours & Shands, for appellants.

The appellee, although a freeholder and tax payer of the county, has not as yet paid to the county tax collector any taxes which may be used, under the new statute under consideration, toward the establishment of an agricultural high school. Can he, then, institute this proceeding and maintain suit successfully against the county tax collector and county treasurer? It is a serious matter to enjoin a county treasurer from paying out county funds.

But conceding that he, as a tax payer of the county, can legally institute this suit, is he entitled to any relief? It is a well settled doctrine that in the administration of our school law a great deal must be left to the discretion of the school authorities as to the manner in which they will administer the law in order to bring about the best results under our system of public schools. If, in a specified town, there were no white children under the age of sixteen years, and all such children were sufficiently mentally advanced to attend a grammar school; and in the same town there were no negro children over seven years of age, but a large number under such age, mentally prepared to attend only a school of primary grade; could it reasonably be contended that it would be unconstitutional for the public school authorities in control in such municipality to establish a grammar school for the white children of the town and only a primary school for the negro children of the town? While it is the purpose of the public school system to afford to the children of educable age equal facilities, no court has ever held that the duty devolves upon the school authorities to furnish to all children identical advantages.

The appellee does not allege in his bill of complaint that there are not schools for the negro children in Jasper county suitable to their needs and proper for the grades of their mental advancements and proficiencies. He does not pretend to assert that there are not negro public schools in the community where he and his family live which his children can easily and habitually attend. If it be granted that he and his family have proper school facilities, he should be entitled to no relief. The mere fact that the statute in question affords certain school opportunities to children of the white race cannot wrongfully affect him if it be conceded that his own children, and other negro children of the county, have proper and ample school facilities in the way of attendance at public schools for their own color. One who invokes the jurisdiction of equity to arrest the performance of a duty imposed by the legislature upon a public officer, must show conclusively not only that the act about to be performed is unconstitutional, but that he will be directly injured by it. Burnham v. Sumner, 50 Miss. 517; Virden v. Bowers, 55 Miss. 1; Gibbs v. Green, 54 Miss. 592; Beck v. Allen, 58 Miss. 143. An agricultural high school established in any county is either a part of the system of free public schools provided for by article 8, of our state constitution, or such a school is not a part of that system. But the statute in question is constitutional, whether the school established under it be considered as a part of the public school system or as independent of the public school system.

Suppose we consider such school, when established, to be a part of the public school system. Then it follows that the only section of our state constitution which such statute can possibly violate is section 201, providing that it shall be the duty of the legislature to encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement, by establishing a uniform system of free public schools, by taxation or otherwise, for all children between the ages of five and twenty-one years, and as soon as practicable to establish schools of higher grades. But, in the administration of the law pertaining to our public school system, the widest discretion must be allowed to the authorities upon whom devolve the duty of administering the law so as to achieve the best results. The "uniform system of free public schools" mentioned in section 201 must not be interpreted to mean one where the facilities afforded to all the children of educable age, who are the beneficiaries of the system, shall be identical advantages or facilities. Equality of facilities means the providing at public expense of opportunity to attend a school established by the state suitable to the grade of advancement of the pupil who attends; and, accordingly, the providing of schools of different grades to meet the necessities of different students will not be held to be an act violative of our state constitution.

If, now, we consider such agricultural high school, when established, to be not a part of the public school system, it yet follows that the statute is not unconstitutional. It is true that the state constitution, sec. 201, provides that it shall be the duty of the legislature "as soon as practicable to establish schools of higher grade," but evidently it was contemplated by such provision of this constitutional section that if schools of higher grades were established as a part of the public school system, their establishment would be uniform over the state. A system could hardly be said to be uniform which was in operation in perhaps only twelve of the more than seventy counties of our state. And if such a school is not a part of the public school system, then the legislature has a right to appropriate money for that purpose, not because the school is a part of the public school system, but because, not being a part of such system, it is yet a worthy and deserving object entitled to favor and support at the hands of the state. The matter of the establishment of an agricultural high school in each county is not made mandatory by the statute, as doubtless would be done if the institution fell within the meaning of the phrase, "schools of higher grade," but its establishment is left to be determined by the judgment of the county board of education or of the people themselves in each county.

Under sec. 201 of our constitution, the electors of the county are not prohibited from establishing schools of higher grade independently of the public school scheme. Otken v. Lamken, 56 Miss. 758; Chrisman v. Brookhaven, 70 Miss. 477.

A case very similar to the case at bar has been before the supreme court of the United States for decision, having been carried there on the theory that the action of a county board of education on the particular facts of that case was in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. We refer to Cummings v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, 44 L.Ed. 262. It was shown, in the case cited, that there were sixty negro children entitled to attend a high school, and three hundred negro children entitled to attend an intermediate school; that the school board, in the exercise of its discretion, not having money enough to maintain both schools, ceased to extend support to the high school for negro children but maintained an intermediate school for the three hundred negro children; and at the same time continued to maintain a high school for white children. It was held by this high tribunal that there was no denial to colored persons of the equal protection of the law or equal privileges of citizens of the United States.

Sharbrough & Corley, for appellee.

No state can deny to any citizen of the United States within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, or make or enforce any law abridging the privileges and immunities of such citizen. Any legislation which discriminates against any particular...