State ex rel. Clark v. Maryland Inst. for Promotion of Mechanics Arts
| Decision Date | 28 June 1898 |
| Citation | 41 A. 126,87 Md. 643 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CLARK v. MARYLAND INST. FOR PROMOTION OF MECHANIC ARTS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.
Petition by the state, on the relation of Robert H. Clark, Jr., by his father and next friend, Robert H. Clark, against the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts, for a writ of mandamus requiring it to admit Robert H. Clark, Jr., as a pupil. From a judgment dismissing the petition, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, BRISCOE, PAGE BOYD, and PEARCE, JJ.
John Phelps and W. A. Hawkins, for appellants. John M. Carter and E. H. Gans, for appellee.
This was a petition for the writ of mandamus. The Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts is a body politic and corporate, created by acts of assembly of Maryland. It was originally incorporated by the act of 1849 (chapter 114), and its charter was renewed by the act of 1878 (chapter 313). The object of the incorporation was the encouragement and promotion of manufactures and the mechanic and useful arts by the establishment of schools of art and design, and by other means adapted to that purpose. Robert H Clark, Jr., a youth of African descent, claims the right to be admitted to these schools as a pupil; and by his father and next friend he files a petition for a mandamus requiring the above-named corporation to admit him. The grounds of his demand are set forth in his petition. The Maryland Institute (as the corporation is popularly called) filed its answer and on demurrer to the answer the petition was dismissed, and appeal was taken to this court.
There can be no contest about the facts in this case, because, in addition to those admitted by the demurrer to the answer, there is an agreement of counsel admitting such other facts as it was desired to lay before the court. We proceed to consider the circumstances which, in our opinion, are important in the decision of the questions in the case. The municipality of Baltimore, by an ordinance passed in March, 1893, authorized the mayor, comptroller, and register to contract with the Maryland Institute for the instruction of a number of pupils in its schools of art and design for the period of eight years from the 1st day of September next ensuing. By the second section of the ordinance it was enacted that before the 1st day of September in every year each member of the city council should appoint one pupil, who should be entitled to instruction for the period of four years in the schools of art and design, and that in case of a vacancy occurring from any cause among the pupils the president of the institute should forthwith give notice to the member of the council representing the ward to which the pupil was credited, and that he should thereupon appoint another pupil to fill the vacancy. The third section of the ordinance required the president of the institute to report annually in the month of September to the mayor and city council the names of the pupils appointed and in attendance at its schools, together with a list of the vacancies, if there should be any. It also enacted that if no appointments should be made before the 1st day of October by the members of the city council entitled to fill such vacancies, then the mayor should appoint pupils to fill them. The fourth section of the ordinance enacted that the mayor and city comptroller and city register should annually, or as much oftener as they might deem it expedient, inspect the said schools of the institute, and "the condition and manner" in which it was fulfilling its contract with the municipality, and that thereupon the city comptroller, if he was satisfied that the institute was faithfully complying with the contract, should pay to its president annually in the month of September $9,000 for the education of the pupils. The Maryland Institute, on the 10th day of March, 1893, entered into a written contract with the mayor, city comptroller, and city register for the reception of 33 pupils into its schools of art and design for each of the eight successive years beginning on the 1st day of September, 1893, and following thereafter. It appears that a youth of African descent was received into the institute as a pupil in 1891, another in 1892, and two others in 1895. So far as we are informed by the record, no other pupils of this description have ever been admitted into the schools of the institute. The effect of the admission of these four pupils was very disastrous. There was an immovable and deep-settled objection on the part of the white pupils to an association of this kind. Notwithstanding earnest and zealous efforts on the part of the board of managers and the faculty of teachers to reconcile the white pupils, their parents and guardians to the innovation, it caused a great decrease in the number of pupils; and the bringing of this suit made it still greater. On the 11th of November, 1895, the board of managers approved this resolution: The actuary of the Maryland Institute prepared a circular, signed by its president and the chairman of the committee on schools of art and design, setting forth the action of the board and of the committee, and attached to it a blank letter of appointment of pupils for the following year (1896). This blank letter was in the following form: A copy of this circular and of the blank letter of appointment was sent to each member of the city council, and to the school boards of the city of Baltimore and the counties. In February, 1896, J. Marcus Cargill, a member of the city council from the Eleventh ward, appointed Clark, Jr. (the appellant), to a scholarship in the institute, writing the appointment on the printed blank which had been sent to him with the circular just mentioned. The board refused to admit Clark as a pupil, and requested Cargill to appoint a reputable white person. The refusal was, of course, because of his color. Cargill made no other appointment, and the Maryland Institute certified to the mayor of Baltimore that a vacancy existed among the pupils from the Eleventh ward, and he, in October, 1896, appointed a white pupil, who has ever since been a member of the school. In February, 1897, the mayor, comptroller, and register made an inspection of the Maryland
Institute, and made a very favorable report as to its condition, and the manner in which it was fulfilling its contract in regard to the instruction of pupils sent there by the authority of the city. With full knowledge of the refusal of the institute to admit any pupils except those who were white, the city council, in 1896 and 1897, directed the annual appropriation to be paid to the institute according to the contract. And on the 20th day of September, 1897, the city solicitor, in reply to an inquiry from the chairman of the committee on ways and means of the city council, gave his official opinion in writing that the institute had not violated its contract by its refusal to admit a colored youth as a pupil in its schools. In September, 1897, Cargill appointed Clark to the scholarship for that year, which he was entitled to fill by virtue of his position as a member of the city council; and the institute again refused to admit Clark as a pupil.
The Maryland Institute is essentially a private corporation. It was not created for political purposes, nor endowed with political powers. It is not an instrument of the government for the administration of public...
To continue reading
Request your trial