Shelor v. Pace

• Decision Date: 24 June 1929
• Docket Number: 12682.
• Citation: 148 S.E. 726,151 S.C. 99
• Parties: SHELOR v. PACE, Supervisor, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

148 S.E. 726

151 S.C. 99

SHELOR v. PACE, Supervisor, et al.

No. 12682.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 24, 1929

Original proceeding by T. B. Shelor, in his own behalf and on behalf of all other citizens and taxpayers sharing expense of proceeding, to enjoin J. A. Pace, Supervisor, and others, as fiscal officers of Oconee County, from issuing and selling bonds and levying and collecting taxes to pay for same . Injunction refused.

R. T Jaynes, of Walhalla, for petitioner.

Hughs & Hughs, of Walhalla, for respondents.

COTHRAN J.

This is a proceeding in the original jurisdiction of this court, to enjoin the respondents, fiscal officers of Oconee county from the issuance and sale of certain bonds, and from the levying and collecting taxes to pay the same. The right to issue the bonds is claimed by the respondents under an act of the General Assembly passed at the 1929 session. The title of the act is as follows:

"An Act to Validate Certain Indebtedness of Oconee County; to Authorize the Issuance of Bonds of said County, to Pay Same, and to Provide for the Payment of the Bonds and Interest Thereof."

The constitutionality of the act is attacked upon the following grounds:

"1st. Because the title does not express the subject of the act in conformity with section 17, article 3 of the Constitution.

"2d. Because the act provides a mode of apportionment differing from that provided in section 6 of article 11 for the three-mill tax, and is, therefore, in violation of it.

"3d. Because section 6 of article 11, in providing four sources of revenue for schools, one of which is by county levy of three mills, is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to authorize counties to levy additional taxes. This being an additional tax, outside of that limitation, is alleged to be in violation of it."

The pertinent provisions of the act are:

"Section 1. That the indebtedness existing against the several school districts of Oconee County in the respective amounts as referred to in Section 5 of this Act, and the indebtedness evidenced by note of the County Board of Education, or any renewals thereof, in the sum of about $2,908.15, are hereby declared and determined to have been incurred for educational purposes of Oconee County, and made valid and legal in all respects, and binding obligations upon Oconee County."

Section 2 provides for issuing bonds not exceeding $70,000 for payment of said indebtedness.

Section 3 provides for sale of the bonds.

Section 4 exempts the bonds from taxes.

Section 5 provides that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds shall be disbursed "in payment of said past indebtedness, incurred in and by the several school districts of Oconee County for educational purposes, as shown on a statement made and signed by L. C. Spearers, County Superintendent of Education of Oconee County, being date February 22d, 1929, and on file in the office of Supervisor of said County."

Section 6 provides for levying a tax on "all taxable property in Oconee County" sufficient to pay the bonds and interest according to their terms.

The act was approved March 15, 1929, and by its terms took effect immediately.

We shall quote quite in extenso from the very excellent brief of counsel for the respondents.

From the year 1918 to and including the year 1924, Oconee county had, by legislative authority, levied a county-wide tax for schools, with the provision, however, in the Act making the levy, that the funds so raised were to be expended for school purposes exclusively in the districts where levied and collected.

For the first year, after the enactment of what has been called the "6-0-1 Law," (Act March 21, 1924, 33 St. at Large, p. 916), the several school districts of Oconee county endeavored to comply with its provisions each for itself. Because of great difference among the districts in the ratio of school population to assessed valuation of taxable property, many of the schools were amply provided for, while many others were inadequately supplied with funds.

