The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1913-07-01
Hector Victorious
In School Fight
Over District g
Supreme Court Says Independent
School Has Right to Tax Nom
Resident Pupils
CASE WAS A STRENUOUS ONE
Matter of Education is Not Munich
pal Affair But Under Jurisdiction
of State

VI STATE
The supreme court of Minnesota has
decided that an Independent school
district, composed of associated
schools, has the right to charge tut
ton for pupils residing in a common
school district where the independent
district furnishes special courses for
training.
This decision was rendered last Fri
day, by Justice Hallam for the court.
1t was in the case known as Associat-
ed Schools of Independent District No.
SO of Hector, Renville County, res
pondent, VS.. School District No. 50 of
the same county, appellant.
It appears that several years ago
certain common school districts of
Renville county became associated
with the Hector independent district
under the name given above for the
purpose of maintaining an agricultur.
al and industrial department.. The
Hector district was previously formed
as an Independent high school district
and designated by the proper authori-
ties of the state to maintain an agri-
cultural and industrial department.
The trustees of this Independent dis
trict fixed charge of $3.50 a month
for tuition and instruction furnished
in the departments to nonresident
pupils.
Refused to Pay Tuition
During the school year of 1911 and
1912 the Independent district furn-
ished instruction in those departments
to eight pupils, all residents of Dis
trict 80, and the latter district, refus-
ing to pay the tuition specified, the in
dependent district commenced the ac-
ton to recover for the time of attend
ance of each of the eight pupils.
The trustees of District 83 demurred
to the complaint of the trustees of
the Independent district on the ground
that it did not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. In the
lower court this demurrer was over
ruled and the trustees of SO appealed
to the supreme court.
The contention of the attorneys for
No. 80 was that to tax the district for
tuition of pupils residing therein and
attending the school in the independ-
ent district created unequal taxation
and that it constituted the taking or
appropriating of the money of SO
without compensation and without due
process of law, and without a hearing
to the defendant, and for a purpose
that the trustees of SO did not desire.
Contentious Not Sustained
In the decision of the court Justice
Hallam states that these contentious
cannot be sustained, for the reason
that they are based on too narrow a
view of the power of the legislature
over its municipal subdivisions and
over matters of education.
1t has never been doubted that the
state has the power to require of it's
municipal subdivisions the perform
ance of duties of state concern and to
demand that they raise money by tax
alton and disburse the same for such
purposes. These municipal subdivi-
sions are mere auxilliaries of the
state, created by the state as a means
of exercising it's political power il an
orderly manner. Being thus subordi-
nate agencies of the state they are
subject to the control and direction Of
the legislature in matters of internal
government and the legislature may
require such public duties and func-
tons to be performed by them as fall
within the general scope and objects
of municipal organizations.
Matter is State Concern
The maintenance of public schools,
the court says, is matter not of local
but of state concern. After citing two
sections of article eight of the consti-
tuition the court says that the object
of these sections is to insure a regu-
lar method throughout the state
whereby all may be enabled to acquire
an education which will fit them to
discharge intelligently their duties as
citizens of the republic. These provi-
sions were not a grant of power to
the legislature, for all the powers
there mentioned would have existed
without such grant. They were in
serted as q mandate to the legislature