PETERSBURG SCHOOLS
From time to time this paper will
endeavor to point out the unreason
able length to which our political
enemies have gone in their effort
to prejudice the public mind. One
of the statements used in the endeav
or to convict us of forcing “sick,
dirty Indian children” into the Pub
lic Schools had for its basis the ap
plication of an Indian citizen in
Petersburg who wished to send his
boy to the Public Schol. The facts
of that case are as follows:
The guardian was himself an edu
cated Indian who had sent his boy
through all the grades provided by
the Government School at Peters
burg. On account of the many chil
dren in that school, it was not pos
sible for the one teacher there to
take this boy through the fifth
and sixth grades. Consequently he
was condemned to grow up in ignor
ance, and to spend his days on the
street. He was such a bright boy,
so clean and wholesome in his
habits, that the teacher there felt
that something should be done. He
therefore went to the Lutheran Min
ister, and presented the case. The
Minister, who was also a member
of the School Board, looked into the
facts and approved the application.
But on bringing it up in Board
meeting the other two members
voted against him. The only rea
son which the other two members
gave was as follows: “If we let
this boy in we will have to let all
other Indian children into the Pub
lic School.”
The School Board in trying to sus
tain its position appealed to Lester
I). Henderson, Commissioner of Ter
ritorial Schools. This person in
formed them in a letter that there
was no foundation,3 either legal or
moral, to sustain the boy’s desire or
application to enter the Territorial
School in Petersburg. The School
Board, however, were afraid that
since Mr. Henderson was not the
legal advisor in all matters for the
Territory, wrote to Attorney General
John Rustgard. The Attorney Gen
eral considered only the facts in this
case. His opinion was that the boy
had every right to apply to the
Public School, and that he had every
legal right to be accepted- His
opinion is set forth at length below.
We wish to say at this point, how
ever, that every lawyer who has
studied the school question agrees
on the legal principle involved, to
wit: The State or Territory must
educate all children within its limits
by providing either the same or
equal school facilities. That if the
State does not maintain separate
schools of equal facilities in respect
to teachers, buildings, equipment,
length of school term, and other mat
ters for Indian children or children
of other races as compared with
the white children, then the State
must accept these children in such
public schools as are provided. In
other words, Alaska cannot shift its
responsibility of educating the In
dian children of Alaska by saying
that this work belongs to the United
States Government. The primary
responsibility belongs to the Terri
tory. Any aid given by the Federal
Government is a gratuity.
Attorney General’s Opinion
Juneau, Alaska,
Nov. 10, 1924
Mr. S. E. Baselly, Jr.,
Petersburg, Alaska.
Dear Sir:
This is to acknowledge receipt of
your communication of 27th ultimo,
just received.
You inquire, presumably on be
half of the Petersburg School Board,
whether a full-blooded native boy,
for whom no educational facilities
exists at the schools of the Federal
Bureau of Education, must be re
ceived at the public schools of the
city.
Your question should, in my opin
ion, be answered in the affirmative.
The authority, as well as the duty,
of Municipalities over public educa
tion is set out in Article V of Chap
ter 97 of the laws of 1923—the codi
fication of the Municipal Laws. It
is provided in Section 29 of that Act:
“Every city shall constitute a
school district, and it shall be the
duty of the council to provide the
same with a school house, and to
provide the necessary funds to main
tain public schools therein.”
For these purposes authority is
given to levy general taxes- Not
only are Indians anti Whites, citizens
and non-citizens, subject to such
taxes, but the city has no legal au
thority to except any class of in
habitants from the payments of
taxes, nor authority to relieve any
property from liability to tax ex
cept such as is used for religious,
educational or charitable purposes.
It is very clear to me that the
city has not authority to employ the
public funds for the benefit of only
one class or race of the inhabitants.
A public school maintained under
the authority above quoted must be
open on the same terms to all alike.
1 know of no legal principle which
would tolerate any discrimination
based on color or race.
It is true, of course, that a city
may maintain separate schools for
the several races within its borders.
When this is done, and the school
for one race is just as good as the
school for the other races, all are
equally cared for and all are af
forded equal advantages. But the
City of Petersburg does not under
take to maintain more than one
school. That being so, that one
school must be open to all on the
same terms and conditions.
Had the Bureau of Education pro
vided the boy here in question with
educational facilities equal to those
provided by the city this problem
would not have arisen. But in the
case you submit the boy has passed
the grades of the Bureau School.
There are no facilities for his educa
tion except in the public school of
the city and I do not doubt that he
has a legal right to attend that
school and receive exactly the same
treatment as is accorded other chil
dren.
The opinion which you quote from
the Commissioner of Education to
the effect that the school board is
not legally bound to receive the
boy in question is obviously based
upon a misapprehension of the facts.
Your communication makes a ref
erence to moral obligations as ap
plicable to the decisions of the School
Board. It is manifestly outside the
functions of this office to furnish
expert advice on any other subject
than law. Nor shall I undertake re
do so. But since the problem seems
to have arisen I may be permitted
to suggest that the standards by
which moral obligations are measured
differ so much and are so largely
dependent on personal sentiment or
personal temperament that I have
personally found no safer moral
standard than that announced by
Jesus of Nazareth, namely: Do to
others as you would have others do
to you.
I may add that Petersburg is, so
far as I know, the only city where
Indian children, on account of their
race, have been refused admission to
the public schools where there were
no other school opportunities avail
able.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN RUSTGARD,
Attorney General
ATTACKED CLEANLINESS
STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
STUDENT HUMILIATED
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 1.—Man
acled, pinioned and placarded, J. J.
Collins, a graduate student, who re
cently attacked the cleanliness of
Stanford University in an article in
a student paper, stood chained to a
tree before the campus postoffice
for nearly an hour, subject to jeers
from a swarm of students. Pinned
to his chest was a sign which read:
“J. J. Collins, traitor to Stanford.
He is a man without a college/’
—Kusko Times.
Note.—How very human these
boys are. In the olden days, how
ever, they would have burned Col
lins for a witch )
. —■y--- ■ -
Brute
Lady—“My husband is a deceitful
wretch. Last night he pretended to
believe me when he knew I was ly
ing to him.”—London Mail.