Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Third Annotation

From the website of: http://www.nathanielturner.com/educationhistorynegro29.htm

This is what i did for my second annotation....read this article.


Martha Lum was classified with the nergo, and the brown, yellow, and black races, on the other, and therefore that Martha Lum, of the Mongolian or yellow race, could not insist on being classed with the whites [Ed.'s italics] under this constitutional division. From the court, they said no separate public schools for Mongolians [Ed.'s italics], she is entitled to enter the white public schools in preference to the colored public schools. Had the petition alleged specifically that there was no colored school in Martha Lum's neighborhood to which she could conveniently go, a different question would have been presented, and this, without regard to the state Supreme Court's construction of the state Constitution as limiting the white schools provided for the education of children of the white or Caucasian race. But we do not find the petition to present such a situation.

Summary of this paragraph:

Well this paragraph is about Martha Lum's school that she will be attending to. They gave Martha the right to go to a white schol and their were none in her neighborhood. So they told her she had to attend a "colored" school. This is what this little section of this article is about. The article is very interesting and it grabs my attention and it should grab yours also.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Second Annotation

Gong Lum was Martha Lum father and he really did not like what happened to his daughter. Gong Lum is resident of Mississippi, resides in the Rosedale consolidated high school district, and is the father of Martha Lum. So he wanted this to become a case at the court. This case was called the "Gong Lum vs Rice" was a success and it went to the court. Chief justice Taft noted "(h)ad the petitioner alleged specifically that there was no colored school in Martha Lum's neighborhood a different question would have been presented."

GONG LUM at al. v. RICE et al. No. 29.

Submitted Oct. 12, 1927.

Decided Nov. 21, 1927.