The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-07-28

the hullng in the case IN question
Destroys the Arguments of the
Board of Six People.
Attorney ID. j. Recdy, solicitor of the
board OF school control, is in receipt
Of u copy of the recently submitted
opinion of Justice Mitchell of the Su-
premc court in the Warrior Run school
district case in which he claims the
Supreme court knocks the props from
under the main contention Of those
who argue for the legality of the board
OF six.
The appellee in the Warrior Run
case put forward the case of Chalfant
against Edwards, 173 Pa, 246 in sup
port of the contention that the act OF
1887, upon which the appellants relied
was unconstitutional. Attorney l. II.
Burns in arguing for the board of six
also placed great reliance on that same
case to prove that the act under which
the board of twenty-one is operating
was local or special legislation.
Justice Mitchelrs discussion Of the
Chalfant- Edwards case and the con-
structior which he puts upon it leads
board of six is, now, minus it's main
support.
Justice Mitchell's language in treat
ing Of this case is as follows:
LANGUAGE OF OPINION.
There is nothing contrary to these
views in Chalfant VS.. Edwards. 173
Pa. 246, so much relied on by appellee.
In that case a sub school district in
the city of Pittshurg undertook to issue
bonds which it was claimed would in
crease the debt of the whole district
beyond the legal limit. Pittsburg, for
school purposes, was under the local
act of 1869, but the legislature of 1895
repealed'the act of 1869 and on the same
day passed another act for the regula-
tion of schools in cities of the second
class.
The court below on taxpayers bill,
declared the latter act unconstitutional
but sustained the former. The main
question in this court and the one on
which the judgment was reversed was
the validity Of the repeating act. 1t
was held that while the repeal of a
local act was not prohibited by section
Z of article 3 as a regulation of the
affairs of a school district, yet it was
local within the meaning of section s
and required publication of notice in
the locality to be affected.
"On the other question the court be-
low was affirmed on the ground that
the act of 1874 classified cities solely
with reference to strictly municipal
functions and schools, and schools un-
der the general school law of 1854 and
it's supplements could not as yet be
considered q branch of the municipal
government
Much of what was said by our late
brother Williams on this subject was
by way of historical review of our
school system, rather than of discussion
of constitutional powers. Whether
some of the expressions did not go be-
yond what the case called for, and far
ther than can be ultimately sustained,
we need not now consider. The utmost
that the case can be even claimed to be
authority for is not that the legisla-
ture may not classify school districts
with reference to cities, but that it has
not yet done so.
EXTENDED CONSIDERATION.
I'VE have given this case more eX-
tended consideration than usual, as was
due to the learned courts from whose
consideration we have been compelled
to differ. In conclusion it is not inap-
propriate to direct attention to the fact
| that the act of 1887 has been in opera
| ton for twelve years, has been twice
previously before this court, and has
! been the ground of action many times
! before other courts without objection to
| its constitutionality. 1t is rather late
| now TO question it. While these cir
cumstances are not conclusive in it's
| favor, yet they are a strong argument
| that it is not so plainly repugnant 10
! the constitution as it must be to re-
| uuire a court to overturn an act of the
| legislature.
Judgment reversed ana proCcnio
| in accordance with this opinion award
! ed"
in another part of the opinion Justice
| Mitchell says: 1T was thought by
| the court below that the act was spe-
| cial because there We're some school
| districts in the state, those in town
ships and cities, which are not includ-
| ed in it's provisions. The
| fact Of classification is a sufficient an
! swcr TO the objection. There is no
constitutional objection to the classiti-
! cation of school districts any more than
| Of cities. Both are included in the
! same clause, prohibtory of local and
! special legislation, and there is no ar
! gument against classification of one
| that is not equally forcible against the
| ether
But classification may become as
| necessary for school districts as for
cities The needs and the capabilities
| of school districts may differ as sub
| stantially, if not as widely, as those
Of cities. 1t would be a most unfor-
| tunate clog on the Improvement of
| our school system if Philadelphia,
| Pittsburg, Allegheny and other cities
| could not have their high schools,
their manual training or Industrial
| schools, or even their kindergartens
without the necessity of imposing the
expense OF a similar establishment on
|