1 This Appendix describes the Rules of Procedure governing the authorized investigative proceedings of a representative group of administrative agencies, executive departments, presidential commissions, and congressional committees. The Appendix does not purport to be a complete enumeration of the hundreds of agencies which have conducted investigations during the course of this country's history. Rather, it is designed to demonstrate that the procedures adopted by the Civil Rights Commission are similar to those which have traditionally been used by investigating agencies in both the executive and legislative branches of our Government. We have found many other administrative agencies and presidential commissions empowered to conduct investigations and to subpoena witnesses. Those agencies are not listed in the body of this Appendix because we were unable to find an adequate description of the rules of procedure governing their investigative proceedings. However, it is significant that the statutes creating these agencies made no reference to apprisal or cross-examination in investigative proceedings. Among the agencies in this category are: (1) Bureau of Corporations in the Department of Commerce and Labor, 32 Stat. 827; (2) Commission on Industrial Relations, 37 Stat. 415; (3) the Railroad Labor Board, 41 Stat. 469; (4) the United States Coal Commission, 42 Stat. 1023; (5) the Investigation Commission established by the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 972; (6) National Bituminous Coal Commission, 49 Stat. 992; (7) Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, 52 Stat. 1061; (8) Board of Investigation to Investigate Various Modes of Transportation, 54 Stat. 952; (9) Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, 67 Stat. 143; (10) Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 67 Stat. 145. 'If the relevant statute makes no reference to notice, this fact will be mentioned. The negative inference which may be drawn from the absence of any statutory requirement that notice be given is supported by the fact that, in a few instances, Congress has made specific provision for the giving of notice in investigative proceedings. See, e.g., the statutes cited on p. 473, supra, requiring the United States Tariff Commission to give reasonable notice of any investigative hearing. If the relevant statute makes no reference to cross-examination, that fact will be mentioned because of the inference which may be drawn therefrom that Congress did not intend persons appearing at investigatiye hearings to cross-examine other witnesses. This inference The type of notice required to be given in investigative proceedings The right, if any, of persons nesses; however, Cong., 2d Sess. 1469. Miscellaneous comments is strengthened by the fact that in a relatively few instances Congress has, for one reason or another, required that persons being investigated by a commission or agency be given the right to cross-examine other witnesses. See, e.g., 49 Stat. 1381, which authorized the Secretary of Commerce to appoint special boards to investigate the causes of marine casualties. The Office of Price Stabilization is now defunct, having been terminated by Exec. Order No. 10434, 18 Fed. Reg. 809. The Office of Price Administration is now defunct, its functions having been transferred to the Office of Temporary Controls by Exec. Order No. 9809, 11 Fed. Reg. 14281, which in turn was terminated by Exec. Order No. 9841, 12 Fed. Reg. 2645. 'In addition to the investigating committees listed in the body of the Appendix, we think mention should also be made of the contemporary standing committees of Congress. Most of these committees have rules very similar to those adopted by the Civil Rights Commission. The Rules of Procedure of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration are typical. Rule 17 of the Rules reads as follows: "There shall be no direct or cross examination by counsel appearing for a witness. However, the counsel may submit in writing any question or questions he wishes propounded to his client or to any other witness. With the consent of the majority of the Members of the Subcommittee present and voting, such question or questions shall be put to the witness by the Chairman, by a Member of the Subcommittee or by the Counsel of the Subcommittee either in the original form or in modified language. The decision of the Subcommittee as to the admissibility of questions submitted by counsel for a witness, as well as to their form, shall be final." See also S. Rep. No. 2, 84th Cag., 1st Sess. 20; Hearings before the Subcommittee on Rules of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, on S. Res. 65, 146, 223, 249, 253, 256, S. Con. Res. 11, and 86, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., Part 3, 141-142, 344, 345, 374; Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, Rules 10 and 11. Reference has been made in the text, supra, pp. 436-439, to the House "fair play" rules, which govern the hearings of most House Committees, and which make no provision for cross-examination. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. GONG LUM ET AL. v. RICE ET AL. