Stevens v. St. Mary's Training Sch.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1893
• Citation: 32 N.E. 962,144 Ill. 336
• Parties: STEVENS et al. v. ST. MARY'S TRAINING SCHOOL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

144 Ill. 336

32 N.E. 962

STEVENS et al.

v.ST. MARY'S TRAINING SCHOOL et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 19, 1893.

Error to circuit court, Cook county; O. H. HORTON, Judge. Affirmed.F. C. Russell

, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. W. Smith, for defendants in error.

The facts fully appear in the following statement by MAGRUDER, J.:

This is a bill filed on January 12, 1889, in the circuit court of Cook county by Edward A. Stevens and John M. Stiles, of the city of Chicago, in said county, in behalf of themselves, as citizens and taxpayers, and on behalf of all other citizens and taxpayers who may choose to be made parties, against St. Mary's Training School, a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, and its officers, the board of commissioners of Cook county, and its members, and George R. Davis, the treasurer of Cook county, for the purpose of enjoining said school and its officers from setting up or prosecuting against said county any claim for aid or compensation for the subsistence, shelter, clothing, care, or instruction of its wards or inmates, and from making any contract with said county with reference to such aid or compensation, and for the purpose of enjoining said board, and its members and agents, from approving or ordering paid any such claim, and from making any such contract, and from doing anything to promote or abet the payment of any such aid or compensation, or the making of any such contract, and for the purpose of enjoining said county treasurer from paying out of any public funds in his custody any sum of money whatever on any claim of said school, or for its aid, or for compensation to it for such subsistence, shelter, clothing, care, or instruction. A preliminary injunction was granted, in accordance with the prayer of the bill. A demurrer was filed to the bill by the training school and its officers, which was ordered to stand as the demurrer of all the defendants. The cause was heard upon said demurrer, as the demurrer of all the defendants, and upon such hearing the circuit court dismissed the bill for want of equity. The present appeal is prosecuted from such decree of dismissal.

The bill alleges that said school or corporation, and its officers, propose and intend to procure, out of the public funds of the county, money to aid it, and for its use and benefit; that said corporation is a school and institution under church control, within the meaning of section 3 of article 8 of the constitution of this state; that said board and its members propose and intend to aid and abet the said interest of such church school by contracting to pay said moneys, and by approving quarterly its claims, and ordering the same paid; that said treasurer intends to pay said approved claims; that said proposals and intentions involve violations of the public trusts reposed in said board and in said treasurer, in that the same are contrary to the form and effect of said constitutional provision; that said corporation was instituted, and has been and is maintained, as an instrumentality of the Roman Catholic Church; that one of its main purposes is to effectuate the religious objects of said church; that said church is provided with a most efficient organization, and is able to sway its members in all matters involving their religion; that it deems itself specially and exclusively commissioned to teach religious truths; that it has an elaborate scheme of religious doctrines, whose acceptance its priests and adherents strive earnestly to promote; that its policy is to control the education of the young, and to surround them with its influence; that said training school is governed and controlled, in accordance with said policy, by priests and laymen devoted to said church, zealous to promote its designs, and obeying its wishes without dissent; that the consequence of sending a minor child to said school is to put him in training to become a Roman Catholic churchman; that the governing purpose to be effected by said school is to mold the inmates thereof, as much as possible, into Roman Catholic Church members; that no other teaching except that of said church is tolerated at said school, and all of the teachers are members, and most of them ecclesiastics, of that church; that for a number of years said board have contracted with said school for the reception into it of boys sent there as provided by the ‘Act to provide for and to aid training schools for boys,’ approved June 18, 1883, for their subsistence, clothing, shelter, instruction, and training during their residence there, and for the payment to said school, out of the public funds in the custody of the county treasurer, various graded sums per month for each of said boys so sent; that by means thereof large sums of money have been misappropriated unwarrantably, and in contempt of said constitutional provisions; that the most recent of said contracts expired by its terms on December 31, 1888, that by a decision of the supreme court of Illinois the members of said board and the officers of said school were well advised of the illegality of such misappropriation of the public funds, and of such contracts in relation thereto, yet in despite thereof the said school, its officers and management, have presented for allowance to said board a claim in aid of said school, pursuant to said contract expiring December 31, 1888, and for the quarter at that date terminating, amounting to the sum of $2,313, and have applied to said board to renew their contract on the old terms for another year; that complainants have been informed and believe that said board, unless enjoined therefrom, will affirm and order paid said claim of $2,313, and renew said contract; that, from inquiry made and information acquired, complainants aver that members of said board, in number sufficient to approve said claim and said contract, and to order the same paid and executed, ‘are already pledged, in secret, to the promoters of said claim and contract;’ that said school refrains as much as possible from permitting its constitution, rules, by-laws, and operation to be known, and secrecy governs the conduct of those interested in its management; that this reticence is observed for the reason that the real rules by which said school is administered could not be definitely expressed without manifesting the fact that said school has the character of a purely Roman Catholic institution, that, in the hope that said school may appear in the eyes of non-Catholics as a nonsectarian institution, and for the purpose of obtaining in its aid payments out of the public funds, the promoters of said school pretend and claim that it has not a church or sectarian character, and that there is nothing in its character that stamps it as such; that the control of said institution has been from the first, and is intended to be, in the care of those who have special favor for the Roman Catholic Church and its religious interests, and will allow its wishes to govern their conduct in reference to said school. The bill prays that all contracts of said school with reference to the payment to it, out of any of the public funds of said county, of any claim for aid or compensation for the subsistence, shelter, clothing, care, or instruction of any of its wards or inmates, and especially the contract mentioned as expiring December 31, 1888, may be decreed and adjudged wholly void and of no binding effect, and that an injunction may issue against said school and its officers, said board and its members, and said county treasurer, enjoining them in manner and form as above stated.

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

The bill in this case was demurred to, and therefore its statements must be assumed to be true. It alleges that the defendant in error, the St. Mary's Training School, is a corporation which is controlled by the Roman Catholic Church; and that the board of commissioners of Cook county has made contracts with said corporation for the payment to it, out of the funds of the county, of certain moneys, for the instruction and training of boys committed to its care. That such contracts are void, and such payments illegal, is settled by the decision of this court in Cook Co. v. Chicago Industrial School, 125 Ill. 540, 18 N. E. Rep. 183. It was there held that county boards in this state have no power to appropriate county funds in aid or support of sectarian schools, or of any school controlled by a church. The constitution of Illinois is very emphatic upon this subject, and the language in which its meaning is expressed is too plain to be misunderstood. Section 3 of article 8 of that instrument is as follows: ‘Neither the general assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help, support, or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the state or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.’

But the question presented by the record is whether a court of chancery has power to enjoin a board of county commissioners from passing a resolution that an illegal contract be made by the county, and from making an order that an illegal claim be allowed against the county. The bill prays that the county board may be enjoined from making contracts with the training school in the future, and also from ordering the payment to said school of a balance due for the quarter ending December 31, 1888, upon a contract already existing between the board and the school. Has equity the power to enjoin the passage of ordinances, by-laws, resolutions, and orders by municipal...