Robinson v. Schenck

Decision Date18 June 1885
Docket Number12,277
Citation1 N.E. 698,102 Ind. 307
PartiesRobinson, Treasurer, v. Schenck
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Switzerland Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

W. D Ward, T. Livings and F. T. Hord, Attorney General, for appellant.

S Carter and C. S. Tandy, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

The appellee resists the collection of a tax assessed against his property by the common council of the city of Vevay, and, by his complaint, seeks an injunction restraining the treasurer from collecting it.

The complaint proceeds upon the theory that the statute authorizing common councils of cities to levy a school tax to be applied to the payment of the compensation of teachers employed in the common schools is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. The contention of appellee's counsel is, that taxes for tuition purposes must be levied by the Legislature, and that the authority to levy them can not be delegated to the local school corporations of the State.

An interpretation of the Constitution which frustrates one of its great and fundamental purposes can not be a sound one. The great and controlling duty of the courts when called upon to interpret the Constitution is to give effect to the intention of the people as expressed in the instrument. Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.) 68. This intention is not to be sought for nor gathered from isolated or detached parts of the Constitution, but from an examination of all of its provisions. Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.) 70. It is true that language is to be taken in its ordinary meaning, and that courts are to take, without addition or subtraction, the language employed by the people; but the sole office of language is to express the intention and purpose of the people, and from the language of the whole instrument the courts must gather and give effect to the purpose expressed. There can be no doubt as to the purpose of our people regarding common schools; both in the Constitution of 1816 and in that of 1851 are written provisions clearly expressing the purpose of the people to build up a great and beneficent system in which tuition shall "be without charge and equally open to all." The prime object sought is the creation of a system that shall be efficient and enduring. The best means adapted to this end are to be chosen, and all things that will tend to defeat this great purpose are to be put aside. We should wander far from our path of duty if we should give a meaning to the language of the people that would defeat what we know beyond all doubt was their leading purpose. Courts do not bend the Constitution when they give it the effect which the people intended it should have. We know that to hold that there must be for the whole State one law, governing alike populous districts and sparsely inhabited localities, making the same provisions for the one as for the other, would defeat the great purpose of the Constitution. No subtlety of argument nor ingenuity of invention can make it appear otherwise. It is simply and absolutely impracticable for a general law to justly and adequately provide for the necessities of all the governmental subdivisions of the State. It is possible, and only possible, to build up an efficient system by leaving local school matters, under proper general laws, to the people of the different localities. The Legislature have clearly realized this fact, and the law, now challenged, is an expression of their judgment and that of the people, for it has stood unquestioned for more than eighteen years. We do not affirm that this long acquiescence in the law establishes its constitutionality; but we do affirm that it supplies a strong reason in support of our proposition that the only way in which a great and efficient common school system can be successfully maintained is to entrust to the people of the different localities, by general laws, the government of local school affairs. We know this as part of the history of one of the most important institutions of our State, for we can not be ignorant of the fact that the schools suffered severely from a different system, and have greatly prospered under the present. With the plainly declared purpose of the people before us, and with the knowledge that the system which has prevailed for eighteen years has carried our schools to a high state of prosperity and usefulness, we should do a great wrong if, without the strongest reasons, we should overwhelm that system and compel the adoption of another which would shatter into inefficiency the whole common school system. If, however, the expressed intention of the people as written in the Constitution required this of us, we should not hesitate, painful as it might be, to give effect to that intention; but we are well satisfied that the instrument expresses no such intention.

The principal purpose of the constitutional provisions respecting common schools is so plain and prominent that it can not be mistaken, and there is nothing in the language employed, when justly interpreted, that requires the courts to decide anything hostile to that great purpose, but, if there were detached or isolated clauses that opposed the principal purpose, it would be our duty, under long settled rules, to make them yield to the plain intention of the framers of the Constitution. The closest analysis will fail to discover a word that clouds or obscures the controlling purpose of the instrument. The provision reads thus: "Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement, and to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of common schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge and equally open to all." The provision that the Legislature shall "provide, by law for a general and uniform system of common schools" does not mean that the Legislature must directly, and by a statute, levy all taxes for each locality, nor that they shall prescribe rules for every school district in the State. The reasonable interpretation of this language is, that the Legislature shall, by a general law, provide for conducting schools and securing revenues from taxation for their support through the instrumentalities of government. These instrumentalities are such political subdivisions as townships, towns and cities, and they are instrumentalities to which local governmental powers may be delegated. There is nothing in the language used that forbids the Legislature from employing these instrumentalities in securing revenues for the support of the common schools, for there is not a word in the entire article of the Constitution that, directly or indirectly, prohibits the Legislature from making use of these agencies of government in the administration of local school affairs. The nature of the subject and the language employed make it our duty to hold that there is no inhibition upon the power of the Legislature to delegate authority in local affairs to the proper local officers. If there is no denial of the right to delegate powers of local government it exists in the Legislature. Judge Dillon says: "In the absence of special constitutional restriction, the Legislature may confer the taxing power upon municipalities in such measure as it deems expedient; in other words, with such limitations as it sees fit." Again he says: "The legislative branch of the government has the exclusive power of taxation, but may delegate it, as above stated, to municipal corporations." 2 Dillon Munic. Corp. (3d ed.), sections 740, 741. Judge Cooley affirms this doctrine in strong words and cites a very great number of cases in which it was applied to school corporations. Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.), 225. We have in our own reports very many cases holding that local powers of government may be delegated, and to repudiate the doctrine would overturn a long line of decisions and unsettle a rule that has been regarded for more than a quarter of a century as the fixed law of the State. Not only would this be the result, but we should violate the fundamental principle that there are no restrictions upon the sovereignty of the Legislature except such as are expressly imposed by the Constitution. Hedderich v. State, 101 Ind. 564, and authorities cited. There is certainly no express restriction in the Constitution upon the power of the Legislature to delegate authority in local school matters to the local officers, and we have neither the right nor the power to interpolate such a restriction in any case, and least of all, where it would operate to defeat one of the great purposes of the Constitution. The distribution of local powers to local authorities is one of the fundamental principles of our government, and it is a principle that has received the warmest praise from our own jurists and from other great thinkers, so that, in distributing local powers, the Legislature acts in strict conformity to the fundamental principles of our system of government. 2 Kent Com. (12th ed.) 275; 1 Dillon Munic. Corp. (3d ed.), section 11, n. 1. This doctrine has been recognized by this court in its broadest extent. Justice v. City of Logansport, 101 Ind. 326; City of Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74. It can not be doubted that the Legislature may delegate to local officers the power to make rules for the government of local schools and levy taxes for their support, and, if this be true, it necessarily results that it is a valid exercise of power to enact a statute for that purpose. If a valid statute is enacted committing to the local officers the power to govern schools...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Robinson v. Schenck
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 18, 1885
    ...102 Ind. 3071 N.E. 698Robinson, Treasurer, etc.,v.Schenck.Supreme Court of Indiana.Filed June 18, Appeal from Switzerland circuit court.Ward & Livings, for appellant.Elliott, J. The appellee resists the collection of a tax assessed against his property by the common council of the city of V......
  • Klamath County School Dist. v. American Sur. Co. of N. Y.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 26, 1929
    ...... uniform system of schools means uniform educational. facilities." See, also, Robinson, Treasurer, v. Schenck, 102 Ind. 307, 1 N.E. 698, 701, State ex. rel. Smith v. City of St. Paul, 128 Minn. 82, 150 N.W. 390. . ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT