-
Title
-
EWP 1 1939 Daily (4)
-
EWP 1939 Daily (4)
-
Tag
-
Maryland, legislation, salaries, teachers, discrimination, race, education, legal proceedings, equality
-
Place
-
Virginia
-
Identifier
-
1000665
-
Is Version Of
-
1000665_EWP_1939_Daily_(4).JPG
-
1000665_EWP_1939_Daily_(4).pdf
-
Is Part Of
-
Uncategorized
-
Date Created
-
2024-01-07
-
2024-07-22 19:26:28 +0000
-
Format
-
Jpeg Image
-
Pdf Document
-
Number
-
4ef5b7ed24f426536cfecf563abfa9a772689ecb9e318b469d223def5612ec85
-
cd94e1ae04c4769321b9533cdfa0ea0f706d2e590f16357c149305499e54f6e3
-
5089e18f6942d3d5f1eee3a0639bc7a32e059043b5c0e6c4d81ad943e90fbb53
-
Source
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/Access Files/Upload temp/1000665_EWP_1939_Daily_(4).JPG
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/Access Files/jpg to pdf/need to upload or replc files to omeka/1000665_EWP_1939_Daily_(4).pdf
-
Publisher
-
Digitized by Edwin Washington Project
-
Digitized by Edwin Washingon Project
-
Rights
-
Loudoun County Public Schools
-
Language
-
English
-
Replaces
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/source/Ingest One/1 Civil Rights/LCPS_African_Educ_Folder/EWP_1939_Daily_(4).JPG
-
extracted text
-
the grounds of race or color in the fixing
of salaries paid white and colored
teachers and principals employed for
the public schools of Anne Arundel
County, and from paving to the nlain.
tiff or any other colored teacher or
principal employed by them a less sal-
ary than they pay any white teacher or
principal employed by them and filling
an equivalent position in the publie
schools of Anne Arundel County.” By
an amendment to the original complaint
the plaintiff also seeks a declaratory
decree (under 28 U. . C., s. 400) “that
this Court adjudge and declare that
defendents’ policy complained of here-
in, in the respects it ig maintained and
enforced pursuant to State statutes as
well as in the respects it is maintained
and enforced in the absence of con-
trolling statutes, violates the due pro-
cess and equal protection clauses of the
14th Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States; and Sections 41 and
43 of Title 8 of the United States Code.!
A precise understanding of the Mary-
land statutory scheme of public edu-
cation is essential to a considered opin-
ion on the question presented by the
pleadings and testimony in this case.
The statutory provisions were discussed
at length in the former case, 26 F. S.
792 (to which reference is hereby
made) and need not now be repeated.
The opinion in the former case was
filed on March 1, 1939. The only sub-
sequent legislation upon the subject is
the Maryland Act of 1939, Ch. 502, ap-
broved May 11, 1939, and effective Sep-
tember 1, 1939, which established a new
State minimum salary schedule for
white teachers, setting up therein a
single salary schedule based on prepara-
tion and experience, to replace the for-
mer position-experience schedule. The
general effect of the Act was to some-
what increase the minimum salary
Schedule for white teachers, but with-
out any increase in the previously
established minimum salary for teach-
ers in colored schools.? Attention should
also be called to the Maryland Act of
1937, Ch. 552, effective September 1,
1939, which made the school term for
that for white children, there previous-
Iy having been some disparity in the
respective terms, those for colored chil-
dren being generally a month or two
Shorter than those for white children.
Hereafter for both it is required that
the schools be kept open not less than
180 actual school days, or nine months
in each year.
- The historical development of Mary-
land legislation with respect to the
comparative salaries for white and col-
ored teachers is important in this case.
The legislation is said to be unique in
that while no mezimuwm salary is pre-
Scribed for payment by the several
County Boards of Education, there is
a difference which has existed for many
years in the minimum ummzmaoaoim‘ ever,
B idla Bk diunc B bev GREBLREOLELL e MY L o,
ral (R MRy LIld L LNE "UONNLY 18 the Unltl -
for public education in the State: that W%WHM:.&MHM
the County Boards of Education have cRacle
440U
full authority for discretion as to the |férence in salaries on other srounds.
