The Medina sentinel. [volume] (Medina, Ohio) 1888-1961, 1915-12-24
OPINION ON SCHOOL Law

Since the announcement in the Sem
tinel last week of the upholding Of the
constitutionality Of the new school law
by the appellate court of Holmes coun
ty in what is known as the Nashville
school case, we have come into pos
session of a copy of the entire opin-
ion, that portion relating specifically
to the question of constitutionality OF
which we give in this article.
The Nashville case was one in which
Albert E. Cline, as an elector and tax
payer in the Nashville village school
district, sought to prevent the Holmes
county board of education from adding
certain new sub-districts to the Nash
vile school district, also the issuance
and sale of bonds to raise funds for
the erection of a centralized school
building in that district.
Plaintiff averred that the county
board Of education was without author
| ity to change the lines of the district
and that section 4736 of the General
Code under which the board acted was
in contravention and repugnant to Sec
tions and 2 Of the Constitution of
Ohio.
The appellate court in rendering its
opinion cited the following extract
from section 4736 as the basis Of the
opinion relating to school boards
right to change district lines:
''TO this end the county board shall
have power by resolution at any reg
ular or special meeting to change any
school district lines and transfer ter
ritOry from rural. or village school dis
trict to another"
Said the court, "Could any language
be more plain and explicit than the
above in giving the board (Nashviile)
authority to do just as it did in the
premises Certainly not. We do
not think that the county board is
limited in its right to arrange dis
tricts, by simply taking the territory
from one rural district to another. We
feel that the statute is broad enough
and gives to the county board author
| ity to take territory from a rural dis
trict and attach it to village district"
| Now follows the entire portion of
the appellate courts opinion relating
to the constitutionality Of the school
law, which constitutionality was de-
MED by plaintiff in his suit. The court
said: VIZ
i We come now to the fourth and last
claim made by plaintiff, that said sec
tions hereinbefore referred to Of the
"new school law" are unconstitutional,
being in conflict with sections one and
two of article ten; also section rs OF
article two of the Constitution of Ohio.
! We may now inquire, when is law
in conflict with the Constitution and
under what circumstances and state OF
| facts should it be declared unconsti-
tutional? 7s
| The legislature is coordinate de-
partment of the government, and as
such is invested with certain duties
and responsibilities, and we think in
the enactment of laws it is only fair
| to presume that it has considered and
discussed the constitutionality Of all
measures passed by it, and therefore
the unconstitutionality of the act must
be clear or courts will sustain it. The
courts may resort to an implication to
sustain statute, but not to destroy it;
and courts cannot go beyond the prov
ince of the legitimate construction in
an attempt to save a statute. In
other words, where the language used
is clear, and the meaning plain, words
cannot be read into it or out of it for
that purpose. A statute cannot be
declared invalid for the reason that it
is unwise, unjust, unreasonable, or op-
posed to the spirit of the constitution;
and unless it violates some express
constitutional provision it must be held
valid. While we change, while we
alter, while we improve in our mater
ial and social life, yet these principles
of construction now exist and will con-
tinue so until time shall be no more.
We think this doctrine is well es-
tablished in this state, and we need
only to cite the case of Probasco V.
Raine, Auditor, so Ohio State, page
800, where Judge Burket says:
whatever may be the rule else
where, 1t is clear that in this state the
validity of an act passed by the legis-
lature must be tested alone by the con-
stitution and that the courts have no
right to nullfy a statute upon the
| ground that 1T Is against public policy.
when the legislature is silent, the
courts may declare the public policy,
and mark out the lines of natural JUS
tice; but when the Legislature has spok-
en- within its powers conferred by the
constitution. its duly enacted statutes
form the public policy, and prescribe
| the rights of the people, and such sta
tutes must be enforced and not nulli-
| fed. by the judicial and executive de-
partments of the state.
| when the legislature, within the
| powers conferred by the constitution,
| has declared the public policy, and
| fixed the rights of the people by sta
| tute the courts cannot declare differ
ent policy or fix different rights. In
this regard the legislature Is supreme,
IA \