The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1895-12-29
TEACHERS CERTIFICATES.
p,cision by the State Superintendent
In Shat mon VS.. Foster.
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT UPHELD
4. His Refusal to Approve His oontrac,
to Teach Full Exposition of
the Case.

sone to the following conclusion In the
ease OF james X. Shannon VS.. X. II. Eos
scr country superintendent from BrazorIa
B county, which was carried to his DEPART
/ nfnt on appeal:
STATEMENT.
Under section SO OF chapter 1872 of the
sets OF 1893. appellant in November 1Sg3
received from the cx-officio county sllper.
intendent of Brazoria L teachers Derml-
nent certificate OF the first grade, valid
n yaid county during the good behavior
[ 81 said holder.
chapter l23 of the acts of 1895 amends
aid section 66 by striking out the pro-
Vision for issuing local permanent GER
ilhcates and CANCELS and annuls all GER
tlfcates Of this kind previously issued.
appellant, after the act of 1926 becnme
eperat,e, attempted TO make contract
10 teach pupnc scnooi In Erazoria coin
II, having no certificate except said local
permanent certificate, but the county SUI
perintendent refused 10 approve the CON
tract. holding that the certificate since
the act of 1895 Ind become operative ia
.of 10 effect This appeal is taken from
his decision. the appellant contending
the ac; Of 1895 in so far as II seeks to
snnul local permanent certificates out
sanding at the time that It went Tito
effect is unconstitutional and null and
void. -
l. II is commended that this local perma-
rent certificate is property and that un-
der the provisions of the constitution of
The United States and the constitution
81 Texas protecting persons from the de-
risation of their property except by
due process OF law, Shannon can not be
deprived of his local permanent certificate
by act of the legislature. If 1t be admit
ted that the certificate is property. an
pellants contention is doubtless correct
But | am unable to see that it is ros-
sssed of the elements of property. APP
Iellants attorney cites section 500 Of
Myers Federal Decisions, volume 6. where
property" is defined by the supreme
court of the United States as "everythin,
that has an .eNchan2eaDe value" He
also cites Barker VS.. Swcrson tfG Texas
Johnson VS.. Newman (i5 Texas), aud 70
Texas, TO- decisions Of our State supreme
court holding that land certificates are
property. 1t Is noticeable however, that
h reaching this conclusion tho court
refers TO the fact that the assignability
Of these certificates has been upheld. and
| IS they can be transferred from one per-
son 10 another 1t is easy to see how they
may have an Interchangeable value" Not
% with teachers certificate No one
would thlnk Of THIS as transferable
Everyone would reject as quite absurd the
idea that one person could obtain enc
q these certificates and by transferring
| hto another qualify the latter for teach
Ing In the public schools Nothing can
he clearer than the proposition that a
eachers certificate is strictly a Derso lal
testimonial Of the holders qualification
teachcr. u mere personal privilege
public employment. ana that in the hands
q another person II Is absolutely void
II u.s. therefore, very different In char
sster from land certificate and has none
q the elements OF property. I am, there
lore. Of the opinion that the act Of 1896
IS not liable to the objection that it de-
ptves anyone of property without due
rocess OF law
2 II is urged that tbs act of lsg2 was in
- narira " contrict between the Sta.a
Nd those who received local permanent
Nuhcates under the act and That the
OF lS5 cancelled such certificates vio-
Ees the provisions in both the Federal
~ state constitutions prohibiting the
assctment of any law impairing the oAii-
s,Sn ,ii contracts In support OF the
me Texas case of the City cf Brownsville
Basse & Hord (Sd Texas, 500, which
sQcs simply that the legislature can not
revoke q grant Of land made to the city
va former legislatures to tho Texas
rsse of the Jumbo Cattle company vs..
Eacon t7a Texas 49,, which holds that an
repealing. ore under which persons
sere granted lands upon having them
Efveyed could not deprive one Of his
nshis TO acquire lands which he had
mlsed to b. surveyed in compliance with
wave case Of Dartmouth College. vs.
,a,Ndward q Wheat $50, which holds
a' me chartcr of private ccrporation
M executed contract or grant, and Is
4
NE clause of the Federal constitution
.Nlnst "impaiging the obligation of con-
s9ls; TO the United states case of
Enge vs. Woolsey GS Howard $50, which
ssacs that n provision in Il bank charter
a The payment Of certain per cent Of
profits in lieu of taxes is contract
s snhin the meaning of the Federal con,
mutton; to the United States case Of
ihsleher as. Peck &c Cranch. so, which
tolds that grant of land is a contract
~ can not be annulled by subsequent
mmgsEslation; to the United states case of
EHsiee VS.. Mathis q Wallace, li@, which
sols that a grant of swamp lands to ne
ssssaimed with provision for their eSemp,
~ from taxation for couain n"rf'n
sE cCnty<ct and the land could not
" taxed in violation of the exemption
s.ause IN the grant: and the lnltcd etate4
VI Of Rice vs.. Rnilway q Black; ae9
nrech holds that present grant OF iahH
" congress can not be recalled; but
,en1inional grant may be recalled before
'endtion performed.
~ does not seem to me that the cases
s soso are really pertinent to the present
Sws.nlfoversy There is involved In tho
swssent case no grant Of charter TO prl-
,sse corporation. and no EFFORT TO amend,
rv nv, or repeal such charter. There ~
Evolved here no grant of land or other
s.operty ana no effort to annul such
~sal, There is M grant Of exemption
Z properly from taxation and no etort
AZ i,tscail such grant. The supreme court
slhe United States has frequently given
stppression to the feeling that the opera
a ssn or the clause against impairins the
ssss..satlon of contracts should not DE
kssenueu by construction OF the courts
syuhn Its obvious limits to the uniecct-
MY hampering OF the Legislative powers
~ ne States in providing for the welfnre
|hnbite people at large and promoting the
V9nnilc interest.
Shief Justice Marshall in rendering the
il s.asi in the celebrated Dartmouth col
~ case felt the force of this consluelN
ti cn and he declared that this TENN Sec
s M. OF the first article of the Federal con
ti,nu ,on should be limited to the rlotec..
nv OF contracts respecting properly.
IA IL ilocai permanent certificate lnNoNyu
N. ~. ~ controversy is not a contract: II -
property; It co fers no property rights;
II y.ss,rie'ly personal privilege grantsu
b. ssce without compact. consld ra ,lYI
n,sanSy element OF contract. The holder
ne,s no obligation or duty II IS
nj sratultous official testimonial wnich
dshcsf 81 OF 1898 recognized as sufficient CYL
10 an,bl ms skll and ability as teAcnor
d taaiorlze trustees to contract with MN
u 49, IN the public schools OF the conh-
cut ~ remunerate him for his services
tscs me public funds. Certainly TINS
ti,bas' certificate or license Is not OF a
yf o, Vnnaracter than lawyers license
dec,daH state court of civil appeals has
rhrnuus mat a lawyers license may BE-
n by ~ or nave conditions imposed unon
or co ,ie state legislature. In so holding
eur uf Of appeals followed the supreme
nair,, W ", Missouri. AS this decision Of the
q tho VI vi appeals Is regarded as DECISIVE.
70 rn,ap ..tsent controversy, II may be wen
fsessss me reasoning of the court as eN-
toQr. IN opinion reported In 4 Texas.
1Thso " appeals. SIP.