State ex rel. Beattie v. Bd. of Educ. of Antigo

• Citation: 169 Wis. 231,172 N.W. 153
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BEATTIE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ANTIGO.
• Decision Date: 29 April 1919
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

169 Wis. 231

172 N.W. 153

STATE EX REL. BEATTIE

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ANTIGO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 29, 1919.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Langlade County; T. W. Hogan, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of William F. Beattie, to compel the Board of Education of the City of Antigo to reinstate and admit petitioner's son to the public schools of such city. From a judgment in favor of petitioner, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss the petition.

This is an action of mandamus brought in the municipal court of Langlade county to compel the school board of the city of Antigo to reinstate and admit petitioner's son to the public schools of said city. From a judgment in favor of the petitioner the defendant board of education appealed.

Merritt Beattie, 13 years of age on March 27, 1918, son of petitioner, has been a resident of the city of Antigo since he was 2 years of age. Merritt has been a crippled and defective child since his birth, being afflicted with a form of paralysis which affects his whole physical and nervous make-up. He has not the normal use and control of his voice, hands, feet, and body. By reason of said paralysis his vocal cords are afflicted. He is slow and hesitating in speech, and has a peculiarly high, rasping, and disturbing tone of voice, accompanied with uncontrollable facial contortions, making it difficult for him to make himself understood. He also has an uncontrollable flow of saliva, which drools from his mouth onto his clothing and books, causing him to present an unclean appearance. He has a nervous and excitable nature. It is claimed, on the part of the school board, that his physical condition and ailment produces a depressing and nauseating effect upon the teachers and school children; that by reason of his physical condition he takes up an undue portion of the teacher's time and attention, distracts the attention of other pupils, and interferes generally with the discipline and progress of the school. He did not walk until he was 6 or 7 years of age, and did not attend school until he was 8 years old. He then entered the first grade of the Antigo Public School, and continued therein until he was through the fifth grade in 1917. It appears that he is normal mentally, and that he kept pace with the other pupils in the respective grades, although the teachers had difficulty in understanding him, and he was not called upon to recite as frequently as the others for the reason that he was slow in speech, requiring more time for him to recite than the other pupils. The city of Antigo maintains a day school under section 41.01, Statutes, “for the instruction of deaf persons or persons with defective speech.” In the fall of 1916 he was placed, by the school authorities, in this department. He remained there five weeks, when he was transferred to the Fourth Ward Public School. During the school year of 1916 and 1917 a representative of the state department of public instruction visited the Antigo schools. The boy, Merritt, came under her observation, and she protested against his being in the public schools, and suggested that he be placed in the department for instruction of deaf persons or persons with defective speech. Merritt refused to attend this department, in which he was upheld by his parents and family. At the beginning of the school year in 1917, Merritt presented himself to the Second Ward Public School, but on the second day those in charge refused to accept him as a pupil. The matter was taken by the parents to the superintendent of schools, and finally laid before the board of education. On September 13, 1917, the board of education had a regular meeting to consider the demand of petitioner that his son be reinstated and admitted to the public schools. The matter was considered for an hour, during which time one member of the board moved that the boy be reinstated in the schools. This motion did not receive a second, and after some further discussion it was agreed that the matter should be presented to the state superintendent of public instruction. It appears that correspondence followed between the secretary of the school board and the state superintendent upon the question as to whether Merritt should be reinstated, but it does not appear that the state superintendent ever definitely advised the school board upon the subject, and the school board never reinstated the boy. As above stated, the petitioner brought this action to compel his reinstatement. The case was tried before a jury. A general verdict in favor of the petitioner was returned.

Eschweiler, J., dissenting.

Finucane & Avery, of Antigo, for appellant.

Goodrick & Morson, of Antigo, for respondent.

OWEN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1][2][3] The right of a child of school age to attend the public schools of this state cannot be insisted upon when its presence therein is harmful to the best interests of the school. This, like other individual rights, must be subordinated to the general welfare. It will be conceded, we think, that the foregoing statement of facts presents a fair question as to the effect of the boy's presence upon the school and the individual pupils attending the same. The question then arises as to what body or tribunal is vested with the authority of determining the question. The trial court seemed to be of the opinion that, while such authority rested with the school board in the first instance, its action in that behalf was reviewable by a jury and subordinate to the jury's opinion thereon, as indicated by its charge to the jury to the effect, that-- “It is incumbent upon the defendant to prove to you the needfulness of the rule in denying Merritt...