The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1861-12-26
Decision of the Supreme CO0st OM the Pow
ers Of District DOafds to Levy Taxes.
SUPREME Cor ar, DECEMBER rRRM 1861.
JOSEPH X. SNYDER ct al, us. SAMUEL
WAMpLER


SUPREME Cot xr, DECEMBER rRRM 1861.
JOSEPH X. SNYDER ct al, us SAMUEL
WAMpLER
ArrEAL FROM CEDAR DISTRICT couxr.
On the ninth day Of April, 1859, the
District Board of Directors Of the Mpton
School District town Of Center, in Cedar
county at regular meeting Of the Board
Of tha; date estimated the per centum of
tax necessary to be raised in addition to
the teachers fund, 10 order to support
the several schools in said district for the
current year, as required by law, and by
resolution directed thsf ne same should
be certified to the Coa8sJ Judge, which
was accordingly dose IN the following
words, viz: 50
To the County Judge Of Cedar County,
lopd:
1t is hereby certified that at meet.
ing of the Board Of Directors of the Tip
ton School District, Township of Center,
county of Cedar, held at Upton on the
9th day Of April 1859, the following tax
of six mills on the dollar, for teachers
fund was voted. ~ ~+ @ssss#s "a -ssA.'2-s'
ERWIN NJ. HUBER,
Sec. OF School District Township of Center.
Dated al Upton, tais 18th day OF July, 1859.
Upon the strength and authority of
this certificate the County Judge, to.
gethcr with the County Treasurer and
County Surveyor levied special tax of
! six mills on the dollar upon the taxable
property of the district, and placed said
tax list into the hands of the assessor and
collector Of the county, with the proper
warrant attached for the coll, ction of the
same. Among others, the plaintiffs
property were charged with this tax, and
they applied for and obtained an injunc
tion restraining the defendants against
the collection thereof, upon the alleged
ground, that the levy Of the said tax was
illegal, and made without authority of
law The Court below held against the
plaintiffs, and dismissing their bill, they
appealed.
Richmank Bro, Cook 4 Drury for appellants.
Tu'hisl 4 Grant for appcllees.
LOVE c. J.
1t is conceded that the resident elect.
ors Of the Township District in question
at their annual meeting in March 1889,
did not by vote taken for that purpose
levy tax for the teachers fund nor did
they delegate the power to do so, as they
might have done, to the District Board
! of Directors.
The correctness of the ruling of the
: Court below depends upon the question,
whether IN the absence of such vote, or
dele cation Of power, the District Poard
can themselve. determine the per centum
Of tax to be levied for such purpose, and
authorize the levy and collection Of the
same as other school district taxes.
la the very able aud luminous discus
sion of this question the c5unsel for both
parties litisant have done full justice to
the subject as vel. as themselves, in the
light of which We will briefly state the
conclusions 10 which W. have arrived in
our Interpretation Of the law, ou. of
which the supposed difficulty arises
The act itself establishing q system of
Common Schools, cannot be read attcn-
lively, without producing the conviction,
that, that department Of the law making
power to whose wisdom tls branch of
legislation has been specially entrusted,
intended to make the same a very thor.
oush and efficient system of common
school education. Hence we find at the
threshold Of the system (beins the 2nd
section Of the law provision to the
effect, that in each sub district there
shall be taught one or more schools for
the instruction of youth, at least for the
term of ~ weeks or two full quarters in
each year.
Anticipating that the Ordinary teach
ers' fund would be Inadequate Cat least
for some years to comc) to pay instruct
ors for keeping up school in each sub !
district for that period of time they in
vested the electors of a district, when
legally assembled, with power to levy or
vote tax not exceeding one per cent. in
any one year, to raise Il fund to be ex
pended among other objects in compcn-
sating teachers.
This power is found in section POPS
of the Lew code, and may be exercised ,
directly by the electors themselves, or .
they may delegate the power to the dis
trict board of directors. In exercising !
the power themselves it would be com.
petent for them within the maximum
limit to increase by their vote the teach
ers' fund so as to keep up the school in
their district, six, nine or twelve months,
according as it mi ght be deemed expe
dent, and whatever amount of tax should
thus be voted, it becomes the duty of !
their secretary, under section 2O44, to |
certify the per centum thereof, whether
for school house purposes or for the com
pensation of teachers, or for both, to the
County Judge (now Board of Supcrvi-
sors), whose duty it is to make the rcqui |
site levy; unfortunately, however, duty .
of this kind devolving on all the citizen .
voters of a district, where no special re-
sponsibli.y rests upon any one individ
uaI, is too often neglected from sheer
inatteution or indifference felt for the
successful working of the system, and
when in addition to this, there is also a
failure to delegate the power to the dis
trict board, there would necessarily fol /
low in most cases failure to kc;p up
the schools in the several sub districts
for the "a weeks, being the minimum
period in any one year.
Such has been the painful experience
of those, who have watched with the
greatest interest the operation of the
machinery of the school system, and such
vas the case in the district where this