The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-05-01

titled "An act to amend the forty-first
section of the Act of May %, 1924, etc.
In respect to the representation in
boards of school controllers therein
provided for"
Under the ruling that IAN unconsti-
tutional statute may be amended into
constitutional one by removing the
Objectionable features" it was con-
tended by the board of twenty-one that
| this Act of 1891 removed the objection
made to the title of the Act of 1874.
The matter was ably discussed in the
opinion by Judge Archibald, which Is
given in substance below:
JUDGE ARCHBALD'S OPINION.
THE only provision in the law for
| a board of school controllers in cities
| of the third class, organized as are
the respondents tone from each wardD,
| is that which appears in Section A
of the Act of May 90, 1874. amended
| June 16, 1891. The validity of this pro-
vision is assailed upon the ground
that it oftends against the constitution,
| and, after a careful consideration of
| the subject, we are unable to escape
| the conclusion that il does.
There is no suggestion in the title
| of an intent to legislate with regard
| to school directors, or with regard to
anything, in fact except cities and
city affairs, and any substantial legis-
lation on the subject of the schools is
| not authorized, therefore, by it, un-
| less the management Of the schools
of a city can be regarded as part of
the city matters. That they are not,
| however, has been expressly ruled in
| Chalfant against Edwards, l73 Pa,
| 246, and that is, of course, conclusive
OF the question.
1T is there said by Mr.. Justice VIII
| lidms: School districts are by ~
means municipal Offices. They are not
| invested with any Of the municipal
powers. nor are they charged with the
performance of municipal functions.
1T was accordingly held, in that
case. that school districts in cities OF
the second class could not be specially
legis!atcd for, the classification Oi
cities for the purp )se of municipal leg
islation being confined to that which
Is such in fact, and not in name mere
ly.
This brings US tC the further OBJ
lection that this provision of the sta
tutes falls under the ban of specia
legislation prohibited by the constitu
ton. Granting that schoo
districts IN cities might be taken as 4
class sufficiently distinct in their needs
to obtain special appropriate legisla
ton, what ground is there for the Still
further division of them according t
the different classes of cities? Thi
is fully answered in Chalfant agains
Edwards.
For purposes of legislation ther
can be no division OF school districts
along city lines, because there is m
municipal function involved in the al
ministration of them School district
in cities Of one class do not differ from
those in cities of another. What /
there, Cor instance, that would appl,
, to schools or school affairs in Scran
ton third class) that would not equal
, ly apply in Philadelphia (frst class
: or PittShurg (second class?
, FURTHER DIVISION.
III thai be so, even though ther
might ho legislation for school district
in the cities Of the state taken as
whole (as distinguished from borough
and IOwnships), there could be no fur
ther separation Of them into sub
classes with provisions for one distrlc
from the provisions for another.
{ Nov, that is Just what the Act q
1874 in Sections Al TO "A inclusive. un
dertakeS to do. 1t is also Just whA
is attempted in the Act of July
1895, which the Supreme court, in Chal
FAINT against Edwards, declare coul
= not be done. In the face of that de
cision. there is no possibility of sus
tanning these sections o. the statut,
; and they must fall.
i without further amplification, it
evident the respondents show no It'll
: to the offices they hold, and must Civ
place to those who can. The time tina
e the present condition of things ha
r continued has nothing to do with tn
r question. The whole inquiry is as {
g the right of the respondents to thei
4 present offices and upon that we ar
= compelled to decide against them"
s Just what controlled the suprem
e court in it's decision will not be know
s till the opinion is received. The sur
. position Is that ii was in no sma
: measure Influenced by the point $
strongly dwelt upon by the board {
/ twenty-one, that it had been conduct
ing the affairs of the district sine
ID 1873 without a question being raise
ID as to it's right to do so. and that tn
u commonwealth was guilty of gres
Al laches in waiting to this late day /
ar raise this question.
The members of the board of 81,
whose elections are now made val
are: John Courier Morris, Il. ID. Fe
u lows, George Shires, Peter Neuls,
c. Ferber and the late ID. !. Phillip
ID. ]. Davis, assistant city solicito
v was to have been the solicitor of ii
board of six.
The second case follows the first.