: : k _|Thus it is said that until
actual amount to be paid to their teach sehool. term
the white schools
e schools; and it is also
the County Commissioners of the Coun-
ties respectively, to pay higher salaries colored teachers are less
oxs- both - wrhite and colered; and aya
entirely at liberty, in co-operation with
was somewhat lon i
than in the nflmwmm
ihoni e mintmin Ased by law's and the white teachers because the results
that in fact nine of the twenty-three |°f €Xaminations in the
counties of the State, and Baltimore
City, do pay equal salaries to white
and colored teachers of equal profes-
sional qualifications and experience. It
is clear enough, therefore, that in prac-
tical application the statutes of them-
selves do not necessarily require actual
discrimination in practice between
white and colored teachers on account
only of their race or color® Tt is, how-
ever, equally clear that the statutes do
permit the County Boards to make such
%mniggmaou. and there is ample evi-
dence that in most of the counties of
the Stale (Including Anne Arundel
County) a very substantial difference
between the pay schedules of white and
colored teachers has always existed.
Thus it is shown that the annual aver-
age salary for whote and colored teach-
ers in elementary schools in the Mary-
land Counties for the period of 192Y to
1939 is in the ratio of nearly two to one
in favor of the white teachers. In 1921
the comparative figures were $881 for
white teachers and $442 for colored ; in
1930 the respective figures were $1,199
and $635, and in 1931, $1,314 and $848.
It is, however, fairly to be noted that
in recent years the disparity has gradu-
ally been reduced. The average increase
in salary over the nineteen-year period
has been $433 for white teachers and
$406 for colored teachers, or a percent-
age of increase of 499, for the white
teachers and 929% for the colored
teachers,
The controlling question in the case,
however, is not whether the statutes
arc unconstitutional on their face, but
whether in their practical application
they constitute an unconstitutional dis-
crimination on account of race and
color prejudicial to the plaintiff.
herefore look to the testimony in
this case to see how the statutes have
been applied in Anne Arundel County.
In the first place we find that for some
years past at least the County Board of
Education of Anne Arundel County, in
fixing the salaries of white and colored
teachers, has paid to both classes more
than the minima required by the
eral statutes. In 1937 the County B
of Education fixed the scale of salaries
for white teachers, in the case
) ! than they pay any white | Unmindfy] :
teacher who has the qualifications and teacher or principal employed by QEM which wily e financial problems
experience above mentioned, at
(the comparable statutory minimum be-
ing then $1,150) ; and for colored teach-
at $700, the general minimum being
$680. These figures are for teachers in
elementary schools. The plaintiff, how-
is the principal of a colored ele-
ers
gen- | junction reading:
0ard|to the plaintiff or any other
white and col-
ored schools in Anne Arundel County,
when the papers are marked by outside
impartial educators, show a Substan-
tially lower average for colored pupils
than for white pupils. But in Opposi-
tion to these contentions it is to pe
noted that the school term has now
been made equal for white and colored
schools; and the lower grade in exami-
nations attained by colored Pupils is
readily explainable on other grounds
than the alleged inefficiency of colored
teachers’” The contentions of the de-
fendants in this respect seem really un-
fi.%wgsfia when the whole DProblem is
viewed historically in the light of the
w.?afim:a law and general state prac-
1-
cation of the Maryland statuteg in
Anne Arundel County. And indeeq any
controversy over the fact would geem
to be ended by the testimony of the
defendant, Fox, who is Superintendent
of Education in Anne Arundel County
and an executive officer of the County
School Board, and that of Miss Mec-
Neely, the financial secretary of the
Board, both of whom substantially aq-
mitted that the discrimination in the
county schedule of minimum salaries
for white and colored teachers respec-
tively was at least largely wbmcmunma
by the fact of race or color.
I conclude therefore from the plead-
ings and testimony that the Dlaintiff
has established that he as a colored
teacher ig unconstitutionally diserimi-
nated against in the practice of his pro-
fession hy the diserimination made be-
tween white and colored teachers py
the County School Board of Anne
w1€ o lesiimony that jt jg,
has been made by counsel
ndants to justify the dif-
recently the
said that the |bring
efficient than | condition that the present
b iRk I e
School teachers that it
succeeding geho.
year thereafter
by an additionga]
approximateq ¢
i_mw teachers
11T ccmoA @.fid\:.
YUUlLy <oiored
would for the
astic year and for each
increase their salaries
ten per cent. until they
he State minimum for
it beine estimated that
i e four or five years to
about sucnp equalization, on the
suit be with-
proposition was de-
ntiff whose action in
he support of all t
colored teachers of Emm%doszg. wwmm
these financia] considerations cannot
control the Supreme law of the land as
expressed in the 14th Amendment, and
the Implementing Acts of Congress
which Enm.n be controlling here.
moBm. objectiong by the defendants to
the .H.m:% asked by the plaintiff were
considered in the former case. Thus
It Is argued that the plaintiff is mnot
mznflmm to complain because he is g
public employe; in the former opinion
the view wag taken that he has a suf-
w%wmwww mmmgm as a qualified school
Y Drofession and occupati
to have the ques e
VO tion determined. Again
:,” IS argued that ap injunction should
not be granteq because there is an ade-
Quate remedy gt law by mandamus in
the State Court. This also was dis-
cussed in the former case, but in a some-
what different connection. The objec-
tions to an injunction which were there
held valid, do not exist here; and Title
8,'s. 43 of the United States Code ex.
pressly authorizes an injunection as a
possibly appronria; i i
! oWammmM Driate remedy in thig
The County Board
contends that if the
.8 the relief braye
it has a remedy oy
Board of Educati
QoE:zmmSzmnm of
.Q. But for the
in the opinion in t
not find or conclu
Jjudicial remedy,
fiméfi but thig
clined by the plai:
the matter had t
of Bducation algo
Dlaintiff is entitleq
d for in this case,
er against the State
on and the County
Anne Arundel Coun-
reasons fully stated
he former case, T do
de that there ig any
as distinet from legis-
lalive amendments, to which the defen-
dants are entitled ' against the State
?EEQE County; and that he is en-
Efimm to an injunction against the con-
tinuation of such diserimination to the
is also entitled to
to the effect that such
crimination exists;
the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction
to the extent prayed for in the con-| hav
cluding clause of the prayer for an in-
“and from payment
teacher or principal employed by them
public
County.” It does not follow
cause the positions are equiva
particular persons filling th
necessarily equal in all respects in pro-
fagaiamnal fadbad et i o =
that be-
e P
unlawful qgis-| get for
but I do not think County
for taxation, I
the third
colored | missed,
Arundel Commissionerg
by reason of th
lent the | in this case, an
€m are | ness to have t
Eu.uzozo:m DOt od
w,oE..a of Education and the State offi-
Cers in charge of the Equalization Fung,
Or any present remedy over against the
County Commissioners of Anne Arun-
brepare a new hud-
the next scholastie year, ang the
ooEBMm&osfim_ to the extent
by the statutes, win thereafter
e to fix the necessary county rate
conclude therefore that
required
Counsel for the
of Education and County
of Anne Arundel County
e injunction to be issued
d have expressed willing-
he operative effect of the
et e Tl & o F
e R G o R I NIRRT R T
late of said city, deceased. Al persons
having claims against said deceased are
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with
the vouchers thereof legally authenticated,
to the subscriber on or before the 16th
day of May, 1940; they may otherwise, by
law. be excluded from all benefit of said
estate. All persons mzafimcnmammo*mwfi estate
L oted 1o, paptra. fmmsdia, a5y
%mflmnww w_.uw Ms%«uu::a nflwm me....c Qmw onm
November, 1939." LILLIE ECK DIETZ,
n14,21,28,d5 Administratrix, e¢. t. a.
“th day of December, 1939, give notice to
the mv.wmun defendant, William Kendall, of
the objeet and substance of this suit and
warning him to be and appear in this Court
in person or by solicitor on or before the
22nd day of December, 1939, to answer the
premises and abide by and perform such
decree as may be passed herein.
1 A W. CONWEHLL SMITH,
True Copy—Test:
CHAS. R. WHITEFORD,
n7,14,21,28 Clerk.
Kenney & Kaiser, Attorneys,
16 St. Paul Street.
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, That the sub-
scriber has obtained from the Orphans’
Court of Baltimore City letters of adminis-
tration on the estate of
LUDWIG W. KAISER,
late of said city, deceased. All persons
having claims against said deceased are
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with
the vouchers thereof legally authenticated,
to the subscriber on or before the 16th
day of May, 1940; they may otherwise, by
law. be excluded from all benefit of said
estate. All persons indebted to said estate
are requested to make immediate payment.
Given under my hand this 13th day of
November, 1939.
JOSEPH 0. KAISER,
n14,21,28,d5 Administrator.
