wanted such a scholarship, Pearson would see that an application was filed. Pearson's letter
neglected to mention that no funds had been appropriated for the scholarships. In any event,
Murray had other goals in mind. Represented by Charles Houston and Baltimore attorney
Thurgood Marshall, and sponsored by the NAACP, Murray sued for admission to Maryland Law
School. The former proprietary institution had been taken over by the state in the 1920s, so the
denial of admission was clearly state action. The school responded by noting the fine facilities at
Howard law school which were available at a lower tuition than Maryland charged.

When the case was argued before Judge Eugene O'Dunne of the Baltimore City Court, the
university attorney pointed out that the state had appropriated fifty scholarships of $200 each for
black students to study at out of state institutions (an appropriation made after Murray had filed
suit). Houston was able to show that 380 students had already made application for these fifty
scholarships. Further, he introduced testimony concerning the curriculum of the Maryland law
school to show that students studied the Maryland Code and the professors were predominantly
local judges and attorneys prominent in the Maryland bar. Marshall, who did the research for the
suit, cited a California case in which the local school system had refused to admit an indian child
on the grounds that there was a federally financed school for Indians. The California court had
held that the local school authorities were not excused from their obligation to provide an
education for the Indian child by the existence of a federally financed school. They either had to
open a new separate school for Indians or admit the child to the white school.

Judge O'Dunne issued a writ of mandamus to compel President Pearson to admit Murray
to the law school. Murray entered in the fall of 1935 while the university took an appeal to the
Court of Appeals. On January 1, 1936, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the order of
the Baltimore City Court. University counsel first argued that the University was not subject to
the Fourteenth Amendment because it received the greater part of its support from student tuition
fees. The Court had little patience with this evasion — noting that it is common practice for
public institutions to collect fees. University counsel urged that if the Court found the exclusion
from the only state law school violated the Constitution, it should order a separate school for
negroes. The Court said it could not:

But in Maryland no officers or body of officers are authorized to establish a
separate law school, there is no legislative declaration of a purpose to establish
one, and the courts could not make the decision for the State, and order its officers
to establish one. Therefore the erection of a separate school is not here an
available remedy.

That left only the argument that the chance of a scholarship at a school out of state which
required the recipient to travel away from home, from Maryland lawyers and Maryland courts,
was equal to admission to Maryland Law School. The Court had no difficulty in rejecting this
argument.

133