PRESENT EXTENT OF SEPARATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
(a) In South
It is a matter of general knowledge that white and colored children are not permitted to attend the same public schools in the South. The separation is required both by State Constitutions and statutes.
The Constitutions of Alabama of 1875[[362]] and 1901[[363]] provide for a system of public schools, but add that separate schools must be maintained for white and colored children. The laws[[364]] of 1868 have this provision: “In no case shall it be lawful to unite in one school both colored and white children, unless it be by the unanimous consent of the parents and guardians of such children; but said trustees shall in all other cases provide separate schools for both white and colored children.” The separation is also required in the laws of 1878[[365]] and 1884.[[366]]
Arkansas has no constitutional provision as to separation, but an act[[367]] of 1867 reads: “No Negro or mulatto shall be permitted to attend any public school in this State, except such schools as may be established exclusively for colored persons.” And a statute of 1873[[368]] declares that the board of education must provide separate schools.
The Constitution[[369]] of Florida of 1887 provides that white and colored children shall not be taught in the same school, but that impartial provision shall be made for both. A statute[[370]] of 1895, which will be considered later, makes it a penal offence to educate white and Negro children in the same schools, whether public or private or parochial.
Under a Georgia statute[[371]] of 1866, any free white citizen between the ages of six and twenty-one years and any disabled and indigent soldier of the State under the age of thirty might have instruction in the schools free of charge. This would seem to leave out the colored children. But the Constitution[[372]] of 1877 requires separate schools; so do the laws of 1872.[[373]]
The laws of Kentucky[[374]] of 1870 provided that it should be the duty of the trustees of the common schools of that State to invite and encourage indigent white children in the district to attend the school, and to inform them and their parents that such was their right for which the State paid, though they themselves might contribute toward paying the expenses of the school. The annual report of the trustees must always show that this duty had been performed; and no arrangement should be made for the benefit of some individuals of this description to the exclusion of others. Again, apparently no provision was made for the colored children, but the Constitution[[375]] of 1891 declares that in the distribution of the school fund no distinction shall be made on account of race or color, but that separate schools must be maintained. The statute[[376]] of 1904, under which the Berea College case arose, applies to both public and private schools and requires a separation of the races in both.
The government of Louisiana was early in the hands of the Reconstructionists, as its statutes show. The Constitution[[377]] of 1868 said: “There shall be no separate schools or institutions of learning established exclusively for any race by the State of Louisiana.” A separation of the races in schools had been required by the Constitutions of 1845[[378]] and 1852,[[379]] which makes this provision of the Constitution of 1868 all the more significant. In 1871 provision was made for an institution for the instruction of the blind, and an industrial home for the blind at Baton Rouge. The statute[[380]] relative to these concluded thus: “... no part of this act shall be construed so as to deprive any person on account of race or color of the privilege of admittance to the institution.” A law[[381]] of 1875 which established an agricultural and mechanical college provided that there should be no discrimination of race or color in the admission, management, or discipline of the institution. The Constitution of 1879 did not expressly prohibit the separation of the races in schools, as that of 1868 had done, but on the other hand it did not require separation. It seems, rather, to have left the matter in the hands of the legislature. The first reference made to separate schools was in 1880, when a university was established for the education of persons of color, called the Southern University, four of the twelve trustees of which were to be Negroes.[[382]] Finally, the Constitution[[383]] of 1898 requires the general assembly to establish free public schools for the white and colored races.
A Maryland statute[[384]] of 1870 declared that all the taxes paid for school purposes by the colored people in any county or in the city of Baltimore, together with donations for that purpose, should be set aside for maintaining schools for colored children. The school commissioners were given power to make further appropriations as they should deem proper to assist the colored schools. A law[[385]] of 1872 provided that the school commissioners should establish one or more public schools in each election district for colored children, which must be kept open as long as the other public schools of the county were kept open. They are subject to the same laws and must furnish instruction in the same branches as the white schools. The taxes paid for school purposes by colored persons must be devoted to the maintenance of colored schools. This is the Maryland law,[[386]] in substance, as it exists at present, except that a separate school does not have to be provided in each election district unless the colored population in that district warrants the board in establishing a colored school. Where there are not enough Negroes in a district to have a school of their own, presumably, they go to the colored schools in neighboring districts.