B et R DS OSBRSS
_—
Fourth Insertion.
—_ TS N iienel TG | ey
Niles, Barton, Morrow & Yost, Attorneys,
Baltimore Life Building.
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, That the sub-
scriber has obtained from the Orphans’
Court of Baltimore City letters of adminis-
tration on the estate of
CHARLES C. WACTKER,
late of said city, deceased. All persons
having claims against said deceased are
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with
the vouchers thereof legally authenticated,
to the subscriber on or before the 9th day
of May, 1940; they may otherwise, by
law, be excluded from all benefit of said
estate. All persons indebted to said estate
are requested to make immediate payment.
Given under my hand this 6th day of
November, 1939, ANNA L. WACKER,
n7,14,21,28 Administratrix.
PROPERTY SALES.
TRUSTEE’S SALE OF
1504 NORTH GAY STREET
By decree of the Circuit Court No. 2 of
Baltimore City, the undersigned, Trustee,
will sell at public auction, on the prem-
ises, on
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1939
AT 4:00 O'CLOCK P. M.,
ALL THAT LOT in Baltimore, Maryland,
on the northwest side of Gay Street at the
center of the partition wall between the
house on this lot and the house m&o:&.:m
on the southwest side, being at the dis-
tance of 38 feet 3 inches northeasterly from
the corner formed by the Mamummn.aon of
the northwest side of Gay St. with the
north side of Oliver St.; and running
thence northwesterly along the center of
said partition wall 28 feet 9 inches, more
or less, to the end thereof; thence still
northwesterly continuing the same direc-
tion 36 feet 7 inches, more or less, to the
southeast side of an alley 10 feet wide;
thence northeasterly along the southeast
side of said alley 11 feet 9 inches, more or
less, to the division between the closet on
this lot and the one adjoining on the
northeast; thence southeasterly along said
division 3 feet 7 inches, more or less;
thence southwesterly along the southeast
side of said closet 1 foot to a division
fence; thence southeasterly along said
fence 4 feet 1% inches to the westernmost
corner of the brick dwelling adjoining on
the northeast; thence northeasterly 414
inches to the center of the partition wall
between the house on this lot and the
house adjoining on the northeast; thence
southeasterly along the center of said
partition wall 62 feet 8 inches, more or less,
to the northwest side of Gay St.; and
thence southwesterly binding on the north-
west side of Gay St. 15 feet 1 inch to the
place of beginning. In fee-simple and im-
proved by a 3-STORY BRICK DWELL-
ING.
Terms: 1/3 cash, balance in 6 and i2
months, with interest on credit balances, or
all cash, at purchaser’s option; expenses,
including special paving tax, if any, to be
adjusted to day of sale. Deposit of $200
required at sale; balance to bear interest
from day of sale.
JOHN A. FARLEY, Trustee.
SAM W. PATTISON & CO., Auctioneers.
n14,21.28,d7
Alfonso von Wyszecki, Attorney,
100 East Pleasant Street.
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICB, That the sub-
scriber has obtained from the Orphans’
Court of Baltimore City letters testamen-
tary on the estate of
CHARLES HOWARD MEISTER,
late of said city, deceased. All persons
having claims against gaid deceased are |
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with
the vouchers thereof legally authenticated,
to the subscriber on or before the 9th day
of May, 1940; they may otherwise, by
law, be excluded from all benefit of said
estate. All persons indebted to said estate
are requested to make immediate payment.
Given under my hand this 6th day of
November, 1939.
ALFONSO VON WYSZECKI,
n7,14,21,28 Executor.
Francis I. Mooney, Attorney,
111 North Charles Street.
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, That the sub-
scriber has obtained from the Orphans’
Court of Baltimore City letters of adminis-
tration on the estate of
CHARLES E. RICE,
late of said city, deceased. All persons
having eclaims against said deceased are
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with
the vouchers thereof legally authenticated,
to the subscriber on or before the 9th day
of May, 1940; they may otherwise, by
law, be excluded from all benefit of said
estate. All persons indebted to said estate
are requested to make immediate payment.
Given under my hand this 6th day of
November, 1939, EDWIN J. RICB,
n7,14,21,28 Administrator.
——— = Administrator.
At s e SR T SR T OB e Y
FALL MEETING
.P POCOSCOVCTSOSOSSSEO60Y
15 DAYS RACING
BOWIE
L
L