Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-7126 Page: 2 of 4
4 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable T. S. Painter, Page 2
of such law in the light of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, guaranteeing equality of privileges and
immunities to citizens.
The wise and long-continued policy of segregation of
races in educational institutions of this State has prevailed since
the abolition of slavery, and such policy is found incorporated not
'only in the Constitution of the State of Texas (see Article 7, Sec-
tions 7 and 14) but also in numerous related statutes (see Articles
I~68, 2V38, 264, 2719, 2749, 2900, 3221, 3259-a and S.B. 228, Chap.
308, page 506, Acts 49th Legislature, 1945). The constitutionality
of such a policy and of laws in accord therewith has been repeatedly
sustained (see State ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra; Pleasy v. Fer-
guson, 163 U.S 537; McCabe v. Atchison, T. & Sb F. Ry. Co., 235
U.S. 151; and authorities there cited).
The controlling case as to whether the'pollcy of segrega-
ting races in Texas operates to "abridgeequal privileges and immuni-
ties of citizens of the United States" is State ex rel. Gaines v.
Canada, supra. In that case, a fact situation similar to the one
here presented was before the court. Therein the Supreme Court of
the United States held that it was unquestionably the duty of a
3tate to provide equal educational advantages within the State and
zht if such was not done it would constitute a discrimination in
violation of the Constitution of the United States. The court's
decision was based principally upon the fact that the Missouri
statutes (Section 9618 and 9622) left the establishment of equal
educational advantages to the discretion of a Board of Curators,
twhen necessary and practicable in their opiainion," and it was clear
that if a mandatory duty had been imposed on the, Board to provide
sach advantages, it would have constituted no violation of the
Federal C onstitution.
This office, like the courts of this State, is bound by
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and in con-
sequence there is no doubt that if equal educational advantages are
not provided for the applicant within the State, he must be admitted
to the law school of the University of Texas.
It is not required, however, that the State maintain in a
condition of idleness and non-use facilities to afford the applicant
these advantages (see Bluford v. Canada, 32 Fed. Supp. 707 - appeal
dismissed 119 F (2) 779; State ex rel. Michael, et al. v. Witham,
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-7126, text, March 16, 1946; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth264403/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.