Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1859-07-21
From the Pennsylvania School Journal
judicial Decision.

in substance the opinion of the Court in an
application that lately came before Judge
WILMoT, at Towanda, for the removal of three
OF the school directors in one of the townships
for refusing to conform to the requirements of
the school law, and put the system properly in
operation. 1t will be seen that Judge VIII
MoT's views of the school system are in har-
mony with the rule for constituting the school
laws, promulgated by State Superintendent
BURRowEs, iu 1887, that " the school laws be-
ing intended for the public benefit, should, in
all cases of reasonable doubt, receive liberal
construction IN favOr Of the system ;" and in
this respect they are in cheering contrast with
some decisions of the Courts, whose effect has
been to cripple and embarrass the operations
of the system.
In the Court of Qua' ter Sessions Of Bradford
C0unty
In the matter of the application to remove
three directors of Albany School District
for refusing TO levy tax for building purposes.
OPINION.
WnMoT, P. J. "The substantial facts OF
this case are: That the school houses of that
township with the exception of twol were in
a dIlapldated condition, and wholly unfit to
keep school in A majority in the Board
could not be obtained to levy tax for build
ing purposes. Three of the Board persistent
ly refused to levy such tax The two elected
last winter, were members of the t;oard be-
fore, and we're reelected on this issue, of tax
or no tax for building purposes. The whole
evidence showed fixed resolve on the part of
the Directors complained against, to resist and
defeat, indefinitely, the levy of building tax,
relying upon the hope that at some time school
houses would be built by voluntary subscrip.
tion. The other three Directors had urged
upon the Board from time to time the per
formance OF this duty--two uniformly advo.
Gated and voted for a building tax
1t was urged before the Court. that nro-
ceedings in this case should be against all the
Directors as a Board, and not against part
The language of the statute, if the ",oords ("
were in all cases to control the construction.
would sustain this view But in constituting
statutes or this character, the spirit of the
aw-that is, the intention of the legislature
as gathered from the whole enactment and
kindred legislation must control So in this
case, we look if necessary to all the legislation
upon this subject, and find the motive. spirjt
and object of the Legislature, in the passage
of the particular act, or section under consid-
Grafton.
1t is perfectly clear by the legislation upon
this subject, that the Legislature contemplated
q thorough system of common schools extend
ing into every township and neighborhood -
II is no longer optional with the people of
District to accept or reject it. The system
must be universally carried ont, and the officers
connected with it must perform any duty en-
joined Keeping this in view as the controlling
object of the legislature, we must construe all
legislation so as to give it effect The system
is as etfectualy broken down bv a refusal to
tax for school houses when necessary. as it
would be by refusing to employ teachers. But
all this conceded-the question presented is.
Must the whole Board be proceeded against
and removed, for the default of majority, or
an equal number of its members ? answer.
no. Such proceeding is unjust, and in no
way necessary to reach the end to be attained
A statute should never be so construed as to
effect injustice and wrong ; to confound the
innocent and guilty,-the faithful and the un-
faithful, iii a common punishment The plain
est dictates OF common sense and common JUS
tice are violated, in removing from office, three
o
three who are unfaithiuI, or negligent Of their
duties. You give efficiency to the law, by re-
moving the defauting officers, and retaining
those who are ready and anxious to discharge
their duties. To what end, and for what pur
pose, consistent with, and for the advance
ment of the school system, should the faith
full directors be removed can see no pur-
| poSC-none can be suggested The Court
surely would not be required to go through the
| farce of removing men from Office, and i'm
mediately thereupon appointing the same men
to the same Office; and yet this our CONT
would surely have done had we felt compelled
to removed the three faithful directors of AL
bany. As the consequences Of the cOnstruc-
| tiOn cOntended for (that all the directors must
be removed for the default of part) lead to
absurdty and gross injustice, aud in no way
further the great purpose of the law, it must
be rejected on every principle that governs in
the construction of statutes
Having thus established the point, if argu-
ment were necessary to establish so plain Il
proposition, that the faithful directors should
not be removed from Office, it follows of ne
cessity, that you must proceed against that
part of the Board who refuse to perform their
duty; otherwise the system is cffectually
broken down. Three members of Board can
as effectually arrest the common school system
| in district, as if the board were unanimous
in opposition. What, in such cases, is the
plain remedy, suggested by the common sense
of man? Does it in any way advance the
end to be reached (the faithful carrying ont of
the common school system) to remove from
Office those who stand with fidelity by their
duty Certainly not. You sustain the law,
and give efficiency to the system, Ivy removing
those who stand in the way of its execution" +"
Removal decreed accordingly.
To ENJOY LrFE.-Tom-" Don't you think