As early as 1878 a statute of Mississippi[[387]] provided that schools should be arranged in each county so as to afford ample free school facilities for all educable youths in the county, prohibiting the teaching of white and colored pupils in the same school-house, and the Constitution[[388]] of 1890 reiterated this requirement of separation. The county school boards are given power to locate one or more schools for Indians in counties where there are enough Indians to form a school.[[389]]
Missouri seems not to have lost an opportunity to express its belief in separate schools for the races. The Constitution[[390]] of 1865 made that requirement, adding that the school fund must be appropriated in proportion to the number of children without regard to color. Such separation is required by the laws of 1865,[[391]] of 1868,[[392]] of 1869,[[393]] by the Constitution of 1875,[[394]] and by a law of 1889,[[395]] which last made it unlawful for colored children to attend a white school, or white children, a colored school.
The Constitution of North Carolina[[396]] of 1875 declares that “the children of the white and the children of the colored shall be taught in separate public schools, but there shall be no discrimination made in favor of, or to the prejudice of either race.” According to the statute[[397]] of 1901, a child descended from a Negro to the third generation inclusive should not attend a white school. This was amended[[398]] in 1903 to the effect that no child with Negro blood in his veins, “however remote the strain,” shall attend a school for the white race. The present statute[[399]] also provides that the descendants of Croatan Indians now living in Robeson and Richmond counties shall have separate schools for their children. It will be remembered that it is the Croatan Indians who are prohibited from intermarrying with Negroes.
The Territory of Oklahoma[[400]] had the following peculiar arrangement for separate schools till 1901: In each county an election was held every three years at which all the qualified school electors could vote for or against the maintenance of separate schools in that county. If a majority voted against separation, then the white and colored children might attend the same school; but if a majority voted for separation separate schools had to be provided. In counties which separate schools were voted in the schools for whites and blacks had to be equal in length of terms and in facilities. Any failure to comply with the law rendered the act for establishing separate schools void, and immediately the schools were opened to both races. In 1901[[401]] separate schools were required all over the Territory. In case the children of one race in a district did not exceed ten, they were to be transferred to a school for their race in another district instead of a separate school being maintained for them, provided the distance was not over two miles and a half. The white and colored schools were to be furnished with the same kind of furniture and equipment. No white teacher should teach in a colored school and vice versa. The Constitution[[402]] of the State of Oklahoma, adopted September 17, 1907, provides: “Separate schools for white and colored children, with like accommodation, shall be provided by the legislature and impartially maintained. The term ‘colored children,’ as used in this section, shall be construed to mean children of African descent. The term ‘white children’ shall include all other children.” An Oklahoma statute[[403]] of 1907 requires complete separation of the races in schools, with impartial facilities for both races. By “colored children,” it means those that have any “quantum of Negro blood.” The teacher who knowingly and willingly permits a child of one race to be taught in a school for another race is guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be punished by a fine of between ten and a hundred dollars and, in addition, may have his certificate cancelled and be unable to secure another for a year. The separation applies to private schools and colleges as well as public schools.
The South Carolina government was, like that of Louisiana, early under Reconstruction. The Constitution[[404]] of 1868 provided that “all the public schools, colleges and universities of this State, supported in whole or in part by the public school fund, should be free and open to all the children and youths of that State, without regard to race or color.” In fact, the University of South Carolina was open to Negroes directly after the War.[[405]] But the Constitution[[406]] of 1895 requires separate schools, and adds that “no child of either race shall ever be permitted to attend a school provided for children of the other race.” The Negro public schools of the city of Charleston are taught by white people, mostly Southern-born white people.
Tennessee, by its laws[[407]] of 1866, by its Constitution[[408]] of 1870, and by its laws[[409]] of 1873 requires separate public schools for the white and colored children. A statute[[410]] of 1901 prohibits the co-education of the white and colored races in private schools.
The Texas Constitution[[411]] of 1876 provided for separate schools and impartial accommodations for both races. A school-house constructed in part by voluntary subscription by colored parents and guardians and for a colored school community shall not be used without their consent for the education of white children, and vice versa.[[412]] The separate school requirement was repeated in the laws of 1884,[[413]] 1893,[[414]] and 1895.[[415]] The Texas provision is that a school which receives both white and colored pupils shall not receive any of the public school fund, which amounts to saying that it is not unlawful to educate white and colored children together in private schools.
