In re Senate Bill No. 9
| Decision Date | 20 February 1899 |
| Parties | In re SENATE BILL NO. 9. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
The senate passed a resolution submitting to the supreme court senate bill No. 9, relating to the annexation and consolidation of school districts, and requesting the opinion of such court as to its constitutionality.
Theodore H. Thomas, W. W. Anderson, and Edward O Russell, for bill.
Clay Whitford and Calvin E. Reed, against bill.
The honorable senate, now in session, having under consideration senate bill No. 9, entitled 'A bill for an act to provide for the annexation and consolidation of school districts organized and existing under the general school laws of the state of Colorado, with school districts organized and existing under special charters,' by resolution directed that it be submitted to this court for an opinion as to its constitutionality. The bill in question is general in its terms, although it is conceded by the resolution that its sole purpose and object is to permit school districts Nos. 2 7, 17, and 21, which are partly within and partly without the limits of the city of Denver, to unite with district No. 1 of this city. On the part of those who question its constitutionality it is contended that the bill is in conflict with several different sections of the constitution but we do not deem it necessary to consider more than one of the provisions of the constitution with which it is claimed to be in conflict, namely, section 25, art. 5, which, in effect, provides that the legislature cannot single out a district or districts, organized under the general law, and pass an act for the management of the schools in such territory different from that provided for their control in other districts, also existing under the general school law of the state. School district No. 1 of the city of Denver is organized under a special charter, passed at the tenth session of the legislative assembly of the territory of Colorado. Laws 1874, p. 234. The other school districts above mentioned are organized and now acting under the general laws of the state. The question now under consideration was before this court in Re Consolidation of School Districts, 23 Colo. 499, 48 P. 647. That bill purported to be an amendment to the act incorporating school district No. 1, and by its terms provided the manner by which certain other contiguous districts might be consolidated with No. 1. In that matter it was held that the passage of local or special laws for the management of our common schools is prohibited by the constitution, which provides that the general assembly 'shall not pass local or special laws providing for the management of common schools.' Section 25, art. 5, supra. And as the effect of that bill would have been to provide a special law for the management of the schools of the districts consolidated with No. 1, it was held to be obnoxious to that provision of our constitution; and it is now contended that, although the present proposed bill is general in its character, inasmuch as the result would be, if it is passed, to permit districts organized under the general law to abandon their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Common School Dist. No. 2 of Nez Perce County v. District No. 1 of Nez Perce County
...No. 1. Respondents rely upon two Colorado cases, In re Senate Bill No. 23, 1897, 23 Colo. 499, 48 P. 647, and In re Senate Bill No. 9, 1899, 26 Colo. 136, 56 P. 173, in support of their contention this statute is unconstitutional. Suffice to say this Court in the decisions above has held di......
-
People ex rel. Elder v. Sours
... ... their approval or rejection. And in the amended answer it is ... averred that the bill for said constitutional amendment as ... passed by the Senate is not the same as that passed by ... Lewis, ... 106 Ill. 376, the law was assailed because in conflict with ... article 9 of the Constitution. The court said: 'The act ... under which the proceedings were had was passed ... ...
-
People v. Canister
...v. Sprengel, 176 Colo. 277, 279, 490 P.2d 65, 67 (1971); Senate Bill No. 95, 146 Colo. at 238, 361 P.2d at 353; In re Senate Bill No. 9, 26 Colo. 136, 139, 56 P. 173, 174 (1899). Section 18-1.4-102(1)(e) bears the characteristics of those unusual statutes we have held to be special Modern a......
-
People v. Cox
...It is elemental law that the Colorado Constitution establishes the supreme law of the State of Colorado. In re Senate Bill No. 9 , 26 Colo. 136, 139, 56 P. 173, 174 (1899) (per curiam). Therefore, a statute that purports to add substantive elements to a defense defined in the constitution c......