Powers v. State Educational Finance Commission, 16686

• Citation: 73 S.E.2d 456,222 S.C. 433
• Decision Date: 14 November 1952
• Docket Number: No. 16686,16686
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: POWERS et al. v. STATE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE COMMISSION et al. EDWARDS et al. v. STATE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE COMMISSION et al.

Page 456

73 S.E.2d 456

222 S.C. 433

POWERS et al. v. STATE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE COMMISSION et al.

EDWARDS et al. v. STATE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE COMMISSION et al.

No. 16686.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 14, 1952.

Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, Florence, for Powers et al. Clifton & Cuttino, Sumter, for Edwards et al.

T. C. Callison, Atty. Gen., James S. Verner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State Educational Finance Commission. Paul A. Sansbury, Samuel Want, Darlington, for Darlington County Board of Education. Henry C. Jennings, Bishopville, for Lee County Board of Education. L. E. Purdy, Sumter, for Sumter County Board of Education.

OXNER, Justice.

On account of the public importance of the questions involved and the desirability of an early determination thereof, we permitted this action to be brought in the original jurisdiction of this Court. While other issues are raised, it is only necessary to decide the following:

(1) Does Section 5, Article 11 of the Constitution prohibit the General Assembly from authorizing the formation of a school district embracing an area lying in two or more counties, or from authorizing the annexation of territory in one county to an adjoining school district in another county?

(2) If not, has the General Assembly authorized the State Educational Finance Commission to make such annexation or to consolidate school districts lying in different counties without the approval of both county boards of education?

For a number of years high school students from an area of Darlington County formerly constituting Anderson School District No. 11, have been attending the Timmonsville High School, located in that portion of Florence County formerly constituting school district No. 16, but which is now a part of school district No. 4 of that county. It is alleged that this arrangement has proved convenient and desirable to all concerned. All of the school districts of Darlington County have been consolidated by the county board of education and now constitute one school district embracing the entire county. The patrons of old Anderson School District desire to continue sending their children to the Timmonsville High School and have asked that this area be annexed to or consolidated with school district No. 4 of Florence County in which the Timmonsville High School is now located. The County Board of Education of Florence County is in favor of the proposed consolidation, but that of Darlington County is not. Upon the refusal of the latter board to endorse its approval, the residents and patrons of the area formerly constituting Anderson School District No. 11 filed with the State Educational Finance Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, a petition requesting that body to effect the desired annexation or consolidation. The Commission declined to do so upon the ground that it was without authority to consolidated school districts located in different counties unless approved by both county boards of education.

Thereafter this action was instituted by petitioners, as taxpayers, residents and patrons of old Anderson School District, who, after setting forth the facts hereinabove stated, ask that this Court issue a mandamus requiring the Commission to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations relating to the matters set forth in the petition, and further requiring said Commission to assume jurisdiction over the controversy existing between the petitioners and the County Board of Education of Darlington County. They also ask for a declaratory judgment that the Commission is empowered to effect desirable consolidation of school districts lying in different counties where the county boards of education of the respective counties disagree as to the proposed consolidation. On August 18, 1952, the Chief Justice of this Court issued an order requiring the Commission and the County Board of Education of Darlington County to show cause before this Court at the October term why the relief sought should not be granted. In due course a separate demurrer was filed by each of the respondents raising among other questions, the two stated at the beginning of this opinion.

By permission of the Chief Justice, certain freeholders and patrons of several districts in Lee and Sumter Counties were permitted to intervene. Their petition presents a situation similar to the one we have just described and raises in the main the same legal questions. It is alleged 'that for several years past arrangements have been in effect for the education of grammar grade students in the St. Charles area of Lee County and in that portion of Lee County lying near the Town of Mayesville, which is in Sumter County and near the Lee County line, at the public schools situate at Mayesville, in Sumter County; that for several years arrangements have also been in effect for the education of high school students in the Mayesville area of Sumter County at the public school situate at St. Charles, in Lee County; that for several years, pursuant to said arrangements between the trustees of the school districts so adjacent to each other in Lee County and Sumter County, students in the two areas have been exchanged as aforesaid, and for some six or seven years exchange of students between said two areas has taken place and all phases of educational endeavor have been actively and cooperatively pursued on a cordial basis, resulting in greatly bettering the educational opportunities of all students, and accomplishing same on a sound and economical basis of established work and value to said students and to your petitioners and other persons similarly situated.'

These petitioners state that the patrons and residents of the districts mentioned desire that a school district be established embracing the areas of St. Charles, Elliott, Oswego, and Mayesville. It is further alleged in the petition that in June, 1951, a joint meeting was held of the Sumter and Lee County Boards of Education for the purpose of considering and discussing the establishment of the proposed new district; that although the Sumter County Board of Education was cooperative and anxious to work out some reasonable solution of the problem, the Lee County Board of Education refused to agree to the proposal and declined to cooperate in any manner; and that in June, 1952, a petition was filed with the State Educational Finance Commission asking that body to assume jurisdiction of the controversy but the Commission refused to do so, stating that it was without authority to create, or compel county boards of education to agree to the formation of, a school district embracing areas in two or more counties. The relief sought by the petitioners is substantially the same as that asked in the Darlington-Florence controversy.

Upon the filing of the foregoing petition, the Chief Justice of this Court, on September 3, 1952, issued an order requiring the State Educational Finance Commission and the County Boards of Education of Lee and Sumter Counties to show cause before this Court at the October term why the relief sought should not be granted. A joint demurrer was filed by the respondents raising the two questions heretofore mentioned, along with various other questions.

We shall first discuss the constitutional question. Section 5, Article 11, of the Constitution of 1895, provides in part: 'The General Assembly shall provide for a liberal system of free public schools for all children between the ages of six and twenty-one years, and for the division of the Counties into suitable school districts'. It will be noted that this provision does not expressly prohibit the General Assembly from creating a school district from territory lying partly in each of two or more counties. But it is argued that the duty imposed upon the General Assembly of dividing the counties into suitable school districts contemplates and clearly implies that each school district must lie wholly within the limits of one county.

In State ex rel. Redman v. Meyers, County Superintendent of Schools, 65 Mont. 124, 210 P. 1064, 1065, the Court said: 'A school district is merely a political subdivision of the state, created for the convenient dispatch of public business. In the absence of constitutional limitations, the Legislature may create or abolish a district or change or rearrange the boundaries of an existing district, and by the same token it may create joint districts from territory lying in adjacent counties.' To the same effect, see 78 C.J.S., Schools and School District, § 32(b).

For more than half a century we have had legislation authorizing the creation of school districts embracing parts of two counties. Section 1071, Volume 1 of the Revised Statutes of South Carolina, 1893, authorized the county boards of examiners, when necessary, to include 'portions of two adjacent Counties' into 'one school district'. In 1896, the year following the adoption of our Constitution, the General Assembly, by Act No. 63, 22 St. 150, provided, Section 31, that 'the County Boards of Education shall divide their Counties into convenient school districts, as compact in form as practicable,' and further provided, Section 35, 'that whenever it shall happen that by reason of the location of special school districts portions of two adjacent Counties should for convenience be included in one school district, the County Boards of Education of such Counties are hereby authorized and directed in joint conference to make such regulations as will enable such sections to be established into a separate school district.' This last mentioned section was incorporated as Section 1209 in Volume I of the Code of 1902.

The Constitution of 1868, Article 10, Section 3, provided that 'the General Assembly shall * * * provide for a liberal and uniform system of free public schools throughout the State, and shall also make provision for the division of the State into suitable School Districts.' If this phraseology...