The Constitution of Virginia of 1870 did not declare that the races must be separated in schools. But statutes of 1882[[416]] and 1896[[417]] provide that white and colored persons shall not be taught in the same school but in separate schools, under the same general regulations as to management, usefulness, and efficiency. The Virginia Constitution[[418]] of 1902 has the terse statement that white and colored children shall not be taught in the same school.
(b) In States Outside of South
Besides the Southern States, which have just been considered, there are other States which require or permit a separation of the races in schools. The separation of the white and Japanese children in the public schools of San Francisco has already been discussed. That was only a part of the legislation of California. A statute[[419]] enacted during the session of 1869–70 read: “The education of children of African descent and Indian children shall be provided for in separate schools. Upon the written application of the parents or guardians of at least ten such children to the board of trustees or board of education, a separate school shall be established for the education of such children; and the education of a less number may be provided for by the trustees in separate schools in any other manner.” In 1874 a Negro child was refused admission to a white school in that State. In a test case which arose the constitutionality of the statute was supported, the court[[420]] being of opinion that the statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if appropriate schools for colored children were maintained. But, it added, unless such separate schools are actually maintained, colored children must be admitted to the regular public schools along with the white children. This latter ruling became part of a statute of 1880. Prior to 1880 the law had been that “every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for the admission of all white children....” This was amended in 1880[[421]] by the omission of the word “white” and by repealing the sections providing for Negro and Indian schools. On the strength of this amendment, a Negro, upon being refused admission to the white schools, brought suit,[[422]] and it was held that, as the law stood, colored children had equal rights with white children to admission to any public school, even though separate schools were maintained. The court said: “The whole policy of the legislative department of the government upon this matter is easily gathered from the course of legislation shown therein; and there can be no doubt but that it was never intended that, as a matter of classification of pupils, the right to establish separate schools for children of African descent, and thereby to exclude them from white schools ... should be given to such boards [of education].” It was earlier, in 1872, that the provision for separate schools for Mongolians was made. The law of California seems now to be that Negro children may attend the same schools as whites, but Japanese, Chinese, and Korean children must go to separate schools if the board of education sees fit to provide them.
The legislature of Delaware,[[423]] in 1881, appropriated two thousand four hundred dollars annually for the education of colored children. In 1889 three colored schools[[424]] were incorporated and placed in control of boards of trustees elected by the voters of the district. These incorporated schools[[425]] as such were abolished in 1893, and after that they were placed under the supervision of the regular county superintendent just as the other public schools. The same State,[[426]] in 1898, provided for the establishment of separate kindergartens. Thus, Delaware is as strict as the Southern States in requiring separate schools for the races.
Although the Illinois statutes[[427]] clearly state that any school officer who excludes from a public school any child on account of color shall be fined from five dollars to one hundred dollars for each offence, and prohibits school directors and officers from excluding, directly or indirectly, children on account of color, still the numerous cases which have arisen involving the point show that the school officers have not always been in thorough agreement with the law.
In 1874 the school directors of McLean County, Illinois, erected a separate school building, twelve by fourteen feet, for the exclusive purpose of educating the three or four colored children in the district therein. It was admitted that there was plenty of room for them in the regular school building. One of the taxpayers of the district petitioned for an injunction against the building of the house, but it was completed before any decision was rendered. In a case which arose later, the court[[428]] held that the school directors had no right to make such a discrimination against Negroes, and that any taxpayer might object. In 1882 the board of education of Quincy, Illinois, divided the city into eight districts and set apart one school for Negroes. A case arising over this division and segregation, the court[[429]] ruled that, in the absence of State legislation, the board had no power to establish separate schools for Negroes. In 1886 the school board of Upper Alton passed a resolution excluding colored children from the white school unless they had reached the high school grade. A Negro, whose children below high school grade were refused admission to the white school, brought suit, and the court[[430]] held that the school board had no power to separate the children on account of color. In 1899 the common council of Alton established a school for Negroes, but the court[[431]] held that this involved an illegal discrimination against them. The Associated Press report[[432]] of November 28, 1906, had the following statement: “East St. Louis, Ill., Nov. 28, 1906—A large brick building at 1,400 Missouri avenue, which was leased last week by the Board of Education for a Negro school, was destroyed by fire to-day, and there is evidence that prejudice against the establishment of a school for Negroes caused the building to be set on fire. Late last night the building was discovered to be on fire, but prompt action saved it. The firemen found rags soaked in oil on the second floor hallway. The destruction of the building to-day makes the second building leased for a Negro school that has been burned within the last two weeks.” The latest Illinois case on the subject is that of April 23, 1908, The People v. The Mayor, etc., of Alton.[[433]] A Negro’s children were excluded from the public school most convenient to them and directed to a colored school less convenient. He petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the mayor and common council to compel them to admit his children to the most convenient school, and after the case had been tried seven times by juries in the circuit court, the writ was finally granted by the Supreme Court. Although all of these cases were decided against race separation they show that there is still an appreciable feeling in Illinois against the white and colored children being taught in the same schools. The trouble at Alton is not yet over. After a fourteen years’ fight the Negroes won, as has been seen, before the Supreme Court of the State. But when the Negro children applied for admission to the public schools, they were again refused. Before the schools were opened for the session of 1908–09, many of the Negroes were visited and induced to send their children to the four Negro schools built in Alton. But forty other Negroes filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the mayor and council of Alton seeking to have them answer why they refused to obey the mandate of the Supreme Court of the State.[[434]]
A statute[[435]] of Indiana of 1869 required the trustees of schools to organize separate but equal schools for Negroes. If there were not enough Negroes in the district for a school, two or more districts might be consolidated for that purpose. If there were not enough within a reasonable distance, then the trustees might provide such other means of education of colored children as would employ their proportion of the school fund to the best advantage. A case[[436]] testing the constitutionality of this law, which arose in 1874, is one of the most exhaustive cases on the subject. The father of Negro children applied for a mandate to compel the admission of them to white schools. The court held that the separation of the races in schools is not in violation of the Federal or the State Constitution. The common schools, it was said, are based upon State legislation, are domestic institutions, and, as such, subject to the exclusive control of the constituted authorities of the State. The Federal Constitution does not provide for any general system of education to be conducted and controlled by the national government, nor does it vest in Congress any power to exercise a general or special supervision over the State on the subject of education. Under the Constitution of Indiana the common school system must be general, uniform, and equally open to all, but uniformity will be secured where all schools of the same grade have the same system of government and discipline, the same branches of learning taught, and the same qualifications for admission. The court said: “In our opinion the classification of scholars on the basis of race or color, and their education in separate schools, involve questions of domestic policy which are within the legislative discretion and control, and do not amount to an exclusion of either class ... there would be as much lawful reason for complaint by one scholar in the same school that he could not occupy the seat of another scholar therein at the same time the latter occupied it, or by scholars in different classes in the same school, that they were not placed in the same class, or by scholars in different schools, that they were not all placed in the same school, as there is that black and white children are placed in distinct classes and taught in separate schools.”
In 1877, the Indiana law of 1869 was amended[[437]] so that the school directors might (not must) organize separate schools for the races. In case a colored school was not provided, the colored children should be allowed to attend the regular white school. When the colored child had reached a grade higher than that taught in the colored school, he must be admitted to the regular high school, and no distinction therein should be made on account of race or color. In 1882, there were only about six Negro children in a certain district, and the trustees were indicted for not establishing a separate school for them. The court[[438]] ruled that it was impracticable to maintain a separate school for so small a number. In 1883, a Negro pupil brought suit on the ground that he was not admitted to the white high school, under the law of 1877, but he did not show that he had passed the required examination. The court[[439]] held that the discretion as to the competency of the child is a matter for the board of education, not the court.
