School District No. 37 of Rice County v. The Board of Education of The City of Lyons

• Decision Date: 11 February 1922
• Docket Number: 24,016
• Citation: 204 P. 758,110 Kan. 613
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 37 OF RICE COUNTY, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF LYONS, Being School District No. 69, Appellee. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 70 OF RICE COUNTY, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE RIVER, Being School District No. 28 of Rice County, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

204 P. 758

110 Kan. 613

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 37 OF RICE COUNTY, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF LYONS, Being School District No. 69, Appellee.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 70 OF RICE COUNTY, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE RIVER, Being School District No. 28 of Rice County, Appellee

No. 24,016

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 11, 1922

Decided January, 1922

Appeals from Rice district court; DANIEL A. BANTA, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. HOUSE BILL No. 48--Laws of 1921 Providing for Disorganization of Certain School Districts--Legally Enacted. The legislative journals show affirmatively that house bill No. 48 was passed by the house and messaged to the senate where five or six amendments were adopted in committee of the whole, the bill was reengrossed, duly passed, messaged back to the house, which refused to concur in the amendments and a conference committee was appointed, which reported to the senate recommending that the senate recede from certain of its amendments and that the house accept the other amendments. The senate adopted the conference report on roll call duly taken and entered on the journal. The bill with conference report was messaged to the house which on the same day adopted the conference report on a roll call which was duly entered in the journal. The enrolled bill, signed by the president and secretary of the senate, the speaker and chief clerk of the house, approved by the governor and published, is worded the same as the reengrossed bill in the senate with all the senate amendments to the original bill. The house journal of the proceedings of the day following the adoption by the house of the bill and conference report, contains a report from the chief clerk stating that he had compared six house bills, including house bill No. 48, with the enrolled bills; that the same were correctly enrolled as passed, had been properly signed by the officers of the house and senate, and had been that day presented to the governor for his approval. Held, the recital in the house journal of the report of the chief clerk is entitled to as much consideration as another coming from the same source, and the effect of the consideration of all the recitals of the journals of both houses is merely to cast a doubt upon the validity of the act, and therefore, following Belleville v. Wells, 74 Kan. 823, 88 P. 47, and cases cited in the opinion; The State, ex rel., v. City of Salina, 108 Kan. 271, 194 P. 931, and Patrick v. Haskell County, 108 Kan. 141, 193 P. 1061, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the validity of the enrolled bill.

2. SAME--Statute--Has Both Retroactive and Prospective Operation. By the enactment of chapter 228, Laws of 1921, amending section 1 of chapter 275 of the Laws of 1917 the legislature unequivocally expressed the intention to give to the amendment a retroactive as well as a prospective operation.

3. SCHOOL DISTRICTS--Possess No Vested Rights as Against the State. There is no vested right in the existence of a quasi-municipal corporation such as a school district. Its rights and franchises, having been granted for the purposes of government, can never become such vested rights as against the state that they cannot be taken away. The legislature has authority to amend their charters, enlarge or diminish their powers, extend or limit their boundaries, consolidate two or more under one, overrule their legislative action whenever it is deemed unwise, impolitic, or unjust, and may abolish them altogether.

4. STATUTE--Chapter 228, Laws of 1921, General in Its Application. Chapter 228 of the Laws of 1921 applies to all school districts where the conditions are those mentioned in the act, and is general, and not special legislation.

F. L. Martin, of Hutchinson, for the appellants.

W. W. Stahl, and Samuel Jones, both of Lyons, for the appellees.

Porter J. Porter, J. dissenting.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

The purpose of these actions in quo warranto is to defeat the consolidation of certain school districts. On June 25, 1921, the superintendent of public instruction of Rice county, in conjunction with the county commissioners, disorganized district No. 37 and attached to it school district No. 69, which is under the jurisdiction of the board of education of the city of Lyons. A like order was made disorganizing school district No. 70 and attaching it to the board of education of Little River, which is school district No. 28. The appeals are from orders overruling plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The consolidations were made under chapter 228, Laws of 1921. The first and principal contention of the plaintiffs is that the act was not passed in conformity with sections 10, 13 and 14 of article 2 of the constitution.

