Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1858-07-28
SCHOOL TAX FOR BUILDING PURPOSES.


ship, to restrain and prevent the collection of
4 tax of II mills levied by the School Direc-
tors thereof, to be applied towards erecting
new school houses. Upon the hearing, his
Honor, Judge Burnside, granted an Injunction
the collection of the tax, upon the
ground that townships were not, by law, au-
thorised to assess such tax.
The School Districts throughout the County
were dissatisfied with this ruling of the law
and the case was taken to the Supreme Court,
by Boggs District, upon an appeal.
1t was argued in the Supreme Court by II.
B. Swoope. Esq, for the Complainants, and by
VIM. A. Wallace, Esq, for the District.
1t will be seen by the opinion of Judge
Strong, delivered in the cause, and which we
annex, that the ruling of his Honor, Judge
Burnside, has been reversed, the Supreme
Court holding that the tax was legal one and
should be collected.
Blair et al. Us. The School Directors of Boggs
1'oWnship.-Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County. In Equity.
OPINION BY STRONG, j.
In the Court below this was a bill in equity,
praying for an injunction to restrain the Di-
rectors of Boggs township school district from
collecting tax levied in part for the purpose
of building school houses, and in part for the
support of the Common Schools in that dis
trict. In accordance with the prayer of the
bill, the defendants were enjoined against pro-
ceeding to collect the tax levied for building
purposes, and they have removed the case by
appeal to this Court.
The entire proceeding is exceedingly irreg-
ular and cannot be sustained. The bill prays
for no process of subpoena; none was Issued,
and the record does not show that the party de-
PENDANTS were in Court, or even had notice of
the pending bill. How, upon such a record,
an injunction could be decreed against the
School Directors of Boggs school district, we
are not Informed, and we are unable to discover.
But waiving this, and considering the case
as if the defendants had been regularly in
Court, we do not perceive that levying school
tax for building purposes is either contrary to
law or prejudieial to the rights of the COM
plainants. 1t is urged in their behalf that
such tax is unauthorized by law.
The 33d section of the general school law
passed May Sth, 1854, is as follows: ssThe
board of directors Cor controllers in cities and
boroughs, where the school property is vested
in them agreeably to the provisions of section
Second) may at any time not oftener than once
IN each school year, levy special tax not ex-
ceeding the amount of the regular annual tax
for such year, to be applied solely to the pur-
and the building or erection of school build
ings thereon, which said tax shall be levied
and collected at the same time, in the same
manner, and with like authority as the regular
annual tax" The argument of the appellees
is, that the board of directors spoken of in
this section is only board in city or boro',
and not one in any other district. 1t is quite
clear, however, that this is mistaken view of
the act of assembly. Its design was to pro-
vide general system of common school edu-
cation in every city, borough and township of
the Commonwealth. To such system school
houses are indispensable. and their necessity
was not overlooked by the Legislature. 1t
would have been unaccountable, if with the
thought of this necessity before them, they
had made provision only for cities and bor-
oughs and wholly neglected all the Townships
in the Commonwealth. Yet of such neglect
they were guilty, if the construction of the ap-
pellecs be the true construction. In no other
part of the act than the 33d section is any pro-
vision made for permanently raising the means
to purchase ground and to erect school houses.
True, the directors authorized to borrow
money for such purposes. But this is tenn
porary expedient. Without the power to levy
a special tax, such loans could never be reim-
bursed, for the general tax is limited by the
act to an amount sufficient and necessary to
keep the schools of thu district in operation.
The intention of the Legislature to confer up
power OF levying a special tax for such purpo-
ses is however too apparent to need the aid of
such presumption. Without entering into a
minute analysis OF the statute, it may be OBJ
served that there are two classes of duties Gre
ated by it and imposed upon the officers for
whose election provision is made. These du-
ties are the care of the schools, and the care of
school property. In all the townships they
are united and imposed upon the board of di-
rectors. In the cities and boroughs, the care
OF the schools is devolyed upon the board of
controllers, and that of the school property
upon the ward directors. So long as anv ward
school district owns separate school property
| the controllers have no authority over it. the
power to levy tax, either to build or to keen
in repair But when the school property of all
the wards has been conveyed to the board of
controllers, the ward directors cease to exist
| as board, and both classes of duties are uni-
| ted In the board OF controllers. 1t NAV also
be remarked, that never in the act of assembly
| is the word directors used as SYNONYMOUS with
controllers. When, therefore, in the 33d Sec
ton, power is given to levy a special tax for
building purposes, it is not given to board of
directors IN whom the school property has
| been vested agreeably to the provisions of Sec
tloh second, for there can be no such board of
directors. 1t necessarily follows, that the
words, ''where the school property is vested in
them agreeably to the provisions of section
secobd, were designed 10 refer only TO con-
trollers in cities and boroughs. and were intro
duced to distinguish them from other control
lers to whom the school property of the wards
had not been conveyed, and who had therefore
nothing to do with the real estate of their dis
tricts. The term ssboard of directors in that
section is therefore unrestricted by any quail
fcations, and embraces that of any township
as well as ward.
The tax levied by the defendants was conse-
quently in strict accordance with the law, and
they should not have been restrained from col
leeting it.