The laws of Iowa have not since 1865 required or permitted a separation of the races in schools. In 1868, a Negro girl, denied admission to the graded schools of Muscatine, brought suit, and the court[[440]] gave relief, saying that the school directors could not require Negroes to attend separate schools; that if separate schools for Negroes are prescribed, the same might as well be done for German, Irish, and French children. The same principle has been affirmed in subsequent decisions which show that there have been instances in that State of school boards trying to separate the races.[[441]]
By the statutes[[442]] of Kansas of 1868 the boards of education of cities of the first class—that is, cities of over 150,000 inhabitants—had the “power to organize and maintain separate schools for the education of white and colored children.” This power was omitted in a revision of the school law[[443]] in 1876, and consequently repealed by implication. But in 1879 a statute[[444]] was passed amending the school law, which revived the power to separate the races in cities of the first class “except in the high school, where no discrimination shall be made on account of color.” The constitutionality of this statute was upheld by the Supreme Court[[445]] of Kansas in 1903, and again in 1909. The State has not given this power of separation to cities of the second class, so the courts[[446]] have held that, except in cities of the first class, the colored children must be admitted to the schools along with the white children. The Superintendent of Public Schools of Kansas,[[447]] in August, 1906, said: “There is a movement in Kansas looking toward the segregation of the races in the public schools, where the per cent. of colored population will warrant the separation.”
A law[[448]] of Nevada of 1865 excluded Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians from the public schools, and prescribed as a punishment to the school opening its doors to all races a withdrawal of its share of the public school fund. The school officials might, however, if they deemed it advisable, establish a separate school for the children of Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians, to be supported out of the public school fund. In 1872 it was held[[449]] that a mandamus would lie compelling trustees to admit colored persons to the public schools where separate schools were not provided for such persons. No subsequent reference to the subject appears in the statutes or reports, so it may be assumed that separate schools no longer exist in Nevada.
A statute[[450]] of New Jersey of 1881 made it unlawful to exclude anyone from the public school on account of “religion, nationality, or color.” The town of Burlington had four public schools, one of which had been set apart for Negroes. A Negro petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the trustees to admit his children to the white schools, and the court[[451]] issued the writ. About four years ago the public schools of East Orange, New Jersey, adopted the policy of teaching the Negro pupils in separate classes; but it was soon abandoned because, the school authorities said, “it seemed like going back to old ideas.”[[452]]
The city of Buffalo, New York, under a provision of its charter, established separate schools for Negroes, and this action was upheld by the court[[453]] on the ground that the right to attend common schools is a legislative grant and not a constitutional guarantee. The city of Albany also set apart one school for Negroes, and this was held[[454]] constitutional in 1872. And in 1883, the Supreme Court[[455]] of that State held that, if separate schools are provided for colored children, they may be excluded from the white schools. In 1899, the same was held[[456]] for the Borough of Queens. These decisions were under the law of 1864,[[457]] reënacted in 1894,[[458]] which gave power to the school authorities of cities and incorporated villages, when they deemed it expedient, to establish separate schools. But this law was repealed in 1900,[[459]] and the present law reads: “No person shall be refused admission to or be excluded from any public school in the State of New York on account of race or color.”
An Ohio statute[[460]] of 1878 gave the boards of education discretionary power to establish separate schools for Negroes. This law was repealed in 1887,[[461]] and thereafter all public schools were open to colored children.[[462]]
In 1869, persons of color were not admitted to the subdistrict schools of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania,[[463]] but this law was repealed in 1872.[[464]] An earlier statute of 1854 had provided for separate schools for Negroes where there were more than twenty in the district. The school directors of Wilkesbarre had united two districts, each having less than twenty colored children, and put up a school building for Negroes; but the court[[465]] held that this was in violation of the law of 1854. This law was repealed in 1881,[[466]] and it was thereafter unlawful to make any distinction whatever on account of race or color. The next year, it was held[[467]] that the school directors could not keep open schools for Negroes exclusively.
A West Virginia law[[468]] of 1865 required the boards of education to establish separate schools for Negroes where there were more than thirty children of that race in the district. But if the average daily attendance was less than fifteen for a month, the school should be discontinued for any period not exceeding six months. If there were less than thirty children in the district or the attendance was less than fifteen, the money should be reserved and used for colored education as the board thought best. A statute[[469]] of 1871 and the Constitution[[470]] of 1872 provided that white and colored persons should not be taught together. A separate school for Negroes must be established when the number in the district exceeds twenty-five. If less, the trustees of two or more districts may establish a joint school. The Supreme Court[[471]] of that State has held that the constitutional provision requiring separate schools does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the terms of the schools of both races must be of the same length. Thus, West Virginia is as strict as Virginia or any Southern State in separating the races in schools.
