236 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 
The appellate court in the above case considered but two points: 
(1) Had the Board of Education vested in it by law authority to make 
the rule in question? and, (2) Is the rule a reasonable one? As indi- 
cated, the answer to both questions was in the affirmative. The pre- 
sumption of law is in favor of the reasonableness of rules of boards; 
the court said, and the burden of proving the contrary rests on the 
party challenging them, citing People v. Cregier, 158 Ill., 401; and 
courts, if such rules are reasonable and equal in their operation, will not 
interpose their judgment or opinion contrary or in opposition to that of 
the board, which in the promulgation of such rules acts judicially. 
The cases cited in support of this doctrine are McCormick v. Burt, 95 
Ill., 263; School Trustees vy. School Directors, 190 ibid., 590. 
The state of Minnesota appears to have adopted the most drastic 
measures against high-school fraternities. By act approved last year 
the legislature itself of Minnesota forbids any pupil of the public school 
of the state to become a member of any secret society formed wholly or 
partially from the membership of the schools, and the same act gives 
full power and authority in the premises to the school directors, including 
power to dismiss or to suspend for violation of the rules and regulations 
of the boards passed in relation to such organizations.t The School 
Board of Minneapolis in September, 1907, promptly availed itself of the 
powers granted and passed full regulations on the subject; forbidding, . 
among other things, high-school fraternities to be formed, or any pupil 
to solicit other pupils to become members of such fraternities, or attend 
their meetings, etc-—the usual enactments, by this time familiar. 
And the usual injunction was applied for—and refused. A pupil of the 
Central High School of Minneapolis brought the action, his parents 
joining with him as citizens and taxpayers.?. The case in the lower 
court is not officially reported, but an appeal has been taken to the 
Supreme Court, and an authoritative exposition of the Minnesota law 
may ere long be expected. Ifregard be had to the almost unbroken line of 
judicial precedents from other states, to which is added the positive 
command of the Minnesota legislature, the judgment of the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota may also with some confidence be anticipated. 
* Laws Minn., 1907, chap. 149. 
2 Brooks v. School Board, District Court, Hennepin Co., Minn., December, 1907. 
