Landis, J.
This appeal is from a judgment of the lower court in a declaratory judgment action holding the annexation ordinance of appellee, City of Ft. Wayne, to be valid but holding that for school purposes the territory annexed remained under the jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools, and did not by reason of being annexed to the city of Ft. Wayne come within the jurisdiction of the appellant, Ft. Wayne Community Schools (successor to School City of Ft. Wayne).
As appellees in oral argument have waived all matters raised on their assignment of cross-errors, no question is before us on this appeal as to the validity of that portion of the finding and judgment sustaining the annexation by the city of Ft. Wayne. Appellant concedes that the only question before us for review pertains to that portion of the finding and judgment, holding, however, that for school purposes the territory annexed remained under the jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools, and did not by reason of the civil annexation come within the jurisdiction of appellant Ft. Wayne Community Schools.
It has always been the policy of this state to foster and encourage education and it is provided in the Constitution of Indiana that it is the duty of the General Assembly to provide by law for a general and uniform system of common schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge and
equally open to all. Art. 8, §1, Constitution of Indiana;
School City
v.
Harrison School Tp.
(1916), 184 Ind. 742, 746, 112 N. E. 514;
State ex rel. Harris, etc.
v.
Mutschler, et al.
(1953), 232 Ind. 580, 115 N. E. 2d 206.
The legislature has the exclusive right and power to determine how and by what instrumentalities the education system of this state shall be administered and carried into effect. School corporations organized under or by virtue of the laws of the state, are for the sole purpose of administering the state system of public education. The central authority over schools and school affairs being in the General Assembly, its discretion should be respected by local authorities and the courts, unless there is a clear violation of some section of the constitution.
The State ex rel. Clark
v.
Haworth, School Trustee, Etc.
(1890), 122 Ind. 462, 465, 23 N. E. 946;
Freel
v.
The School City of Crawfordsville
(1895), 142 Ind. 27, 41 N. E. 312, 37 L.R.A. 801;
Ratcliff
v.
Dick Johnson School Twp.
(1933), 204 Ind. 525, 531, 185 N. E. 143.
In the case before us, in 1954 the common council of the city of Ft. Wayne, acting pursuant to Burns’ §48-702 (1950 Replacement), annexed certain territory to the city of Ft. Wayne, which territory lay within the territorial jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools.
The New Haven Public Schools had been previously organized in 1948 as a consolidated school corporation under Burns’ §28-5901,
et seq.,
(1948 Replacement).
This appeal raises the question of the effect of this territorial annexation by the city of Ft. Wayne upon appellee consolidated school corporation which was formed by the consolidation of the two previous school
corporations of New Haven School Town and Adams School Township, both of Allen County, Indiana.
The early statutes governing the establishment of school corporations in this state created and made school townships, school towns, and school cities coextensive with their counterparts among the civil townships, civil towns, and civil cities of this state.
And subsequent statutes have provided for the acquisition of property of a school corporation by another school corporation upon civil annexation proceedings, etc., and have made provision for the payment of compensation for the property thereby acquired.
None of these statutes, however, specifically mention or attempt to deal with the acquisition of property of a consolidated school corporation upon annexation proceedings by a civil unit of government.
The school consolidation law under which appellee New Haven Public Schools was organized,
provides among other things that upon the accomplishment of a school consolidation under the act the old school corporation or entity is deemed to be abandoned and all the former property and rights accrue to the new consolidated corporation.
It is further provided that the new consolidated corporation is deemed to be a school corporation separate and distinct from any civil corporation.
To understand the legislative intent behind the school consolidation laws, we must observe the history of the changes that have taken place in our society since the close of World War I and during which
period numerous laws providing for consolidated school districts, joint high school districts, metropolitan school districts, and others have been enacted.
The day of the one room school house is gone, and with each passing year come greater demands for better school facilities and instruction. The situation has not been relaxed with the advent of “sputnik” and the space age. To meet the financial burden imposed by the requirement of better schools in rural and urban areas, the legislature has found it necessary to enlarge the tax base supporting the local school unit. This has necessitated getting away from the identification of school district boundaries with the boundaries of civil units, and the many attempts of the General Assembly to deal with school consolidation in the past 40 years are but expressions of the legislative intent in this direction.
