Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1861-03-28

covers the ground upon which We feel con-
/ strained to dismiss the petition.
/ The law is not obscure its meaning aud
/ intent are manifest. 1t requires the school
directors, under q certain state of circumstan-
ces, which are specified, to send pupils out Of
/ their proper District to the most convenient
school OF an adjoining District. Whet are
| the causes specified Great distance from,
/ or difficulty OF access 10 the proper school
house Of the District" These causes are dis
tinct the existence Of either would be sufi-
cient, and combined, it would be doubly So
/ The proper school house might be near. very
near, and yet, owing TO natural or artificial
distractions, its approach might be both dan
gerous and difficult Of access, and, if either,
it would be the clear duty of the Directors, TO
make arrangements to send to the adjoining
District. Are there any such distractions in
this case? The Directors have decided, that
none such exist, and the evidence satisfies US
of the correctness Of their judgment. But
the distance. say the petitioners is greater
than to the Union school in the borough of
Washington. Granted this is proved
Without referring in particular TO the admeas-
urement, it may be said to be mile and
half TO the proper school house it is some
thing less than mile to the Union school
house IN the District. 1t is also proved, that
the way to the Union school house, being
principally on the pavement, is superior as a
walk 10 the road leading 10 the proper school
house.
Bat wha: is implied from the expressions
great distance from the proper school house,
These, it is needless 10 say, are relative terms;
it is great distance, or otherwise, as compar-
ed with some other distance. Do they mean,
that because it is one-third nearer to the
Union school than the proper school house Of
the district, it therefore may be called great
distance to the latter? If so, the Legislature
have been very unfortunate in expressing
themselves for all this difficulty might have
been avoided, by simply declaring, that pupils
shall he sent to the nearest school, without
regard to District; that they might be sent
to whichever it was most Convenient TO GO
We apprehend that such a construction would
violate both the words and the intention Of
the law. In effect, it would be destroying the
system OF districtng altogether. If this nigh:
be said to be predicatiug too much, it would
surely be safe TO aver that the sGb-districts
contiguous to, and lying around o borough
Ike Washington (haTug school house and
appointments, equal a. least to the present
necessities Of the borough district would be
| deprived Of many pupils, thereby diminishing
I the resources Of the proper District and i'm
pairing 10 some extent, the spirit and useful
ness Of the school But We cannot admit Of
any such construction iof the Law. 1t could
no. be allowed, without iu a serious manner
affecting the entire school system. Here is a
District which has recently been SUB divided,
after consultation aGd consideration, and the
school houses located, so as to accommodate
most conveniently the entire District This
school house No. !, we have it in proof. was
+ located with that intention, and by and with
I the cousent CT those interested aud acquainted
/ with the wants Of the whole territory to DO
served; 3 house built CT sufficient capacity,
and more than sufficient, to receive all the
pupils in the subdivision, and with all
/ the improved appointments Bot what is
more this location Of No. /, was lot an
+ independent action, bat the situations Of the
( other FIVE houses in the District were made,
more or less, 10 depend upon the loca-
! ton Of this oae. That IS, We are given to uC-
Gerstaud from the evidence, that the location
+ Of one was made dependent upon the other.
/ Now. IS il not q reasonable Inference, that II
/ i: had been known to the Directors, that these
( families residing on the northern bOundry
7 OF No i, WtAGA nos -LfE t>EI LAEf4 SN-ASCir
that the l9eatioa Of this house would have
been different. aud that this wosld have caus-
ed change in the location Of the others ?
II would certainly either haze permitted re-
duction OF the number or closer proximity
0: the Subdivisions. 1t will hardly be cou-
tended that, under these circumstances, an ar
ranEeneat, such as asked for should DC allow
T ed fOv the mere convenience Of the applicants.
We agree, that it is not put on this ground
alone, bat, ia car opinion, the evidence OulY
{ goes to thIS extent.
Bat what IS the true meaning OF iae ex-
pressi0HS great distance from as used the
/ Act? ? They are relative, and we hold that
( their meaning must be measured and defined
from the distances which other families reside
from their respective school LoGses, in the
District Now. the answer OF the respond
ents alleges, that " the petitioners are as well,
If not better accommodated, than large ma
joritY of said No. l district, both as TO dis
lance aud accessibility
This is not denied in the replication Of the
petitioners, but IS said rot to be % the puE-
pose. The evidence goes far to sustain the
answer This is, We think, the true mode OF
aSceTtaiuing the meaning Of the express.oIs,
aud vas the grOuud GDoa which the Directors
based thair action. The Interpretation con-
tended for by the petitioners, would make Il
merely an enquiry Of convenience, but, more
I than this Is required by the law.
F Again. the Directors are made judges OF
the applicability o. the circumstances TO the
rsa1irenen-s Of the law. Their dEty IS not
s bv aUv means merely ministerial. Nov, with
cut intending TO call in question the appellate
Jurisdiction Of this court, We think, where the
Directors have acted without impeachment Of
motive, where The penalty IS removal from