The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-15

In an opinion handed down by Judge
Archibald yesterday the board of twen-
ty-one school directors which has for
nearly O quarter of a century con-
Quoted the affairs of the Scranton
school district is declared an illegal
body inasmuch as the act which Great
ed it runs counter to the constitution.
The opinion in full is as follows:
The only provision IN the law for q
board of school controllers in cities OF
the third class as are the respondents Is
that which appears in Section Al OF the
Act of 23rd of May, 1874, +, l.. 25i, amemu-
ed by Act of June, 1891 T. j.. 5o6; Inc
validity of this provision Is assaiied upon
the ground that it offends against the
Constitution, and after careful con-
sideration of the subject we are unable
to escape the conclusion that II does. Inc
title of the Act is: IAN Act dividing all
the cities of this state into three classes,
regulating the passage of ordinances, pro-
yiding for contracts for supplies ana work
FOR said cities, authorizing the increasing
of Indebtedness and the creation OF
sinking fund to redeem the same. dehn,
ing and Furnishing certain offences in all
of said cities and providing for tne IN
the third class" There Is no suggestion
in any of this of an intent to legislate
with regard to school directors or WIN
regard to anything In fact but cities and
city affairs and any substantive legis-
lation upon the subject of schools Is not
authorized therefore by 1t unless the
managemnt of the schools OF city can
be regarded as part of the city matters
That they are not, however, has been ex-
pressly ruled in Chafant VS.. Edwards, lI3
Pa. 246 and that is, of course, conclusive
of the question. 1t is said there by MT.
Justice Williams.
NOT MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.
"School directors are by no means
tR,tt, at, ,,,I nn n
vested with any of the municipal
powers nor are they charged with the
performance of municipal functions. lt
was accordingly held in that case in SUB.
stance that school districts in cities of
the second class could not he specially
legislated for the classification of cities
for the purpose of municipal legislation
being confined to that which is such IN
fact and not in name merely.
And this brings us to the further obJec-
| ton that this provision of the statute rails
under the ban of special legislation pro
| hibted by the Constitution. That the
| schools of n city present considerably
| different problem from those of bor-
| ough or township must be recognized,
| Both are concerned no doubt with the
| teaching of the youth of the land and TO
| that extent they all go on together But
| sparsely settled country districts and
| thickly settled city ones necessarily call
| for different school regulations as well as
| different educational facilities, and II II
| requires board of six directors to man
| age the affairs of a school district in the
| township with its few schools that IL
| might well require a much larger number
| to look after the hundreds of school of
a great city with the multitudinous
| details growing cut OF them would
| seem to he at least possible.
| This goes but short way, however,
| towards supporting such Legislation
| as that before us. Granting that schoo
class sufficiently distinct in their needs
| to obtain special appropriate legislation
| what ground is there for the still further
division of them according to the differ
| ent classes of cities In the Common
| wealth? This is fully answered by the
decision in Chalfant VS.. Edwards, 173 Pa
246, already cited. For purposes of legis
lation there can be no division of schoo
districts along city lines because there i:
| no municipal function involved in them
| school districts in cities of one class dc
not differ from those in cities of another
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
What is there, for instance, that woult
| apply to the schools or school affairs II
Scranton that would not equally apply
| in Pittsburg or Philadelphia? If that b,
| so, even though there might be legisla
tion for school districts in the cities q
| the state taken as whole-a position
vanced tentatively--there would be no fur
ther separation of them into sub
classes with provision for one distric
from the provision for another. Now tina
|
and A inclusive undertakes to do. 1t Il
| also Just what was attempted in the Ac
of July 3, 1885 p. J.; 603 which the Su
preme Court in the Chalfant VS.. Edwards
supra. declared could not be done. In tn
face OF that decision there is no possi
bility of sustaining these sections of tn
statute and they must fall.
| Similar views will be found expressed II
Commonwealth VS.. Reynolds, 1877 Pa. 5SG
per Rice, p. j., and in Commonwealth VS.
Gilligan. s, Kuep. $50; CASTOR vs.. Mead
Mckee, 6 Dist 500: Without further an.
plifcaton 1t is evident that the respond
ents show no valid title to the office
which they hold and must give place t
condition of things has continued ha
nothing to do with the question, nor ar
we at present concerned with the sta
tus of the different districts into whic
the City of Scranton was at one time di
vided. The whole inquiry is as to tn
right of the RESPONDENTS to their presen
oft'ces, and upon that we are compelle
Let Judgment of custer he entered O
the demurrer In favor of the Common
wealth. Execution of this Judgment I
be only had after application TO and du
| allowance by the Court, the costs to b
paid by the county of Iackawanna
AN APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN.
1t remains for the local court TO sa,
whether or not the board of six vii
De dllOWeu 10 conuuCl the dHalrS
the Scranton school district pending a.
appeal to the Supreme court which Wi
be taken at once at the request of tn
members Of the board of twenty-ont
The result of this appeal will b
watched with the greatest interes
throughout the state as nearly all q
the cities and boroughs have schoc
boards conducted on the plan of tn
present board of this city.
Whether an application is made 70
| -