[Footnote 1: _Ibid_., p. 3.]

[Footnote 2: _Minority Report_, etc. pp. 4 and 5.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid_., pp. 3 _et. seq_.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid_., p. 4.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid_., p. 5.]

To the sophistry of Chandler, Wendell Phillips also made a logical
reply. He asserted that as members of a legal body, the School
Committee should have eyes only for such distinctions among their
fellow-citizens as the law recognized and pointed out. Phillips
believed that they had precedents for the difference of age and sex,
for regulation of health, etc., but that when they opened their eyes
to the varied complexion, to difference of race, to diversity of
creed, to distinctions of caste, they would seek in vain through the
laws and institutions of Massachusetts for any recognition of their
prejudice. He deplored the fact that they had attempted to foist into
the legal arrangements of the land a principle utterly repugnant
to the State constitution, and that what the sovereignty of the
constitution dared not attempt a school committee accomplished. To
Phillips it seemed crassly inconsistent to say that races permitted to
intermarry should be debarred by Mr. Chandler's "sapient committee"
from educational contact.[1]

[Footnote 1: _Minority Report_, etc., p. 27.]

This agitation continued until 1855 when the opposition had grown too