State ex rel. Bryant v. Dolan
| Decision Date | 09 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | 7579. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BRYANT et al. v. DOLAN et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of Carl B. Bryant and others, as resident citizens and taxpayers, against W. S Dolan and others, as members of and constituting the Board of Regents of the State of South Dakota, to restrain defendants from discontinuing and continuing certain courses in certain educational institutions.
Application for restraining writ denied.
C. C Caldwell, of Sioux Falls, Max Royhl, of Huron, and Byron S Payne, of Pierre, for plaintiffs.
Walter Conway, Atty. Gen., B. D. Mintener. Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert D. Jones, of Milbank, Denu & Philip, of Rapid City, and B. H Schaphorst and Philo Hall, both of Brookings, for defendants.
This is an original proceeding brought by the relators in the name of the state of South Dakota to restrain the defendants as the board of regents of the state of South Dakota from discontinuing the courses of general and professional engineering and home economics at the State University at Vermillion; and also to restrain said defendants, as such board, from continuing the course of general or professional engineering at the School of Mines at Rapid City; and also to restrain said board from continuing the course of general or professional engineering, a school of pharmacy, and certain courses in arts and science at the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts at Brookings. The relators in their application for a restraining writ allege, in effect, that the educational institutions affected by this proceeding are in part supported by revenues derived from general taxation; that the course adopted by the board of regents in the management of said institutions, and particularly in the establishment of the curricula for the said institutions, will result in an unlawful expenditure of public moneys and in waste; that the matters involved are of great public interest and involve the rights and interests of the entire state and of the people thereof; that they have requested the Attorney General to institute this proceeding, but that he has declined and refused to do so.
The defendants challenge the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this proceeding under the showing made by the relators, and also assert that the relators have not sufficient interest, financial or otherwise, in the subject of the action or proceeding to give them any standing in this court.
Under the decisions of this court in White Eagle Oil, etc., Co. v. Gunderson, 48 S.D. 608, 205 N.W. 614, 43 A. L. R. 397; State ex rel. Prchal v. Dailey et al., 57 S.D. 554, 234 N.W. 45, 48; State ex rel. Schilling v. Menzie et al., 17 S.D. 535, 97 N.W. 745, and State ex rel. Adkins v. Lien et al., 9 S. D. 297, 68 N.W. 748, we are inclined to the view that this court has jurisdiction under the facts here alleged and established to hear and determine the issues presented in this case, and we think we should exercise such jurisdiction.
Many of the issues before the court in this case were considered by it in the case of State ex rel. Prchal v. Dailey et al., supra, and we believe that case furnishes rules of law by which the record under consideration should be measured and the issues arising thereunder determined. In the majority opinion, written by the late Judge Burch, the legal effect of the purpose statutes, constituting the charters under which our institutions of higher learning are maintained and conducted, is stated as follows: "And though it be conceded the regents have very broad powers in respect to the curricula of the schools under their control, it is self-evident they cannot by the exercise of that power change their character."
In a special concurring opinion one of the judges of this court states the legal effect of the so-called "purpose statutes" in more concrete form as follows:
In view of the law as stated in the Prchal Case from which the above is quoted, the ultimate determination of this case must depend upon the construction to be placed upon the statutes declaring the purposes of the educational institutions involved in this proceeding, together with a construction of the legislation, state and federal, pertaining to "land grant colleges," hereinafter discussed.
It is conceded by the pleadings that the defendants have discontinued the courses of general or professional engineering and home economics at the State University, and that said defendants are continuing the courses complained of at the School of Mines and the State College, with one or two exceptions not here material, for the same have been abandoned, so a detailed statement of the facts involved in this case is unnecessary.
Before attempting to analyze and construe the purpose statutes constituting the charters under which the educational institutions in question are now operating and in response to arguments of counsel, a few general observations may not be out of place. It must be borne in mind that South Dakota, contrary to the course pursued by many of her sister states who maintain their university and agriculture college upon the same campus, has elected to establish and maintain a system of higher education, exclusive of normal schools and teachers' colleges, consisting of three distinct units located at widely separated points in the state. This is preeminently an agricultural state; agriculture and those pursuits closely related to it constitute the major industries of the state. The only justification for the expenditure of public money for the support of institutions of higher learning is that such institutions are potent agencies in the training of our young people for the duties and responsibilities of life. Colleges and universities, if they are to be of practical value, must serve the day and age in which we live. It is a matter of common knowledge that our country as a whole, as well as the world at large, has made the most rapid progress during the past twenty-five years, in science, invention, and industry, ever achieved during any like period since the dawn of civilization. Science is the force that leads the way in almost every line of human endeavor, and plays a large part in mechanical arts and the field of agriculture in this day and age.
The authority of the board of regents is grounded upon the provisions of section 3 of article 14 of the Constitution of this state, which as now amended reads as follows:
In response to the mandate contained in the foregoing constitutional provision, the Legislature enacted section 5562 of the Revised Code 1919, placing our institutions of higher learning under the control of a board of regents. The only limitation upon the power of the regents is contained in section 5578, Rev. Code 1919, which provides as follows:
It will be noted that "multiplication" is permitted where the obvious needs of the special work of the school make such multiplication necessary.
The plaintiffs and relators first ask that the regents be restrained from discontinuing the general and professional courses of engineering and home economics at the State University at Vermillion.
The purpose of the State University is declared by section 5589, Rev. Code 1919, as follows: "The purpose of the university shall be to provide the best and most efficient means of imparting to young men and women on equal terms a liberal education and thorough knowledge of the different branches of literature, the arts and sciences, with their varied applications."
There is no mandate in the foregoing statute requiring the regents...
To continue reading
Request your trial