Wyoming has the following statute[[472]]: “When there are fifteen or more colored children within any school district, the board of directors thereof, with the approval of the county superintendent of schools, may provide a separate school for the instruction of such colored children.”
The statutes[[473]] of Arizona, until 1909, declared that no child should be refused admission to any public school on account of race or color. Last year, however, the school law of that Territory was amended[[474]] so as to give the board of trustees of school districts power, when they deem it advisable, to segregate pupils of the African from pupils of the white race and to provide all accommodations made necessary by such segregation, but the power to segregate shall be exercised only where the number of pupils of the African race shall exceed eight in any school district. This amendment was passed over the Governor’s veto by a two-thirds’ vote of the legislature.
The Constitutions of Colorado[[475]] of 1876 and of Idaho[[476]] of 1889 provide that no distinction or classification of pupils shall be made on account of race or color, and the judicial decisions of those States do not show any attempts by the school boards to draw color lines.
Separate schools were abolished by law in Massachusetts in 1857.[[477]] The present statute[[478]] declares that no child shall be excluded from a public school of any city or town on account of race or color. In practice, the matter is not entirely at rest in Massachusetts.
The law[[479]] of Michigan prohibits the segregation of the races in schools. Because of objections made by white students, two Negroes,[[480]] in 1908, were refused admission to the Grand Rapids, Michigan, Medical College, a private institution. The Negroes appealed to the State circuit court, which issued a writ of mandamus compelling the school to admit them. When this was granted and they were accordingly admitted, thirty-four members of the junior class of the school “struck,” and the authorities suspended the class for a time. The Supreme Court[[481]] of Michigan later reversed the order granting the writ of mandamus, saying that a private institution of learning, though incorporated, has a right to say whom it will receive.
A statute[[482]] of Minnesota declares that a district shall not classify its pupils with reference to race or color, nor separate them into different schools or departments upon such grounds. The punishment for violation of this law by a district is a forfeiture of its share of the public school fund so long as the classification or separation continues. The Territory of New Mexico[[483]] makes it a misdemeanor for a teacher or school director to exclude any child on account of race or nationality, under penalty of a fine from fifty dollars to one hundred dollars and three months imprisonment, and being forever barred from teaching school or holding any office of profit or honor in the Territory.
The separation of the races in public schools is required by the Constitutions of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Complete separation is required by statute in all of the above-named States and, besides those, also in Arkansas, Maryland, and Delaware. A discretionary power is given to the school boards to establish separate schools in Arizona; in Indiana; in California, as to schools for Indians, Chinese, and Mongolians; in Kansas, in cities of over 150,000 inhabitants; and in Wyoming, in districts having fifteen or more colored pupils. The following States that once had separate schools now prohibit them: Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition to these, separate schools are not allowed in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. There are other States which have never seen fit to make any mention one way or the other of race distinctions in schools, either in statutes or court reports; so one is warranted in inferring that the schools are open to all. They are Connecticut, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington.
As has already been said, public education is distinctly a State function. The Federal government, in the main, has not undertaken to have anything to do with it, but Congress, by its exclusive jurisdiction, has supreme control over the public schools of the District of Columbia, and the provisions that it has made there for the separation of the races show in an interesting way the attitude of the national government upon the subject. A statute[[484]] of 1864 reads: “That any white resident of said county shall be privileged to place his or her child or ward at any one of the schools provided for the education of white children in said county he or she may think proper to select, with the consent of the trustees of both districts; and any colored resident shall have the same rights with respect to colored schools.
“That it shall be the duty of said commissioners to provide suitable and convenient houses or rooms for holding schools for colored children....” The commissioner might impose a tax of fifty cents per capita upon the patrons of the school to aid in its support, but no child should be excluded because its parents or guardians could not pay the tax. The school fund was to be divided in proportion to the number of school children, regardless of race.
In 1890 an increase of the Federal appropriation[[485]] to schools was accompanied with the following proviso: “That no money shall be paid out under this act to any State or Territory for the support or maintenance of a college where a distinction of race or color is made on the admission of students, but the establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for white and colored students shall be held to be a compliance with the provisions of the act, if the funds received in such State or territory be equitably divided as hereinafter set forth.”