The 6-0-1 Law provided in section 2 (33 St. at Large, p. 917) that the districts or counties should meet the requirements of the act in order to share its benefits. To remedy the inequality just referred to in Oconee county, the Legislature in 1925 eliminated the provision that the special levy should be used in the district where levied and collected, and provided instead: "The Auditor, with the County Board of Education, shall levy a sufficient tax to meet the salaries of all the school teachers in Oconee County for the scholastic year beginning 1925, for the seventh month, and high school teachers for the eighth and ninth months, to be paid out under the State Schedule for Teachers," etc. Act April 4, 1925, 34 St. at Large, p. 545, § 6. By this provision the burden of meeting the 6-0-1 Law was laid upon the county without regard to district lines, and the provision has been continued to the present. Under the same provision in 1927 (Act March 11, 1927, 35 St. at Large, p. 627, § 6), the county auditor failed to make a sufficient levy to meet the salaries of "all the teachers in Oconee County," and the deficits arose.

Under the school law in this state, no matter what the source of the school fund, it must be paid out on warrants signed by the trustees of the several school districts. As a consequence, nothwithstanding the fund is a county fund, books must be kept by the treasurer in the name of each district, showing the amount which it may draw upon, and the amount actually drawn. These deficits, therefore, appear on the books as against the several districts, when as a matter of fact in the aggregate they are shortage in county funds owing to failure of the auditor to make "a sufficient levy to meet the salaries of all the teachers," etc.

The county board, notwithstanding the deficits, continued the schools for the required period to meet the provisions of the 6-0-1 Law.

The act under investigation was passed to meet that deficit. The petitioner questions its constitutionality in the particulars stated.

Section 5 of article 11 of the Constitution provides, among other things, ""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," etc.

Section 6 of article 11 provides for the levying and apportionment of a three-mill tax, a poll tax, and a supplemental state tax to pay deficiencies in the school funds. Section 12 of the same article provided for a portion of the revenue from sale of liquors, not then prohibited, to be added to the supplemental tax.

Under these provisions, the General Assembly enacted laws dividing the counties into school districts, imposing and apportioning the three-mill tax, levying the poll tax, and apportioning the dispensary fund. An act was passed (which remained of force until 1924) making it compulsory that each public school should be open for three months in the year.

With that the Legislature left the counties and school districts pretty much to shift for themselves. No supplemental tax to pay deficiencies was levied. Special local taxes were from time to time voted by the district. Great disproportion in the funds of the various school districts ensued as a natural consequence, and as naturally there followed great diversity in standard and length of school term. Some schools ran for nine months, while a neighboring school in many instances did not run at all for lack of funds.

In an effort to minimize this inequality, from 1900 to 1924 the Legislature at various times made appropriations for "needy schools." The apportionment of the fund was conditioned upon the levy of a local tax. Many of the districts were backward and failed to make the levy, and the end sought to be accomplished was not realized.

Some of the counties made sporadic efforts in behalf of their schools by making the levy through legislative enactment without the action of the people themselves, notably Oconee, as above noted.

In 1907 the Legislature began a real effort to foster a higher standard of education in rural communities by authorizing state aid for rural high schools established under the provisions of the act. Act Feb. 19, 1907, 25 St. at Large, p. 518. This law has from time to time been enlarged in its scope, and means provided until the present time, and as a result many excellent standardized high schools exist in the state. These high schools were, however, necessarily confined largely to the thriving common school districts, and the old canker of inequality and lack of standard continued to eat at the vitals of the educational system of the state.

Heeding the mandate of section 6, art. 11, of the Constitution, that "the General Assembly shall cause to be levied annually on all the taxable property of the State such a tax, *** as may be necessary to keep the schools open throughout the State for such length of time in each scholastic year as the General Assembly may prescribe," the Legislature enacted the 6-0-1 Law.

This law provides (section 1): "The General Assembly shall make sufficient appropriation to pay the salaries of all school teachers in the public schools of the State for six months," etc.

Section 2 provides: "To meet the amount provided for in Section 1 of this Act, there is hereby levied upon all the taxable property of each county of this State (4) four mills, and in addition thereto the constitutional three-mill tax in each school district, which levy of four (4) mills and the constitutional three-mill tax shall be supplemented by an appropriation from the State in order to provide for the payment of the salaries for the six...