City of Louisville v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 18 June 1909
• Citation: 121 S.W. 411,134 Ky. 488
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

121 S.W. 411

134 Ky. 488

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 18, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division.

"To be officially reported."

Mandamus by the Commonwealth, for the use and benefit of the Louisville School Board, against the City of Louisville.Judgment for relator, and respondent appeals.Affirmed.

Clayton B. Blakey, for appellant.

Wallace A. McKay, Lafon Allen, and Howard B. Lee, for the Commonwealth.

O'REAR J.

By an act of the Legislature of 1908, approved March 24, 1908(Acts 1908, p. 156, c. 61), the minimum levy of taxes for school purposes in cities of the first class was fixed at 36 cents on the $100.This appeal involves the constitutionality of that act.

The question arises out of these facts: The Louisville School Board, an administrative agency created by the Legislature by the act of July 1, 1893(Laws 1891-93, p. 1307, c. 244, § 166), having control of the public schools of that city presented to the general council of Louisville their budget for the schools for the year 1909, to defray which would require the levy of at least 36 cents on the $100 worth of taxable property within the city.The general council refused to accede to the demand made upon it by the Board of Education, not because of any error in the estimate of that board, but solely because, so far as we can gather from the record, the council deemed it inexpedient to appropriate so much money for school purposes, in view of the other necessary expenses to which the city was put in maintaining its local government.Appellee brought this suit for the writ of mandamus against the city and its mayor and general council.The circuit court granted the writ.The defendants appeal.

The main feature of the question presented is: Is it competent for the Legislature to fix a minimum sum to be raised by a city for school purposes, and to require that sum to be raised without discretion?It is claimed by appellant that section 181 of the Constitution prohibits the legislative action.That section reads: "The General Assembly shall not impose taxes for the purpose of any county, city, town or other municipal corporation, but may by general laws confer upon the proper authorities thereof respectively power to assess and collect such taxes."If the maintenance of a public school is a purely municipal purpose, then the section would seem to be conclusive of the matter.But education is not a subject pertaining alone, or pertaining essentially, to a municipal corporation.Whilst public education in this country is now deemed a public duty in every state, and since before the first federation was regarded as a proper public enterprise, it has never been looked upon as being at all a matter of local concern only.On the contrary, it is regarded as an essential to the preservation of liberty--as forming one of the first duties of a democratic government.

The place assigned it in the deliberate judgment of the American people is scarcely second to any.If it is essentially a prerogative of sovereignty to raise troops in time of war, it is equally so to prepare each generation of youth to discharge the duties of citizenship in time of peace and war.Upon preparation of the younger generations for civic duties depends the perpetuity of this government.The power to levy taxes is an essential attribute of the sovereignty.That is so because the necessity of conducting the government requires that money be raised for the purpose by some sort of taxation.So is the power to educate the youth of a state, to fit them so that the state may prosper; else the taxes raised could scarcely meet the demands made upon a government in these times.Whilst the power named is older in point of adoption as a legal maxim, the other is modernly found to be of no less importance.It may be doubted if the state could strip itself of either quality of its sovereignty.Certainly it will not be deemed to have attempted it upon language open to debate.

In this state the subject of public education has always been regarded and treated as a matter of state concern.In the last Constitution, as well as in the one preceding it, the most explicit care was evinced to promote public education as a duty of the state.Besides setting apart a very considerable capital sum as an inviolable asset of the school fund, the Constitution provides: "The General Assembly shall, by appropriate legislation, provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the state."Const. § 183.In obedience to that requirement the General Assembly has provided a system of common schools, in connection with other branches of public education.The subject requires different provisions for localities differing in density of population.For rural settlements there is the district school.For villages and towns a more extended term may be had, including high schools, because the population makes it practicable to do so.In cities a still more elaborate, and consequently more expensive, system is set up.All have the one main essential--that they are free schools, open to all the children of proper school age residing in the locality and affording, so long as the term lasts, equal opportunity for all to acquire the learning taught in the various common school branches.The school funds raised directly by the state for common school purposes are apportioned ratably among them all.In the cities the government of the public schools is committed to boards of education.Each city of certain classes, including the class to which Louisville belongs, is made a separate school district.Local taxation is provided for in every instance to supplement the fund paid to the district out of the state money.In some it is left to the option of the voters of the district; in others, to the discretion of the trustees; while in others it is left to the city council and board of education.But in none is the question left entirely to the locality whether a public school shall be maintained for it.Nor does the state take its hands off the control of the school system, by allowing or by requiring, the different localities to take steps toward supplementing the general appropriation by local taxation.The school is none the less a state institution for that matter.If the public schools of Louisville were local affairs, over which that municipality had the sole control it may be doubted if it would be competent for the state to levy a tax on its other citizens to help support them.But they are not municipal institutions at all.It was so held in City of Louisville v. Louisville School Board,119 Ky. 574, 84 S.W. 729, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 211;Id., 32 S.W. 406, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 698;Bamberger Bloom & Co. v. City,82 Ky. 337, 6 Ky. Law Rep. 258.The city schools, including high schools, are part of the state's...