School Dist. No. 20, Spokane County v. Bryan

• Decision Date: 16 January 1909
• Citation: 51 Wash. 498,99 P. 28
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. NO. 20, SPOKANE COUNTY, v. BRYAN, Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al.

99 P. 28

51 Wash. 498

SCHOOL DIST. NO. 20, SPOKANE COUNTY, v. BRYAN, Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 16, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; O. V. Linn, Judge.

Injunction by School District No. 20, Spokane County, against R. B Bryan, as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Charles P. Lund and others, as Board of Trustees of the State Normal School at Chency. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John D Atkinson and William W. Manier, for appellants.

W. H. Winfree, for respondent.

CHADWICK, J.

In order to make effectual section 2550, Ballinger's Ann Codes & St. (Pierce's Code, § 7463), the Legislature of this state, at its 1907 session, passed a law (chapter 97, p 181, Laws 1907) providing for a model training school department to be established in the state normal schools. Its purpose is manifest. It is to provide material for the particular training of teachers, and to this end the boards of the several normal schools are authorized, and it is made their duty, to file, on or before the first Monday in September in each year, with the board of the school district in which the normal school is situate, a requisition for the estimated number of public school pupils necessary to make up a model training school. It is thereupon made the duty of the local board to apportion a sufficient number of pupils to meet the requisition. It is also provided that the principal of the normal school may refuse to accept such pupils as in his judgment, by reason of incorrigibility or mental defects would tend to reduce the efficiency of the training department. It is made the duty of the school clerk to keep a segregated list of those attending the model school, and, further, 'that it shall be the duty of the superintendent of public instruction to apportion to the support of such normal training school out of the funds available for the support of the common schools of the district in which each normal school is situated, such proportion of the funds to which such school district shall be entitled as the number of pupils in attendance upon each such model training school bears to the whole number of pupils upon which the apportionment was made for the common schools in the school district in which such normal school is situated, and the funds so apportioned shall be distributed by the board of trustees for the maintenance of such model training school.' Section 4. Plaintiff brought an action in the superior court of Thurston county to restrain the defendant, as superintendent of public instruction, from apportioning to the model training department of the state normal school located at Chency, Wash., any of the funds available for the support of the common schools. From an order directing an injunction, and also holding 'that so much of chapter 97, p. 180, Laws 1907, 'Entitled an act relating to the model training school department of normal schools, authorized by section 7463 of Pierce's Code, section 2550 of Ballinger's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Washington, and providing for apportionment of funds therefor,' approved March 11, 1907, which seeks to apportion or appropriate any part of the common school fund or revenue therefrom or state tax for the support of the common schools is unconstitutional and void,' the defendants have appealed.

The assignments of error, four in number, all go to the question, does the act provide for a diversion of the common school fund in contravention of the following constitutional provisions: 'The Legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools. The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools and technical schools as may hereafter be established. But the entire revenue derived from the common school fund, and the state tax for common schools, shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools.' Article 9, § 2.

'* * * The interest accruing on said fund together with all rentals and other revenues derived therefrom and from lands and other property devoted to the common school fund, shall be exclusively applied to the current use of the common schools.' Article 9, § 3.

Counsel for appellants have made an elaborate research of the authorities in order to arrive at proper definition of the words 'common school,' and from them deduced the following: 'The essential characteristics, therefore, of a common school are: (1) They must be maintained at public expense; (2) they must provide a course of elementary education for children of all classes and people.' He concludes that the model training school comes within this definition, and is therefore a common school within the meaning of the Constitution. The word 'definition' is in itself difficult to define. What would be proper under a given state of facts may be impossible under another. The word must be accepted with reference to its relation to other words and terms. The words 'common school' cannot be arbitrarily defined, but must be considered in connection with the general scheme of education outlined in the Constitution of the state. When so considered, they have no uncertain meaning. In adopting a Constitution the people of this state saw fit to devote a chapter to the subject of education. In it they were careful to emphasize the importance, as well as the distinct character, of the common school. They endeavored to protect and preserve the funds set apart by law for the support of the common school from invasion, so that they might be applied exclusively to the current uses of such schools. An ample provision for the education of children was made paramount, and the duty was imposed upon the Legislature of providing a general and uniform system of public schools. The system provided differentiates between the common school and the normal school, as does the Constitution, and, when adopted, such system has the force of the constitutional provision which it elaborates. The system must be uniform in that every child shall have the same advantages and be subject to the same discipline as every other child. A system of control through school boards and county superintendents is provided for, their duties defined, and a method supplied to secure, in theory at least, efficient teachers and instructors. When considered in this way, it would seem that the definition arrived at by counsel is too narrow. The words 'common school' must measure up to every requirement of the Constitution and code of public instruction; and, whenever by any subterfuge it is sought to qualify or enlarge their meaning beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution, the attempt must fail.

The propriety and benefit of the scheme are urged by counsel. They say: 'Here we have a model training school, which is a portion of a state normal, which has as principal a person chosen for that position because of his experience as an educator, who gives...