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 29. Submitted October 12, 1927. Decided November 21, 1927. A child of Chinese blood, born in, and a citizen of, the United States, is not denied the equal protection of the laws by being classed by the State among the colored races who are assigned to public schools separate from those provided for the whites, when equal facilitics for education are afforded to both classes. P. 85. 139 Miss. 760, affirmed. ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, reversing a judgment awarding the writ of mandamus. The writ was applied for in the interest of Martha Lum, a child of Chinese blood, born in the United States, and was directed to the trustees of a high school district and the State Superintendant of Education, commanding them to cease discriminating against her and to admit her to the privileges of the high school specified, which was assigned to white children exclusively. Messrs. J. N. Flowers, Earl Brewer, and Edward C. Brewer for plaintiff in error. The white, or Caucasian, race, which makes the laws and construes and enforces them, thinks that in order to protect itself against the infusion of the blood of other races its children must be kept in schools from which other races are excluded. The classification is made for the exclusive benefit of the law-making race. The basic assumption is that if the children of two races associate daily in the school room the two races will at last intermix; that the purity of each is jeopardized by the mingling of the children in the school room; that such association among children means social intercourse and social equality. This danger, the white race, by its laws, seeks to divert from itself. It levies the taxes on all alike to support a public school system, but in the organization of the system it creates its own exclusive schools for its children, and other schools for the children of all other races to attend together. If there is danger in the association, it is a danger from which one race is entitled to protection just the same as another. The white race may not legally expose the yellow race to a danger that the dominant race recognizes and, by the same laws, guards itself against. The white race creates for itself a privilege that it denies to other races; exposes the children of other races to risks and dangers to which it would not expose its own children. This is discrimination. Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 549; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. Color may reasonably be used as a basis for classification only in so far as it indicates a particular race. Race may reasonably be used as a basis. "Colored" describes only one race, and that is the negro. State v. Treadway, 126 La. 52; Lehew v. Brummell, supra; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537; Berea College v. Kentucky, 133 Ky. 209; West Chester R. R. v. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209; Tucker v. Blease, 97 S. C. 303. Messrs. Rush H. Knox, Attorney General of Mississippi, and E. C. Sharp for defendants in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a petition for mandamus filed in the state Circuit Court of Mississippi for the First Judicial District of Bolivar County. Gong Lum is a resident of Mississippi, resides in the Rosedale Consolidated High School District, and is the father of Martha Lum. He is engaged in the mercantile business. Neither he nor she was connected with the consular service or any other service of the government of China, or any other government, at the time of her birth. 20-987 - 63 27 She was nine years old when the petition was filed, having been born January 21, 1915, and she sued by her next friend, Chew How, who is a native born citizen of the United States and the State of Mississippi. The petition alleged that she was of good moral character and between the ages of five and twenty-one years, and that, as she was such a citizen and an educable child, it became her father's duty under the law to send her to school; that she desired to attend the Rosedale Consolidated High School; that at the opening of the school she appeared as a pupil, but at the noon recess she was notified by the superintendent that she would not be allowed to return. to the school; that an order had been issued by the Board of Trustees, who are made defendants, excluding her from attending the school solely on the ground that she was of Chinese descent and not a member of the white or Caucasian race, and that their order had been made in pursuance to instructions from the State Superintendent of Education of Mississippi, who is also made a defendant. The petitioners further show that there is no school maintained in the District for the education of children of Chinese descent, and none established in Bolivar County where she could attend. The Constitution of Mississippi requires that there shall be a county common school fund, made up of poll taxes from the various counties, to be retained in the counties where the same is collected, and a state common school fund to be taken from the general fund in the state treasury, which together shall be sufficient to maintain a common school for a term of four months in each scholastic year, but that any county or separate school district may levy an additional tax to maintain schools for a longer time than a term of four months, and that the said common school fund shall be distributed among the several counties and separate school districts in proportion to the number of educable children in each, to be collected |