Newark post., 1919-09-24

statutory provision, merely the L
agent, or machinery, through which c
the taxes are actually levied and I
collected. The Levy Court has no b
discretion in the matter at all, the h
duty is mandatory and must be I
performed for the district that
furnishes the budget. The taxes Y
must, Of course, be uniform in the :
school district, and that in our {
sopinion would be a compliance with
Nthe constitutional requirement.
4. The Act is not invalid because
it provides for the, collection Of
taxes based upon a county assess
ment previously made, and from
which no right Of appeal is given in
hthe Act. The assessment upon
(which the school taxes are based |
was made for county purposes, for
county taxes, and under the law
any taxable has an opportunity to
make complaint to the Assessor,
Board Of Assessment, and Levy
Court for the remedying OF. any
wrongs, or the correction of any
errors in the assessment. II the
, same assessment is used as the basis
> for school taxes, there can be no
L more reason for another opportuni-
!, ty for complaint and correction
u than there would be before the levy
|, ing Of another county tax based
d on the same assessment. The gen
u eral assessment continues for four
\ years, subject to annual revision,
IL and it is not essential that more
Z than one right Of appeal, or COM
q plant, should be given no matter
II what may be the nature of the tax.
II The important thing is the right and
$ opportunity to be heard as to the
i assessment.
). The act does not divest vested
q rights or impair the obligation of
to contracts within the meaning Of the
ts Federal Constitution. No security
n. is taken from the owner Of school
ra bonds that he held or enjoyed be
r. fore the passage of the code. The
~ property of the district which con
IS stituted his security when the bonds
as were issued remains the same, anC
m his right to enforce the collection o
he principal or interest when due ma.
vs. he enforced by appropriate action
on in the courts of the State. The ney
,ar districts created under IT, code eX
i'm pressly assume all the obligation
do of the old, and the only change tha
n could affect the bondholder at al
. would be in the remedy for the co
on lection of his debt. There could b
rec no deprivation or lessening of hi
.ts contractual rights, the obligation
nv would remain unimpaired.
of 6. The act does not treat of tw
of subjects within the meaning Of II
ian HConstitution. 1t does treat in
ale- general way Of. the care, trainin
il and education of dependent chi
elf, dren brought into this State, al
ac- while this is a subject that me-
ons seem to be not closely related to Il
not subject of free public schools Ell
yes braced in the title, we do not thin
his the one subject is so incongruO
Act or foreign to the other as to ma
9TH the act invalid. In no law, pc
ort- haps, could the training and ed
fore cation of such children be more a
she's ropriately treated Of them in an q
IS a providing for a system Of free pu
lent lie schools for the State.
,a4 wy 1t may not be necessary to sta
t,H +bo the limit of our duty, or power,
aaa m replying to your communicate
~ ~; - but lest there may be some persC
~ oh - who have a mistaken notion Of O
''0n duty we will say that the only thi
az " we are called upon to do, and
"0 only thing we can properly
under the law, is to express to y
the our opinion upon the constitute
OPP ality of the School Code.
g of
riot In conclusion we say, that at
1du- the most 'horoiSii anu c'iei',i ~
ond animation, we have been able
and give your question in the time
State Fhought was proper u.i,,ei 'ilc
June cumstahces' we are Vi '.iI AZ 'pl1, pa,,
r it's that the law kilo"ll aS t'ie tro,'
In Code is constitutional and valid.
ublic Yours respectfully,
d its (Signed)
al of CHARLES M. CURTIS.
Chancellor