State v. Gordon

• Decision Date: 09 July 1909
• Citation: 223 Mo. 1,122 S.W. 1008
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. OF MEMPHIS v. GORDON, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

122 S.W. 1008

223 Mo. 1

STATE ex rel. SCHOOL DIST. OF MEMPHIS v. GORDON, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July 9, 1909.

On Motion for Rehearing, November 8, 1909.

1. MANDAMUS (§ 159) — PROCEEDINGS — DEMURRER.

Where in mandamus respondent waives the alternative writ and demurs, the petition stands as and for such writ.

2. ELECTIONS (§ 184) — PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED TO PEOPLE.

By analogy to Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, a proposition submitted to a vote of the people for their adoption must be "single" as that word is defined in the law; the vote of the people on such a proposition being in the nature of a legislative act.

3. STATUTES (§ 105) — TITLES — SINGLE OBJECT — CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.

Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title, should be liberally interpreted, so as not to unnecessarily limit legislative enactments, and, if the matters embraced in the bill are not incongruous, but have legitimate connection with each other, the generality of the title will not make the bill objectionable; the mode in which the subject is treated and the reasons which influence the Legislature not making the bill bad, if there is but one subject.

4. STATUTES (§ 107) — TITLES — SINGLE SUBJECT.

In applying the constitutional provision against doubleness, each case is singular to itself, and will stand or fall on its own facts.

5. ELECTIONS (§ 184) — PROPOSITION TO BORROW MONEY — SUBMISSION TO PEOPLE.

Where a proposition to borrow money is submitted to the people, the object to which the borrowed money is to be appropriated is an integral part of the proposition, being necessary to make the proposition intelligible and to carry information to the voter.

6. ELECTIONS (§ 184) — MATTERS SUBMITTED TO VOTE — DOUBLENESS.

An entire subject of a statute, within Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, and by analogy the entire subject of a proposition to be submitted to a vote of the people, may be composed of parts, and any part, by further refinement, may be composed of other parts.

7. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 97) — BORROWING MONEY — SUBMISSION OF PROPOSITION — CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 9752 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4472), provides that for the purpose of erecting schoolhouses and furnishing them in school districts, the board of directors shall be authorized to borrow money and issue bonds for the payment thereof, the question of loan to be decided at a special election for that purpose, and that the qualified voters voting in favor of the loan shall have written or printed on their tickets "For the loan" and those voting against the loan, the words "Against the loan"; and, if two-thirds of the votes cast shall be "For the loan," the district board shall have power to borrow money in the name of the district to the amount and for the purpose specified in the notice of election. Section 9752a as added by Laws 1903, p. 266 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4473), provides that the purposes for which such an election may be called may, in the judgment of the school directors include the purchasing of schoolhouse sites. Held, that the statutes contemplate that the liberty of choice of the voter shall be exercised on the concrete whole encompassed by the statute if, in the judgment of the school board, the plan as a whole is a proper improvement to challenge a vote of the district.

8. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS (§ 97) — BORROWING MONEY — SUBMISSION OF PROPOSITION — SINGLE SUBJECT.

A proposition, submitting to the people, under the statute, the question of incurring an indebtedness for the school district in a specified sum, part of it to be used in building and furnishing a schoolhouse in one ward of the district, and the remainder to be used in the building of an addition to and improving the schoolhouse in another ward of the district, embraces a single general subject, and is not violative, by analogy, of Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

Graves, Burgess, and Fox, JJ., dissenting.

In banc. Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the School District of Memphis, against John P. Gordon, State Auditor. Absolute writ granted.

J. M. Jayne, for relator. E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., Chas. G. Revelle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jas. T. Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LAMM, J.

The State Auditor refuses to register and visé, under section 5167, Rev. St. (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2700), 45 school bonds, 5-20's, each of the denomination of $500, dated May 1, 1909, interest at 5 per cent. payable semiannually, evidenced by coupons attached, payable at the Mercantile Trust Company in the city of St. Louis, and issued by the school district of Memphis, Mo., for building purposes. The Memphis school district sues out an alternative writ of mandamus. The Auditor enters his appearance through Mr. Attorney General and, waiving the alternative writ, demurs. In this condition of things the petition stands as and for such writ.

The cause being finally submitted on demurrer, we are called upon to determine but a single question, indicated by the second specification of the demurrer, viz.: "Because the petition upon its face discloses that two separate and distinct propositions were submitted and voted on jointly." The petition shows that the proceedings of the school board, the calling and notice of the election, the appointment of judges and clerks, the election itself, the canvass and formulation of the returns, showing the submitted proposition carried by a vote of 349 "For the loan" to 60 "Against the loan," and the execution of the bonds and coupons, were in due form; further, that the proposed indebtedness ($22,500), with all other, does not exceed 5 per cent. of the taxable property in the district, as shown by the last assessment.

The allegations relied upon to show the doubleness of the proposition are: First. An order by the school board, reciting that it was necessary for the welfare of the inhabitants of the district that a schoolhouse be erected in the First school ward, and an addition and improvements be made to the schoolhouse in the Second school ward. Second. An order that an election be called at a specified date and place, reciting, among other things, as follows: "For the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters thereof a proposition to incur an indebtedness for said school district in the sum of $22,500 for the purpose of using $20,000 of said amount in building a schoolhouse in the First school ward of said school district, and furnishing the same, and $2,500 of said amount to be used in building an addition to, and improving, the schoolhouse in the Second school ward of said district," etc. Third. A similar recital in the election notice. Relator's counsel argue that the proposition is single, and within the purview of pertinent statutes relating to issuing school district bonds. Mr. Attorney General, contra.

Relator is organized under article 2, c. 154, Rev. St. (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 2699-2701), as a town school district, with the special privileges enumerated therein. Section 9865, Rev. St. (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4523), ordains that the school board, when sufficient funds have been provided, shall establish an adequate number of primary or "ward schools," and for this purpose shall divide the district into "school wards," and fix the boundaries thereof. Such board is authorized to select and procure a site in each newly formed ward and erect a suitable school building therein and furnish the same. If the money to build and furnish the schoolhouses be not on hand, it may be raised by direct taxation, under the provisions of section 9778 (page 4488), provided such is the judgment of the school board, and provided the voters of the district authorize the increased tax under that section. However, if the money be not on hand, the school board may borrow money under section 9752 (page 4472), first submitting the proposition to the voters. That is the section under which relator acted. It provides as follows (omitting matter not material): "For the purpose of erecting schoolhouses and furnishing the same in cities, towns and school districts, the board of directors shall be authorized to borrow money, and issue bonds for the payment thereof, in the manner herein provided. The question of loan shall be decided at * * * a special election to be held for that purpose. * * * The qualified voters at said election shall vote by ballot. Those voting in favor of the loan shall have written or printed on their tickets, `For the loan;' those voting against the loan, the words `Against the loan;' and if two-thirds of the votes cast shall be `For the loan,' the district board shall be vested with the power to borrow money in the name of the district, to the amount and for the purpose specified in the notices aforesaid. * * * When bonds are voted under this section for the erection of one or more schoolhouses, to be erected on the same or different sites," etc.

In Richardson v. McReynolds, 114 Mo. 641, 21 S. W. 901, it was held that under the foregoing section there was no authority to issue bonds to purchase a schoolhouse site, and that funds for such purchase could be accumulated only on direct taxation and by the taxgatherer. To remedy this condition in 1903 the General Assembly enacted a new section, strictly in pari materia, numbered 9752a (Laws 1903, p. 266 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4473]), reading: "The purpose for which an election may be called to borrow money and to issue bonds therefor under section 9752 of this chapter may, in the judgment of the school...