The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1858-01-27
PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE DECISION
OF THE SUPREME COGnT.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE DECISION
OF THE SUPREME COsRT"
The decision of the Supreme Court up |
ON the right of incorporated towns and
cities to levy taxes for the support oil
public schools is fatal blow to the i'm
proved system Of public education es-
tablished by the public spirit, intelligence
and liberality Of our towns and cities.
II declares that the whole plan of our
public instruction must be reduced to a
dead level throughout the State. That
the most populous. enlightened. wealthiest
md liberal communities can have no bet
ter nor different schools than shall be
established for the most sparsely settled
districts-the poorest, and the most ig-
norant in the State. 1t brings the high
est and best down to the degraded stand
ard of the lowest and worst. II the
Constitution contains such restrictions,
Is our Supreme Court finds in it, upon
the power Of the government and people
to adopt measures for the moral and in
tellectual advancement Of the population,
it should be abolished or amended at
once. The decision if we understand it
denies all power in the township and
municipal corporations to levy or collect
any taxes for the support of schools, and
renders them liable to refund to tax pay
ers the sums collected for that purpose
in years past.
The case decided by the Supreme
Court was an appeal from the Tippecanoe
Circuit Court, on an application for an
injunction against the city Of Lafayette
to restrain the city from collecting tax
for the support of public schools within
the corporation. The injunction was
granted by the Circuit Court and an ap'
peal was taken to the Supreme Court
where the decision of the Lower Court
has been fully sustained. The first sec
ton of the act of 1855, under which thu
tax was levied is as follows.
s'Be it enacted, &C.; That the several in
corporated cities and towns in this State be
and they are hereby, authorized and empow
cred to establish and support Public School
within their respective corporate limits, ant
by an ordinance of such corporation, to lev,
and collect such taxes as may be necessar
from time to time for the support thereof"
The Court say: The sole question presente
in the case is whether the section of the Stat
Ute above quoted is constitutional, and W
can scarcely regard it as an open one.
The act of 1852. l r. S. p. 444, Sec. 80, an
D. asa, Sec. $50. authorized Incorporated cit
les and towns to levy taxes for the support q
Public Schools after the public funds ha
been exhausted, and this Court, on all ocea
sions, has held that portien of the act uncon
stitutional. But what is the difference be
tween it, and the section of the net of lS5
which we have quotedl Simply this, an
nothing more. The act of 1852 authorizes in
corporated cities and towns "to levy taxes fc
the support of their Schools after the publ
funds shall [should] have been exhausted.
The act of 1855 authorizes incorporate
cities and towns" "to levy and collect sue
taxes as may be necessary from time to tim
for the support" Of Public Schools" with
their corporate limits. The distinction bt
tween the acts is without difference.
If the Legislature cannot, under the Con
stitution, confer upon cities and towns Il
power to levy taxes to continue the free Pub
lie Schools Of the State, how can it confer w
on them power 10 levy taxes to establish an
support Free Public Schoolsl What objet
ton exists to the exercise of the first, ths
does not exist TO the exercise of the seconC
act Of powerl And what was the objectio
assigned against the ffrstl 1t was not, tn,
it was comforting upon the cities and towr
power that they were not adapted to exercis
that il was attempting to confer upon ther
power forbidden to be so conferred by ii
Constitution; but that it was attempting {
confer upon them power touching o subjet
rs to which the Constitution requires all pow
er to be exercised by the Legislature alon
viz: the subject of furnishing tuition in Pub
lie Schools to the children Of the State.
Adamson V. the Auditor, &C., Q Ind. Il
this Court said, in speaking of the law
1852:
according to the decision in Greencastl
dc. v. Black, Ind. r, 557, the provision
that law authorizing township trustees to a
sess taxes for paying teachers of commc
schools, is unconstitutional, because the pow
er of voting taxes for that purpose is vestt
by the constitution in the legislature alon
AS to such taxes the law must be unifor
throughout the State. Quiek v. White W,
S. Sr,a n5;ssS;ai aS;cls IND d. e. sss .'0"es
The new Constitution does not conten
plate two systems of Free Public Schools
the State; one under the control Of the Sta,
and supported by her trust funds and take
and another under the control of the vario
municipal corporations of the State, the ci
les, towns, townships, counties, school di
tricts, and supported by taxation by thel
This would be remittimg US back, PRACTICAL
TO precisely the condition we were in und
the old Constitution and laws, when the Sta
supported system of Public Schools, al
authorized the counties, &C., to several
raise additional taxes for schools if they plea
ed. The consequence was, the Legislatu
shirked the duty of keeping up an eficie
system, contentod itself with authorizing {
municipal corporations to provide schools
their option, and hence we had, on this su
ject, no uniform rate of taxation; no unto
nifty OF system; no equality of education
privilege among the children of the State.
Toremedy this evil; to give as this unifo
nifty and equality; TO secure q united al
vigorous, instead Of divided and thus wea
eueb Common School system and interest;
place upon the Legislature compulsion
by its own action, give us these advantae
instead of hazarding them, with the volu
tary action of municipal corporations, the N
Constitution provides that it should be t
duty of the General Assembly to provide
law ford one general and uniform system
Common Schools, wherein tuition shall
without charge, and equally open to al
The system must operate equally in city a.