We thus have a history of legislation upon the subject of Consolidation of Schools which has an intent manifestly different from that motivating the annexation of civil units of government. The earlier statutes governing the normal identification of school districts with the boundaries of civil units of government upon annexation have served a useful purpose in the situation they were intended to encompass. But we have not been directed to any evidence that these statutes were intended to be extended to school consolidations which frequently have as their purpose the obliteration rather than the recognition of civil boundv ary lines in the interest of a better education system. The 1948 Consolidation Act under which the instant consolidation was effected is a more recent legislative expression than the annexation statutes under which the civil annexation was accomplished; and of course the rule is well settled that in case of conflict between stat
utes upon a particular subject matter, it is the later expression of the legislature which controls.
See:
Hamilton County Council
v.
State ex rel. Groff
(1949), 227 Ind. 608, 613, 87 N. E. 2d 810;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Landis, J.
This appeal is from a judgment of the lower court in a declaratory judgment action holding the annexation ordinance of appellee, City of Ft. Wayne, to be valid but holding that for school purposes the territory annexed remained under the jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools, and did not by reason of being annexed to the city of Ft. Wayne come within the jurisdiction of the appellant, Ft. Wayne Community Schools (successor to School City of Ft. Wayne).
As appellees in oral argument have waived all matters raised on their assignment of cross-errors, no question is before us on this appeal as to the validity of that portion of the finding and judgment sustaining the annexation by the city of Ft. Wayne. Appellant concedes that the only question before us for review pertains to that portion of the finding and judgment, holding, however, that for school purposes the territory annexed remained under the jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools, and did not by reason of the civil annexation come within the jurisdiction of appellant Ft. Wayne Community Schools.
It has always been the policy of this state to foster and encourage education and it is provided in the Constitution of Indiana that it is the duty of the General Assembly to provide by law for a general and uniform system of common schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge and
equally open to all. Art. 8, §1, Constitution of Indiana;
School City
v.
Harrison School Tp.
(1916), 184 Ind. 742, 746, 112 N. E. 514;
State ex rel. Harris, etc.
v.
Mutschler, et al.
(1953), 232 Ind. 580, 115 N. E. 2d 206.
The legislature has the exclusive right and power to determine how and by what instrumentalities the education system of this state shall be administered and carried into effect. School corporations organized under or by virtue of the laws of the state, are for the sole purpose of administering the state system of public education. The central authority over schools and school affairs being in the General Assembly, its discretion should be respected by local authorities and the courts, unless there is a clear violation of some section of the constitution.
The State ex rel. Clark
v.
Haworth, School Trustee, Etc.
(1890), 122 Ind. 462, 465, 23 N. E. 946;
Freel
v.
The School City of Crawfordsville
(1895), 142 Ind. 27, 41 N. E. 312, 37 L.R.A. 801;
Ratcliff
v.
Dick Johnson School Twp.
(1933), 204 Ind. 525, 531, 185 N. E. 143.
In the case before us, in 1954 the common council of the city of Ft. Wayne, acting pursuant to Burns’ §48-702 (1950 Replacement), annexed certain territory to the city of Ft. Wayne, which territory lay within the territorial jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools.
The New Haven Public Schools had been previously organized in 1948 as a consolidated school corporation under Burns’ §28-5901,
et seq.,
(1948 Replacement).
This appeal raises the question of the effect of this territorial annexation by the city of Ft. Wayne upon appellee consolidated school corporation which was formed by the consolidation of the two previous school
corporations of New Haven School Town and Adams School Township, both of Allen County, Indiana.
The early statutes governing the establishment of school corporations in this state created and made school townships, school towns, and school cities coextensive with their counterparts among the civil townships, civil towns, and civil cities of this state.
And subsequent statutes have provided for the acquisition of property of a school corporation by another school corporation upon civil annexation proceedings, etc., and have made provision for the payment of compensation for the property thereby acquired.
