State v. School District No. 16

• Decision Date: 05 June 1922
• Docket Number: 42
• Citation: 242 S.W. 545,154 Ark. 176
• Parties: STATE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 16
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

242 S.W. 545

154 Ark. 176

STATE v. SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 16

No. 42

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 5, 1922

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

R G. Davies, for appellant.

The term negro is not defined in the statute referring to separation of schools. The only definitions we have are contained in secs. 996 and 2603 C. & M. Digest, the former relating to separation of negroes and whites in passenger coaches, the latter being an act to prevent and punish concubinage. The first definition is more suited to the present circumstances, as being more nearly alike. There a negro was described as one in whom there is a visible and distinct admixture of African blood. The court specifically found that there was no such visible admixture here. Holdings of other courts on the question are "so long as the negro blood is traceable." 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1911; 2 Hill 614; 125 La. 300. A distinct admixture 2 Hill 614; 134 S.W. 1151; 9 Ohio 665; 14 Mich. 414; 29 Conn. 408. See also our own holding as to "all those who, as classes, were apparently white and likely to be so regarded by men generally" in 19 Ark. 121, as a test of the matter. See also 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 447.

Gibson Witt and Earl Witt, for appellee.

A negro is a person who has any negro blood, whatever, in his veins Sec. 2603, C. & M. Digest. Using this as the test the children of appellant were properly excluded from the white schools.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant, in his own behalf and as father and next friend of his three children, instituted an action for mandamus in the Montgomery Circuit Court to compel appellees, directors of School District No. 16 in said county, to permit his children to attend the school provided for white children in said district. It was alleged in the petition that the relator and his children are members of the white or Caucasian race, and that his wife, the mother of said children, is also with a trace of Cherokee Indian blood in her veins; that said board excluded the children from attendance upon the white school on the ground that they had negro blood in their veins. The case was submitted on the issue tendered by the complaint and the testimony adduced by each party, which resulted in a finding that the evidence tended to show a trace of negro blood in said children; and a declaration of law that, for this reason, the school directors had authority to exclude said children from attendance upon the white school in the district, the exercise of which could not be controlled by mandamus, it not appearing that they arbitrarily exercised such power.

Appellant's first insistence for reversal is, that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the court's finding of fact. A large number of witnesses testified pro and con in the case and, should an attempt be made to set out the testimony of each, it would extend this opinion to great length. Suffice it to say that the witnesses introduced in behalf of the appellant testified, in substance, that the children and their ancestors belonged to the white race; that Ophelia James, the grandmother of the children, and her reputed mother, Maria Gocio (nee Chairs) had a small strain of Cherokee Indian blood in their veins, but no African or negro blood; that there was some doubt as to whether Ophelia James was a daughter or an adopted child of Maria Gocio; and that the witnesses on behalf of appellee testified that said children belonged to the negro or African race; that Ophelia James, their grandmother, and Maria Gocio, their great grandmother, were negro women. In view of this latter testimony, it cannot be said there was no substantial evidence tending to show a trace of negro blood in the veins of said children.

Applicant's next insistence for reversal is that the court erred in its third and fourth declarations of law which are as follows:

"The directors are given the right and authority to determine whether or not the children in their district are white, or whether or not they have negro blood in them, and it is their duty to assign them to the proper school and to provide a school for each class of children without discrimination."

"The action of the directors cannot be controlled by mandamus because the evidence fails to show that they acted arbitrarily and without evidence to support their action in determining that petitioner's children have negro blood."

Educational interests and school affairs, in each school district, in this State are placed by statute under the control and management of...