Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-06-12
Special School Districts.

The Attorney General Of Ohio has
furnished to the Auditor of State the
following opinion, which will be of
interest to many sections of the State:
COLyMsCs, o., May 81, 1884.
Hon. Epl Kiesfewe. ZEE, AUt or Of Stste:
DEAR STE-The letter OF C.. c. Baker,
Esq, Auditor of COlumbiana County
which you have referred to me, asks for
an opinion relative to the scope and
effect of the decisions of the Supreme
Court i'm the case of the State V. Powers
(3S o. 54), and especially whether that
decision renders unconstitutional or
whether il applies to the New London
case alone. OF course the only act di-
rectly before the Court in the case re-
ferred to was the act of March 81, 1879,
creating special school districts, in New
London Township, Huron Comfy, but
the principle of that case would un-
doubtedly be applied by the CourG to
any like case hereafter brought, and it
furnishes rule for The guidance of all
officers in their official action under
similar statutes. a public officer is not
lirhtly to assert an act ofthe Legislature
to be unconstitutional but where, by
applying the RUE laid down by the
highest Court of the State its uncon-
stitutionality is manifest, he is not
bound to wait until there has been q
direct decision of a court in reference to
that particular act. The Court held
THAI the act creating a special school
district, comprising the Township of
New London, was in conflict with the
Constitution on the ground that laws
regulating the organization and man
agement of common schools must have
uniform operation throughout the
State. Any special act of the Legisla-
ture organizing particular territory
into q school district is therefore un-
constitutional and void. A school dis
trict created by such an act has no legal
existence whatever. The act of April
II, 1850, az o. L., 1907 creating a
special school district in the Townships
of Madison, Elk Run and st. Clair, in
the county of Columbiana, comes clear
iy within the dicisjou in the New Lon
don case, and is, in my opinion, uncou-
stitutional. Such being The case, it is
the duty of the county Auditor to re-
fuse to recognize in any way the exist
ence of the special school district at
tempted to be created by said act.
Yours truly,
JAMES LAWRENCE. Atty Gen'l.
While this opinion is uuquestionably
good law, it may lead to erroneous con-
clusions. 1t will not be disputed that,
as the court in State VS.. Powers, say,
"under section &c, article 2 and section
2, article 6 of the const:tl ion, laws
regulating the organization end manage
meut o. common schools must have a
uniform operation Throughout the
STATE" and that all districts organized
since the taking effect of the revised
s;aiutes, Jan. 1st, 1850, are therefore
unconstitutional. In the case referred
10, the court as well as The attorneys,
seem TO have ovel looked section 1891 of
the revised statutes, which reads:
"Any school district now existing,
O,her than those mentioned in sections
1856, GS37, $685., and $500. which has
been established by vote OF the peo-
pie in accordance with any act of the
general assembly, or which has been
established by general or local act of
the general assembly, shall constitute a
school district to be styled a special dis
trict; and such districs may be estab-
lished as provided in chapter five of this
title"
1t will no5 be disputed that this act
has uniform operation throughout
the State" and any special school dis
trict then in existence became the crea-
ture of this uniform statute. Districts
which have been formed under special
acts since that time assume their former
status.
There is no occasion for special legisla-
.ion for the formation ofschool districts.
The general law is amply su ficient for
all purposes. See Title 5, Chapter 5,
Revised Statutes.