None of these statutes, however, specifically mention or attempt to deal with the acquisition of property of a consolidated school corporation upon annexation proceedings by a civil unit of government.
The school consolidation law under which appellee New Haven Public Schools was organized,
provides among other things that upon the accomplishment of a school consolidation under the act the old school corporation or entity is deemed to be abandoned and all the former property and rights accrue to the new consolidated corporation.
It is further provided that the new consolidated corporation is deemed to be a school corporation separate and distinct from any civil corporation.
To understand the legislative intent behind the school consolidation laws, we must observe the history of the changes that have taken place in our society since the close of World War I and during which
period numerous laws providing for consolidated school districts, joint high school districts, metropolitan school districts, and others have been enacted.
The day of the one room school house is gone, and with each passing year come greater demands for better school facilities and instruction. The situation has not been relaxed with the advent of “sputnik” and the space age. To meet the financial burden imposed by the requirement of better schools in rural and urban areas, the legislature has found it necessary to enlarge the tax base supporting the local school unit. This has necessitated getting away from the identification of school district boundaries with the boundaries of civil units, and the many attempts of the General Assembly to deal with school consolidation in the past 40 years are but expressions of the legislative intent in this direction.
We thus have a history of legislation upon the subject of Consolidation of Schools which has an intent manifestly different from that motivating the annexation of civil units of government. The earlier statutes governing the normal identification of school districts with the boundaries of civil units of government upon annexation have served a useful purpose in the situation they were intended to encompass. But we have not been directed to any evidence that these statutes were intended to be extended to school consolidations which frequently have as their purpose the obliteration rather than the recognition of civil boundv ary lines in the interest of a better education system. The 1948 Consolidation Act under which the instant consolidation was effected is a more recent legislative expression than the annexation statutes under which the civil annexation was accomplished; and of course the rule is well settled that in case of conflict between stat
utes upon a particular subject matter, it is the later expression of the legislature which controls.
See:
Hamilton County Council
v.
State ex rel. Groff
(1949), 227 Ind. 608, 613, 87 N. E. 2d 810;
Brumfield, Tr.
v.
State ex rel. Wallace
(1934), 206 Ind. 647, 654, 190 N. E. 863.
We believe that the annexation statutes can be construed in a manner compatible with the purpose and intent of the school consolidation statutes, without defeating the purpose of annexation and without causing untold confusion between the civil and school corporations in a particular area. And as the annexation statutes do not expressly provide for the acquisition of a consolidated school corporation, we do not believe the language and construction given the earlier annexation statutes should be extended to cover the acquisition of consolidated school districts in the face of the spirit and intent of the school consolidation statutes which militate to the contrary.
It is our duty to construe statutes in the most beneficial way which their language will permit to prevent absurdity, hardship, and injustice, to favor public convenience and to oppose injury to the public interest. And, as we have observed on other occasions, the importance of preventing evil and hardship may properly be a consideration in reaching the proper construction of a statute when the language is ambiguous, uncertain, or doubtful.
See:
State ex rel.
v.
Ogan
(1902), 159 Ind. 119, 126, 63 N. E. 227;
Hamilton
v.
Huntington
(1944), 223 Ind. 143, 147, 58 N. E. 2d 349, 59 N. E. 2d. 122; 2 Horack’s Sutherland Statutory Construction (3d Ed.) §4704.
It is too apparent for extended discussion to remark that this is particularly true where the hardships and
evils of a different construction could readily affect adversely the educational opportunities of children. This is in accordance with the policy of the state to foster and encourage education as enjoined upon the legislature by the Constitution of Indiana and does not unlawfully prejudice the rights of others.
It is our conclusion that the finding and judgment of the lower court were correct in holding that for school purposes the territory annexed by the city of Ft. Wayne in the annexation proceedings remained under the jurisdiction of appellee, New Haven Public Schools, and did not by reason of the civil annexation come within the jurisdiction of appellant, Ft. Wayne Community Schools.
Judgment affirmed.
Achor, C. J., and Arterburn, Jackson and Bobbitt, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 159 N. E. 2d 708.