Evening journal., 1919-09-17
UNANIMOUS IN
FINDING SCHOOL
LAW IS Valid
Continued from First Page.


, the schol Code, made by several of the
able lawyers Of the State, and have
carefully considered the subject mat
Ter laid before us. and herein submit
our views and conclusion.
, The act in question was passed DUR
) suant to the mandate contained in Sec
tion 1 of Article X Of the Constitution.
To be constitutional it must have
been general. TO be general it must
provide for free public schools for all
Of the children of the state. A general
law providing for the establishment
I and maintenance Of a system, uniform
or otherwise, Of free public schools
and made applicable TO every school
district, town or city, incorporated or
otherwise, without the consent and
even against the will Of such school
district, town or city, would il prop
l'erly enacted be valid exercise OF this
/ constitutional mandate. Such an act
would overrule and annul the pro-
! visions relating TO free public schools
contained i'm acts relating to school dis
/ tricts, incorporated and unincOrpOrated.
and to incorporated Boards Of Education
/ Such bodies whether Incorporated or
not are mere agencies Of the State for
executing the governmental function Of
providing free schools. No cOntractual
relations arose either from the enact
ment Of their charters and the accent
ance thereof and action hereunder or
otherwise. Therefore, the state in the
exercise Of this governmental function
can at any time choose new agencies 10
carry out this public purpose, whether
such agents be bodies corporate created
before or after the adoption Of the
Constitution Of 1897. Such we believe
are general principles applicable to the
act under consideration.
The validity Of said act has been at
tackled on the following grounds, viz:
4. Because IL did not receive the con-
currence Of two-thirds Of all the mem
bers elected to each House OF the Gen
eral Assembly.
z. Because II Is a delegation OF legls-
lative power to the school districts OF
the state.
3. Because it requires the assessment
and collection Of capitation taxes that
Will not be uniform in the county in |
which they are to be levied, and prom |
Srty lakes that will not be uniform in |
the territorial limits OF the authority |
levying the same.
4, Because 1t impairs the Obligation |
OF contracts by changing, lessening and |
taking away the security Of the holders /
Of school bonds without their consent.
.. Because it requires the collection
Of taxes based upon an assessment rom
which the taxables are given no right
Of appeal or opportunity 10 correct
mistakes, thereby depriving them Of
their property without due Nprocess Of
law.
G. Because It treats Of two subjects.
only one of which is expressed in .he
title.
There may have been one or tSo
other specific objections made. but they
were covered in the discussion Of Tie
grounds stated.
Our conclusions are these:
1. school districts In this state. ere
ated by special acts of the legislature.
and the districts and boards created by
the act in question, are not acls of in
within theN meaning Of
Section 1, Article IN, OF the ConstitI.
tion. They are neither private nor
corporations, but may he
regarded as public quasi corporations
Coylev, Mcintyre. Houst. "A 1897
They are not separate. independent or
permanent corporations. but integral
parts Of the general educational sys-
tenn OF The state, and created for the
purpose OF perfect.ng such system and
making The administration of the
school laws more convenient and ef-
ieciiVe. The General Assembly is re-
quired by Article y to provide for the
establishment and maintenance Of a
general and efficient system Of public
schools, but there is no requirement
That legislation Hereunder shall have
Inc concurrence 0f twO-thirds of each
House. 1t is entirely competent for
The Legislature, in providing for such
system Of public schools, 10 create
school districts with certain corporate
powers, but they are parts Of the sys-
em and not such independent educa-
i0nal >cOrpOcatiOns as are contemplated
by Article IL. They are agencies OF
he State Government, created for the F.
purpose of aiding IN carrying out the
requirements Of the Constitution re- /.
'pecting the establishment and main
onance OF a public school system, and
nay be altered or abolished by the
legislature at any time. We must [.
therefore,, assume that any legislative !
lct that constitutes a part OF the gem !
raj system Of public schools, lnclud /
ng acts Incorporating school districts,
md Boards OF Education, requires on !
y the concurrence of a majority Of all
he members elected t6 each House. !
'ald Article N may embrace certain I
educational institutions. but it can !
ave nothing TO do with the establish !
nent and maintenance Of a general |
ystem Of public schools fully pro
-ided for and made mandatory on the G
legislature by Article Y Of the Con- y
titutlon. which is Independent and a
omplete in Itself.
.. The Act in question is not a n
elegallon Of legislative power 10 any Y
chool district Such districts being I
,arts of the State Government, ere u
ted by the Legislature for education, o
r public school purposes. the power l
.iven to them by the Code to accept its
,rovisions. is an exercise OF. power by
gencies OF the State and not a dele
alton Of legislative power within the
meaning Of the case Of Rice vs.. Foster
Harr. 119, relied upon by the con-
estants. The power given by section
II TO certain school districts TO accept
he Code is not submission OF the
,ght TO determine whether 1t shall be
law. but the granting Of an option
D accept the law already in force and