Evening journal., 1919-09-13
LAWYERS ARGUE ARGUE
VALIDITY OF CODE
Continues from First Page


4 Continued from First Page.
10 sion Of the Legislature be called to
have It repealed. those petitions had
not arrived up to this morning. Those
~ same opponents were not sufficiently
- interested to hire an attorney TO pre-
sent arguments yesterday against the
constitulionallty Of the act, sussex
b. county was not represented by an at
- torney before the court.
,fot Ianlreth l. Layton, who presided at
tie anii-code meeting In Georgetown last
r Saturday and urged those attending to
st hurry The protest petitions as the
hldges would have their ears to the
W ground 20 hear the rumbllng,' was
amung The few Sussex visitors yester-
day. Mr.. Layton was wearing one Of
the badges but not appearing near as
the militant rs when he told the Sussex
county farmers how the Judges We're
going 30 listen for the rumbing Depu-
~ Attorney General Daniel J. Layton,
who aas a state prosecuting officer
would naturally be expected TO uphold
the consttutonaiiy OF the State laws
and who at The Georgetown meeting
's~ domagOgically told his hearers that the
hackers OF the code considered them
TOO ignorant TO manage their own
school affairs" was an absentee. For
mer state senator William +. Black
's- stone. Of Georgetown. who claims the
credit for getting up the Georgetown
anti-code meeting and says he viii be
a candidate for the nomination for gov
ernor on the Democratic ticket on that
issue, was another absentee.
"t Mr. Ridgely. who opened the argument
FOR the code presented a brief answer
ing the two arguments advanced that
The code is unconstitutional because 10
d afn.Na -.
and because 10 delegates legislative
powers. The other contentious OF the
opponents were met by Mr.. Ridgely, !
~ Mr.. Hilles and Attorney General Rein |
harit in their oral arguments.
Mr.. Ridgely gave a history Of educa-
tional conditions In Delaware under
the old system and told OF what the
new code contains which was unusu-
ally Interesting.
Mr.. Hllles presented a brief 10 the
court and also made an oral argument
answering the contentious OF those op-
posing the code Relative 10 the claim
that the code is in violation Of article
Q OF the constitution because II was
not passed by a two-thirds vote, Mr.. Ii
Ililles said, even the widest stretch OF
the imagination could not include this
act under the general corporation law
or special act OF Incorporation which
would be in violation OF article Q,
Mr.. Hilles in answer TO the conten-
tention that the taxation features OF
the bill are not uniform as required
) by the constitution never mean that
taxes should be uniform In the way
, the opponents contcnded. As mat
ter OF fact, he said the taxes could not
be uniform, and are not uniform in
different districts, as conditions are dill
fcrent. For instance, he said, the road
taxes in New Castle hundred are not :
the same as they are in Brandywine
hundred. lie argued that tne code Is
general in It's operations and that the
Obligation OF contracts are not impair I
4 ed under the act.
a.. Attorney General Reinhardt, in open
ing his argument, told Of four attor- {
. news in Wilmington making an eXamn-
alton Of The code separately for DIFF q
ferent parties, and that all OF them {
came 10 the same conclusion, that the D
code is constitutional. lie claimed that c
this particular act under the constitu- c
lion required only a majority vote. lie
also denied that Il is unconstitutional d
h because OF any Of its taxing features. s.
The Levy Court under the code, he n
said only acts as an agent for the pur- cl
pose OF levying the tax. IL was then b
that Mr. Reinhardt made the statement Ii
about The code being one Of the best al
drawn acts that he has ever seen. e.
Counsel for the code in answering ii
the contention relative TO a twO-thirds D,
vote being required, said reference TO OF
Corporations in connection with schools ec
In the constitution referred 10 such in 50
stitutions as Delaware College, which
was then a semi-private institution and do
not 20 the free schools OF the State.
Mr.. Ridgeys brief answering The ar al
gumenis as 10 the code delegating legis- te
- htive powers aud requiring a two co
sr- thirds vote In part follows n,
* "rwo attacks have been made on The II
N new school act approved April A. 1919, tr
* commonly known as the school Code b!
Is Il. That It is an act affecting cor W
~ porations and comes within the pro- OF
4. visions OF Section Of Article IX Of ia
II the Constitution al Delaware requiring ih
r. the concurrence Of twO-thirds OF an b,
81 The members elected 10 each House of fe
!, the General Assembly, and that since til
A. It received the Affirmative vote Of only nC
u, majority OF the senate and House. 10 az
4 failed OF passage.
II = That II is a delegation Of legisa- an
4, tive power in violation Of Section 4. -
N Article H.. OF the state Constitution at
n Prior 10 the adoption Of the new A,
school code, The public school educa- vi
(. ton OF Delaware toulsidc OF the city OF sc
n Wilmington was administered under Dl
il The provisions OF the school law ap- On
proved May ~, 1898. chapter g., volume wi
!. u. page i6S, Laws OF Delaware. The IN
state was divided into four hundred
and twenty-four ti2i school districts. ti'
Some Of these districts had been Great ar
ed united or consolidated by special 10
acts Of the Legislature eli,
It would seem 10 be beyond ques- IN
tion that the School Code constitutes OF
d sincere attempt on the part Of the Gin
General Assembly 10 execute the man SCI
date imposed upon it by Article Y Of di,
the constitution. The objection Is made an
however that u required the anlrma- an
tive vote Of two-lhirds Of the members OF
of each House. IN
1T is certain that no support for this Wis
contention is 10 be found within article th
~ \ itself. The common law rule that a sh
majority vote Is sufficient IN the absence Of
OF an express provision 10 the contrary, be
makes 10 clear that the trainers of the eel
>.