Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1861-03-28
educational Department.
Sending Scholars to Adjoining Districts.

SenGlnS scholars TO ADJOINING Dlstrlcts'
The following case, lately decided by the
Supreme Court of this State will be found to
be especially interesting and instructive to
School Directors.
freeman and others against the Directors Of
Franklin District
/. The School Law confers express discre
tionary power on each School Board, in rela-
tion to the school, a0ithiH the. District, which
each pupil shall attend and it would be quite
absurd to leave them without such discretion,
when there is a nearer school in an adjoining
District, to which the pupil wishes to go.
l. Whether distance or difficulty OF access
to the nearest school of the pupils proper dis
trict is great or not must be left to the sound
discretion of the directors of such district.
g. The Courts will be liberal aud generous
towards directors in the exercise of this dis
cretion and will no: remove them for official
Of it be very clear.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
John Freeman, John H. Rogers, Benjamin
CoaFson, Andrew keapper Joseph Mcknight
and Jno Robertson, taxable citizens Of Frank
lin School District, reside on the border of the
town of Washington, the line of said borough
running through the property Of some Of
them. Previous TO the year beginning June,
1859, the said citizens were permitted TO send
their children to the Union School in Wash
ington, as more accessible and otherwise con-
venient to them, than the school house in the
Fraaklin District, in pursuance Of an arrange
-, L,-+ - .la
ton and Franklin Districts according TO the
9th article Of the 23d section OF the Act Of
May 8th, 1854, which is as follows
The Directors and Controllers Of the re-
spective Districts, shall have power to estab-
Ish schools of different grades, and to deter
mine into which school each pupil shall be ad-
mtted and if it shall be found, that on ac-
count of great distance from, or difficulty Of
access to the proper school house in any Dis
trict, some Of the pupils thereof could be more
conveniently accommodated in the schools OF
an adjoining District, il shall be the duty OF
the Directors OF Controllers Of such adjoining
Districts, to make an arrangement, by which
such pupils may be Instructed in the most con
veuient school Of the adjoining District and
the expense of such instruction shall be paid,
as may be agreed upon by the Directors and
Controllers Of such adjoining districts, By res
olution or agreement eutered upon the inmates
of the respective Boards"
At the eud of the school year, 1853, this
permission was revoked, and the Directors Of
Franklin District refused to make any arrange
meut. such as had before existed After re-
peated efforts on the part of said citizens. to
procure tie concurrence of the Franklin with
the Washington Directors, in some equitable
arrangement for their accommodation, aud the
refusal Of said Franklin Directors to make any,
theY applied to the Court Of Qgarter Ses-
s.oas to remove said Directors from Office, for
violation of duty in this regard, under the
9th section Of the Act Of May Sth, 1884,
which is as follows:
If all the members Ct aRy Board Of d.
rectors or controllers, shall refuse or neglec!
10 perform their duties by levying the tax re-
CURED bg law, and to put or keep the school:
in operation, so far as the means of the Dis
trict will admit, or shall neglect or refuse to
perform any other duty eGjURed by law, the
Court Of Quarter Sessions OF the proper coGu-
II may, upon complaint in writing by any SIX
taxable citizens of the District, aud on due
proof thereof, declare their seals vacant, aGi
annual election for Directors
In support Of this application. they exhib-
tied 10 the court abundant proof, that the
school house in Washington was nearer to the
most distant Of them BY more than one half
mile, than the Fraukln school house aud that
in point Of safety and facility Of aecess, the
former was decidedly more Convenient to them
than the latter Indeed, these facts are dis
tiactlE alledged in the petition, and are no.
denied in the answer They are therefore TO
be taken as fully established by tie pCoof AID
by the admission OF the respondents.
TIE Court, however refused the relief pray
ed for for the reasons assigned 10 the follow
ing opinion:
OPINION OF Tbs COCRT OF QCAETER SESSIONS.
GILMORE, P. J.-This application Is made
under the Sth section Of tho Act Of Sth May.
authorizing this Court "t0 declare the seats
.ot School Directors vacant and TO appoint
others in their stead until the next annual
election, where they " shall neglect or refuse
TO perform any duty eDjoi0ed by law" The
duty, which it is alleged that the Directors re-
fused TO perform, was 2 refusal, on the apP.i-
cation OF the petitioners, 10 make arra0ge-
ueuts under the 9Th article OF the 23d sec
ton Of the Act of 1854, by which the Gail
dren and wards OF the petitioners might be
instructed 10 the Union School Of the borough
Of Washington, that being the most COME
nient school Of any adjoining District. Tbs
article 10 the 23i section provides, that " tie
Directors and Controllers OF The respective
Districts, shall hare power TO establish schools
Of different grades, and TO determine into
which school each pupil shall be admitted ;
and if it shall be found, that on acco77s OF
great distance from, or difficulty Of access 20
the proper school house 10 any District, some
Of the pupils thereof could be more conTe-
uieutly accommodated in the schools Of al
] =. 4 Il. r-rsr- Il Id.