Opinion ID: 1297458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does cit. 3, Laws of 1969, violate art. X, sec. 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution?

Text: Art. X, sec. 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution [3] requires the legislature to establish a state university and to connect it with such colleges as the interests of education may required. The respondent contends an appropriation to the medical school is to support a private educational institution and such support is impliedly forbidden because the legislature is mandated under sec. 6 to establish a state educational system for higher learning. It is argued that because the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius has been held to apply to art. VIII, sec. 5, which mandates the legislature to provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the expenses of the state, it must be applied to sec. 6. The case of State ex rel. Garrett v. Froehlich (1903), 118 Wis. 129, 94 N. W. 50, is typical of the cases holding art. VIII, sec. 5 must be construed as exclusive. See also State ex rel. New Richmond v. Davidson (1902), 114 Wis. 563, 88 N. W. 596, 90 N. W. 1067. The maxim is not applicable to sec. 6. The provisions of this section are not so much a grant of power as a mandate for the exercise of an inherent power which the legislature had. Nor do we read sec. 6 as necessarily implying the creation of an exclusive system of higher education. In respect to art. X sec. 3, which required the legislature to provide free education for persons between the ages of four and twenty, this court held this section carried no implied prohibition which would prevent free education beyond the ages specified but only a mandate to provide free education for persons within those ages. We stated The purpose was not to grant a power to the legislature to establish schools, for this power would exist without grant, but to compel the exercise of the power to the extent designated. An implied prohibition cannot be construed out of such materials. Manitowoc v. Manitowoc Rapids (1939), 231 Wis. 94, 98, 285 N. W. 403; see also State ex rel. Dudgeon v. Levitan (1923), 181 Wis. 326, 339, 340, 193 N. W. 499. The concurring opinion in Curtis' Administrator v. Whipple, supra , by Mr. Justice PAINE and the dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Wisconsin Development Authority v. Dammann, supra , by Mr. Justice FOWLER, represent a viewpoint which was rejected by the later reasoning in Manitowoc v. Manitowoc Rapids, supra . Respondent relies on State ex rel. Wisconsin Lutheran High School Conference v. Sinar (1954), 267 Wis. 91, 65 N. W. 2d 43, but that case is not helpful. Certainly, public education is a concern of the state and the operation of public schools to attain that end is a governmental function; but it does not follow that education of the public by a private institution is necessarily a private matter and is not endowed with public concern and interest. In Sinar a doubtful distinction was made for the purpose of a zoning ordinance that a public high school could be included and a Lutheran private high school could be excluded from a residential area. This distinction does not require art. X, sec. 6 to prohibit the use of a private school as a means to secure a governmental purpose. Nor do we think that Costigan v. Hall (1946), 249 Wis. 94, 23 N. W. 2d 495, 24 N. W. 2d 408, is in point. The question here presented was expressly not decided. All that case held was that sec. 40.34 (2), Stats., not a constitutional provision, did not authorize the bussing of pupils to a parochial or private school when the school district suspended a public school. We conclude ch. 3, Laws of 1969, does not violate art. X, sec. 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution.