Brief Defendants-in-Error Ada Lois Sipuel v. OU Board of Regents Part 3

              BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS IN ERROR	35

 PROPOSITION 2
 Mandamus will not lie to require defendants to violate the public policy and criminal statutes of Oklahoma by directing defendants to admit plaintiff, a colored person, to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, same being attended only by white persons, especially since plaintiff has not applied to the State Regents for Higher Education for them, under authority of Article 13-A of the Constitution of Oklahoma, to pre-scribe a school of law as a part of the standards of higher education of Langston University, and as one of the functions and courses of study thereof, said University being a State institution of higher education attended only by colored persons.
 The constitutional and statutory provisions of this State which establish its public policy of segregation of the white and negro races in educational institutions of Oklahoma are cited and abstracted in Paragraphs 14 to 21 of defendants' answer brief herein (pp. 10-12 of this brief), which public policy is tacitly admitted in Para-graph 7 of the "Agreed Statement of Facts" (Page 15 of this brief) . Certain of said provisions are also cited and discussed in Proposition 1 hereof. Therefore, for sake of brevity, said constitutional and statutory provisions (other than certain provisions of 70 O. S. 1941, § § 1451 to 1509, as amended in 1945) will not be quoted here.
 However, in connection with the instant proposition, attention is called to Section 1, the material part of Section 2, and Section 3 of Article 13-A of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma (adopted by the people on March 11, 1941), same being as follows:
 "§ 1. All institutions of higher education sup-ported wholly or in part by direct legislative appro-