Not many States have statutes which say in so many words that lunatics, and that the deaf, mute, and blind shall be kept separated according to race; but one finds appropriations for colored asylums and schools, etc., and one is justified in concluding that, where a colored asylum or school is built, the colored persons are not allowed in the other asylums and schools of the State. Alabama,[325] for instance, has a school for the Negro deaf and blind at Talladega, under the control and management of the board of trustees of the white school for the deaf, and makes an annual appropriation for the support of the school. Arkansas[326] also provides that applicants to the deaf-mute asylums shall be received without restriction on account of race or color, but does not forbid their separation by race within the asylum. Tennessee,[327] as early as 1866, provided that there should be separate asylums for the colored blind, deaf and dumb, and lunatics, and the trustees of these institutions were given power to prepare buildings for colored insane, “so as to keep them secure and safe, and yet separate and apart from the white patients.” In 1881, that State[328] appropriated $25,000 to provide accommodations for the colored blind at Nashville, and the same amount for the colored deaf and dumb at Knoxville. Kentucky[329] likewise provided in 1876 that white and colored lunatics should not be kept in the same building. New York[330] has on many occasions made appropriations for asylums for colored children, thus leaving the impression that such children are not admitted to the white asylums. North Carolina[331] maintains separate asylums for its white and colored insane. And Georgia[332] requires the asylums of the State to provide apartments for the insane Negro residents of the State. Indiana,[333] in 1879, made an appropriation to associations formed for the purpose of maintaining an asylum for colored orphan children. The West Virginia[334] asylum for insane must have separate wards for white and colored patients. NOTES Footnote 214: Bouvier’s “Law Dictionary,” I, p. 331. Footnote 215: 14 Stat. L. 27, chap. 31. Footnote 216: Flack, “The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,” pp. 46–50. Footnote 217: Bowlin v. Com., 1867, 65 Ky. (2 Bush) 5. Footnote 218: Fed. Case No. 16,151 (1866). Footnote 219: Fed. Case No. 14,247 (1867). Footnote 220: “The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,” pp. 53–54. Footnote 221: _Ibid._, p. 94. Footnote 222: 16 Stat. L. 144, chap. 114. Footnote 223: 16 Wall, 36, at pp. 71–72 (1872). Footnote 224: 18 Stat. L. 335, chap. 114. Footnote 225: Fed. Case No. 18,258 (1875). Footnote 226: Fed. Case No. 18,260 (1875). Footnote 227: Civil Rights Cases, 1875, 109 U. S. 3, at pp. 24, 11, and 13. Footnote 228: Acts and Resolves of Mass., 1864–65, p. 650. Footnote 229: _Ibid._, Jan. sess., 1866, p. 242. Footnote 230: