Cumming v. Richmond County Board Of Education

Facts

Cumming (Ps) were residents, property owners and taxpayers of Richmond County. Board (D) regulated public instruction in that county. On the 10th of July, 1897, D levied for that year for the support of primary, intermediate, grammar and high schools in the county, a tax of $45,000, which was then due and being collected. On the same day, D also closed the only black high school in the county. Black high school students were no longer able to get their public education. Ps sued D claiming that the portion of the tax for the support of the high schools in which the colored school population of the county were not given the same educational facilities as were furnished the white school population was illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. The Georgia Constitution required public school segregation. So black parents were required to pay taxes to support white high school students. Ps claimed a denial of equal protection under the law. Ps sought that D be enjoined from collecting so much of the tax levy of July 10, 1897, as had been levied for the support of said system white only high school; that D be enjoined from using any funds or property then held by it or thereafter to come into its hands for educational purposes in the county for the support, maintenance or operation of that system; and that they have such other and further relief as was equitable and just. D demurred to the petition and also filed an answer. D had in fact recommended that the negro high school be discontinued but opened four primary schools in the same building at a cost of about $200 each for the accommodation of those negro children who were annually denied admittance to the schools. D claimed it was not financially able to erect buildings and employ additional teachers for the large number of colored children who were in need of primary education. The Supreme Court of Georgia said that Ps did not point out what particular paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. 'If it be the first, he does not point out what clause of that paragraph is violated, whether the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States are abridged, whether his clients are deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or whether his clients are denied the equal protection of the laws. It is difficult, therefore, for us to determine whether this amendment has been violated. If any authority had been cited, we could from that have determined which paragraph or clause counsel relied upon, but as he has left us in the dark we can only say that in our opinion none of the clauses of any of the paragraphs of the amendment, under the facts disclosed by the record, are violated by D. The only complaint is that Ps, being taxpayers, are debarred the privilege of sending their children to a high school which is not a free school, but one where tuition is charged, and that a portion of the school fund, raised by taxation, is appropriated to sustain white high schools to which negroes are not admitted. It was in the discretion of D to establish high schools. The action of D did not violate any of the provisions of that amendment. It does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor does it deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor does it deny to any person within the State the equal protection of its laws.' The courts ruled for D, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.