SOME LEGAL ASPECTS OF HIGH-SCHOOL FRATERNITIES 231 
tioned are observed, and further, that the members of the fraternities 
who have joined since October 1, 1906, shall be admitted to all privi- 
leges, etc. So far as the writer is advised the agreement has been faith- 
fully kept and performed; and this, all agree, was a happy issue out 
of the Boulder troubles. The action of the Denver and Boulder school 
boards is perhaps typical of what has been done or proposed in other 
localities in the state and country at large. In the one, it is observed, 
continued adherence to the secret societies debars the student from 
participation in certain privileges which are incidental to regular school 
work, such as athletic, military, musical and class organizations; while 
the other, as the resolution first proposed, prevented admission to the 
school altogether if such adherence were continued; though happily, as 
indicated in the Boulder case, the compromise effected obviated any 
necessity of a resort to the harsher method of denying admission to a 
student who maintained his former fraternity connection, or who had 
joined after a certain date. 
The question recurs, what is the legal aspect of these examples? 
That the boards respectively are satisfied with the policy of their action 
the writer thinks is not open to argument—at least not to this argu- 
ment; and as to the legality of each there seems to be little doubt, even 
as to the severer step first contemplated by the Boulder authorities. 
This conclusion appears to be justified not only in view of the very 
broad discretionary powers reposed in boards of school directors by 
the Colorado constitution and legislative enactments, but from considera- 
tion also of the adjudicated cases. The Colorado courts of last resort 
have not passed upon these questions as far as the official reports disclose; 
neither does the writer know of their having been litigated in any of 
the tribunals of this state; and but four of such cases have been reported 
from the higher courts of other states of the Union; and in but two of 
these are high schools directly affected. Reference first is made to the 
case of Wayland v. Board of School Directors, decided by the Supreme 
Court of the State of Washington in August 1906' and the action of the 
school board in that case is so strikingly similar to that of the Denver 
board that one cannot escape the conviction that the resolution of the 
t 86 Pac., 642; 7 L. R.A. (1907), 352- 