The act is amendatory of section 1 of chapter 275, Laws of 1917, providing for the disorganization of school districts which "shall fail or neglect to maintain a school for at least seven months in each year for a period of three successive years," and authorizing the county superintendent to make an order attaching such district to an adjoining district under certain conditions. Section 1 of the new act, with portions italicized showing the changes made by the amendment, reads:

"Whenever any school district shall have failed or neglected to maintain a school for at least seven months in each year for a period of two successive years, such school district shall be disorganized by the county superintendent of public instruction in conjunction with the county commissioners and the territory thereof shall be attached to adjoining districts, as may be determined by the county superintendent: Provided, That this act shall not apply to any school district which shall have made provision according to law for sending its pupils to other schools and for the payment of adequate transportation and tuition, unless such district shall be adjacent to a school district maintaining a graded school in which is offered an approved high-school course of at least two years. Whenever any school district adjacent to a district maintaining a graded school in which is offered an approved high-school course of at least two years shall fail or neglect to maintain a school for at least seven months in each year for a period of two consecutive years, said adjacent district shall be disorganized by the county superintendent of public instruction, in conjunction with county commissioners, and the territory thereof shall be attached to the district maintaining such graded school in which is offered an approved high-school course of at least two years, or to adjoining districts, in the discretion of the county superintendent: Provided further, That where any such district is adjacent to a city of the third class in which there is maintained a high school or graded school, it shall be attached to the school district in which such city is located." (Laws 1921, ch. 228, § 1.)

The legislative history of the bill shows that it originated in the house as house bill No. 48 and went through the regular channels. The bill was messaged to the senate where it was amended by striking out the words "shall fail or neglect" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "shall have failed or neglected" and by striking out the word "three" in two places and inserting in lieu thereof the word "two," so that the act would apply to any school district "which shall have failed or neglected for two successive years to maintain a school for at least seven months in each year." (Senate Journal, 1921, p. 276.) The bill as amended by the senate was reengrossed and messaged to the house. In the house, Mr. Sanderson moved that the house "do not concur in the senate amendments," and ask for a conference. The motion prevailed and a conference committee was appointed. (House Journal, 1921, p. 385.) The senate acceded to the request for a conference and appointed its committee. (House Journal, 1921, p. 399.) The conference committee made its report to the senate to the effect that the senate receded from its amendment putting in the word "two" in place of "three"; receded from its amendment "in conjunction with the county commissioners" where it occurred in the bill in two places, and that the house acceded to the other amendments, accepting the words "shall have failed or neglected," and accepted the proviso at the end of the section. The report of the conference committee was adopted in the senate, the roll was called, and a yea and nay vote was taken and entered on the journal. (Senate Journal, 1921, p. 349.) On February 28, the bill and conference report was messaged to the house. (House Journal, 1921, p. 418.) On the same day the house adopted the conference report on roll call with a yea and nay vote. (House Journal, 1921, p. 423.) The house journal of the proceedings of March 1 contains under the heading, "Report on Enrolled Bills," the following:

"MR. SPEAKER: Your chief clerk begs leave to report that he has compared House bills Nos. 291, 378, 193, 97, 48 and 330 with the enrolled bills, and reports to the House that the same are correctly enrolled as passed, that they have been properly signed by the president and secretary of the Senate and the speaker and chief clerk of the House, and have been presented to the governor for his approval, this 1st day of March, 1921.

LISLE MCELHINNEY, Chief Clerk."

(House Journal, 1921, p. 441.)

The governor's message that he had signed the bill appears in house journal, page 452.

A comparison of chapter 228, signed by the governor and published, with the bill as amended by the senate and shown by the report of the conference committee, would indicate that the chief clerk, through some mistake, copied the...