State v. Long
| Decision Date | 31 March 1898 |
| Citation | 52 P. 645,21 Mont. 26 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BRAY et al. v. LONG et al. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Silver Bow county; William Clancy Judge.
Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of Edwin Bray, O. J McConnell, F. E. Curtis, and J. A. Baker, against Joseph V Long, John B. Frederic, Michael Burke, and Augustus T Morgan. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff and relators appeal. Affirmed.
The relators allege that on the first Saturday of April, 1894, an election was held within and for school district No. 1, Silver Bow county, pursuant to the provisions of the law, for the election of trustees of said school district for the term of three years immediately succeeding said election; that at said election the plaintiffs Bray, McConnell, and Curtis received the greatest number of legal votes cast for trustees of said school district for the term aforesaid, and were duly declared elected, and were duly qualified to serve, and did qualify as required by law, and entered upon the discharge of the duties, until prevented from continuing to discharge the duties by the wrongful acts of the defendants; that on April 17, 1897, the defendants usurped the offices of school trustees, held as aforesaid by the relators, and without authority held and still hold and exercise the functions of school trustees. The prayer of the complaint is for a judgment that the defendants are not entitled to said offices, and that they be ousted therefrom, and that the relators are entitled to said offices, and that they be put into possession of the same. The answer contains a denial of the material allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively avers that on the first Saturday of April, 1897, an election for school trustees was duly held for school district No. 1, Silver Bow county, under the provisions of "an act to amend sections 1770 and 1782, inclusive, of article IV, chapter VI, title III, part III, Political Code, relating to the election of school trustees, and to amend said article by adding thereto six sections," etc., approved March 6, 1897; that at said election, which was regularly held, the defendants, who had been duly nominated and who were duly qualified, were elected as school trustees, and the result of such election was duly declared, and the said defendants did duly qualify pursuant to law, and ever since April 17, 1897, have been in the possession and entitled to the possession of their respective offices as school trustees of said school district, and have ever since discharged the duties pertaining to said offices; and that the defendants Long, Frederic, and Burke were each elected for the term of three years as the successors of the relators Bray, McConnell, and Curtis. It is further alleged that the relators voluntarily surrendered their offices to the defendants. The relators denied the affirmative matter in the defendants' answer, and, in effect, averred that the act under which the defendants claim to have been elected school trustees is unconstitutional and void. The cause was tried to the court without a jury on March 1, 1898. Evidence was heard, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants and against the relators. The plaintiff and the relators appeal from the judgment. The appeal to this court was submitted three days ago.
E. N. Harwood, for relators.
Emmett Callahan, for respondents.
The questions raised by this appeal are very important, and of public concern. They affect several school elections in the state, and that the electors may be correctly guided as to what laws obtain, controlling school elections to be held a few days hence, we are asked to decide the case at once. We shall do so, having given our attentive consideration to the points presented since their submission to the court. But owing to the pressure of time, we shall very briefly and succinctly review the several arguments relied upon, and urged upon our consideration.
It is conceded that the principal question involved is the constitutionality of the act of the Fifth legislative assembly designated as "Senate Bill No. 56," entitled "An act to amend sections 1770 and 1782, inclusive, of article IV, chapter VI, title III, part III, Political Code, relating to the election of school trustees, and to amend said article by adding thereto six additional sections with reference to the election of school trustees, providing for registration in certain districts and compensation for school trustees in certain districts, and repealing all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith." Laws Mont. 5th Sess. p. 136. The relators challenge the constitutionality of said law upon eight grounds. We shall examine them seriatim:
1. It is said that the law is unconstitutional because it breaks and destroys the system and uniformity required by Const. ord. 1, § 4, and article 11, § 1, which requires provision to be made for the establishment and maintenance of a uniform system of public schools, and that the legislative assembly shall establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free, common schools. We do not believe that by the constitutional section cited there is any restriction upon the right of the legislative assembly to classify school districts for purposes of election of trustees with relation to population, so long as the law passed makes a reasonable classification, and is reasonable and uniform in its operation and effect upon all districts within any classification made. The classification may only extend to a few districts this year, yet that does not impair the validity of the law; for another year it may govern many more districts, and must, if they have sufficient population to be brought within the classification provided for. State v. Donavan (Nev.) 15 P. 783. Nor do we think such a law breaks or destroys the system in the establishment and maintenance of the public schools. The uniformity and thoroughness of a system of public schools are not interfered with by providing for a general and reasonable method of the election of trustees, even if the methods of election vary according to the number of inhabitants in the several districts.
2. It is said the law is local and special, hence is unconstitutional, under section 26, art. 5, of the constitution. We hold to the contrary. It is not local, for it may and does apply to any or all school districts of certain populations within the state. It is not special, because it applies without discrimination to all districts within any of the several classifications made. It does not regulate elections by prescribing different voting qualifications in any one district from those prescribed in other districts. Its provisions in this respect control in every district within the several classifications made. The mere fact that in districts of the first class the election shall be under the supervision of the board of county commissioners, while in districts of the second class elections are under the supervision of school trustees, does not make it a local or special law, or destroy the uniformity and system in respect to the common schools. A particular method of supervision of an election, if common to all districts of a certain class, does not change the system of the schools at all; nor does it make the law defining the power of such supervision, and vesting it in the county commissioners, a special law.
3. It is argued that, excepting sections 1770 and 1782, the bill is unconstitutional because the title is, "An act to amend sections 1770 and 1782, inclusive, of article IV, chapter VI, title III, part III, Political Code," etc. The omission to specifically enumerate the sections between sections 1770 and 1782, and which are very plainly covered by the word "inclusive," is not fatal to the bill. No one could misunderstand the title, or be misled by the words of it. It fairly apprised one of the subject of the legislation, and that the entire number of sections of a certain specified article of the Code, from section 1770 to 1782, inclusive, thereof, were to be amended.
4. It is next argued that it is unconstitutional in that it permits persons to vote...
To continue reading
Request your trial