Lane v. . Stanly

65 N.C. 153
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 153 (Lane v. . Stanly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lane v. . Stanly, 65 N.C. 153 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

*155 Reads, J.

Have township trustees the power to collect' taxes for public schools ?

The Constitution, Art. 7, sec. 4, confers upon townships- “ corporate powers for the necessary purposes of local government.” What is to be the “local government ” we suppose was left to be prescribed by legislation. The “act concerning townships,” Acts 1868-,69, chap. 186, sec. 14, prescribes, that the Board of Trustees shall have authority to lay out, alter, &c., highways, to establish ferries, bridges, cartways, appoint overseers of roads and to allow toll bridges and gates across highways. The only other authority given them is to provide a township house, with a vote of the people. Sec. 11.. It will be noticed that all these are purely local. And no mention is made of schools or of the poor. Of course revenue is necessary for every government, and therefore, what the Board of Trustees are authorized to do, in sections 14 and 11, they are authorized to pay for; and so, in sec. 19, they are empowered to levy a tax for the necessary expenses of the township.

We have already seen that public schools are not one of' the enumerated subjects over which Township Trustees have-control. But it is insisted that, as education is necessary to-good government, they have implied power over it. This would be entitled to much consideration, if public schools were not otherwise provided for. They are otherwise provided for. The school law, Acts 1868-69, chap. 165, sec. 15, provides a School Committee for each Township, who shall establish and maintain for four months in each year, one or more schools. And sec. 18, makes them corporations. This Committee, and not the Township Trustees, have the management of the public schools. This Committee provide the school house, employ the teachers, make rules, &e., and have the immediate management of all school matters in the Township. And unless it was intended to give two *156 ■bodies control over the same thing, it would seem to exclude the Township Trustees altogether.

The Township Trustees have a Treasury and Treasurer; "but they are not allowed to have the possession, or the disbursement, of the school fund, or anything else connected with schools.

But even the School Committee have only the local management of the schools. The Constitution, Art. 7, sec. 2, •gives the “ supervision of schools ” to the County Commis.sioners; they levy the school tax, and in their Treasury is kept the school fund, and their Treasurer disburses the fund, upon the order of the School Committee.

The only thing that militates at all against this view of "the case, is sec. 25, of the School Act, which provides, that, “In case any Township, at the annual meeting, shall fail to provide for schools,” &c., “ the School Committee shall immediately forward to the County Commissioners an estimate ■of the necessary expenses, and a tax, equal to the amount of such estimate, shall be levied on the Township by the •County Commissioners, at the same time that the County taxes are levied,” &c. This would seem to indicate that the Township Trustees are to levy school tax on the Township property; and upon their failure to do so the County Commissioners shall do it.

It will be observed, however, that it does not say so in terms. It does not say, Township Trustees, but simply Ci Townships ” — if any u Township ” shall fail, &c. And this may refer to the Township School Committee, instead of Township Trustees. And as it relates to school matters, with which the Trustees have nothing to do, it ought to be ■understood as referring to the School Committee.

But even with that explanation, it must not be understood that the school committee, anymore than the township trustees, have any taxing power for school purposes. The 25th .section will be further explained by reference to sec. 28, *157 which makes it the duty of the school committee annually to report an estimate of what is needed for schools, to the township trustees; and the township trustees are to report to the County Commissioners, and to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. And we suppose that section 25 means, that if the township trustees fail to make such report, then the School Committee shall make the report directly to the County Commissioners.

The object of the report to the County Commissioners being that they may know what County taxes to lay for school purposes. The school tax is to be general for the County; and then to be apportioned out among the townships according to the number of children in each. And the whole fund is to be in the hands of the County Treasurer, and he is to open an account with each township, and disburse the money upon the orders of the school committee.

But it is to be further considered that not even the County Commissioners have the entire control of public schools.

On the contrary, it was considered a matter of such paramount importance, that its supervision is reserved to the State itself.

The Constitution, Art. IX, declares that “ religion, morality and knowledge are necessary to good government, and the-happiness of mankind,” and makes it the duty of the General Assembly to provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of public schools.” It also provides for a State board of education and a superintendent ; and the General Assembly has made a liberal appropriation' of the taxes, and an additional $100,000 for school purposes. So it will be seen that the Constitution establishes the public school system, and the General Assembly provides for it, by its own taxing power, and by the taxing power of the counties, and the State board of education, by the aid of School committees, manage it. It will be ob served that it is to be a u system ;” it is to be “ general,” *158 and it is to be uniform.” It is not to be subject to tbe caprice of localities, but every locality, yea, every child, is to have the same advantage, and be subject to the same rules ■and regulations.

But would this be if every township were allowed to have its own regulations, and to consult its own caprices ?

In some townships there would be no Schools; in others, inferior ones, and in others extravagant ones, to the oppression of the tax payers.

There would be no uniformity” and but little usefulness, .and the great aim of the government in giving all of its •citizens a good education would be defeated.

It is a mistake to regard the public system as a mere •charity. It is a great governmental consideration. The Constitution requires that every child shall attend” school, and one is not generally required to accept charity. It is a .great truth, that knowledge is necessary to good government; without it, the laborer is nothing but muscle, with neither .•skill nor contrivance, consuming what he produces and adding nothing to general prosperity.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State
805 S.E.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2017)
Richmond Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Cowell
776 S.E.2d 244 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2015)
Leandro v. State
488 S.E.2d 249 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1997)
Leandro v. State
468 S.E.2d 543 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Guilford County Board of Education v. Guilford County Board of Elections
430 S.E.2d 681 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Britt v. North Carolina State Board of Education
357 S.E.2d 432 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)
Kiddie Korner Day Schools, Inc. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
285 S.E.2d 110 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Fletcher v. Collins
218 N.C. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Frazier v. Board of Commissioners
138 S.E. 433 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Stephens Co. v. City of Charlotte
172 N.C. 564 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Stephens v. . Charlotte
90 S.E. 588 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Trustees of the Goldsboro Graded School v. Broadhurst
13 S.E. 781 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)
State v. . Patterson
74 N.C. 157 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-stanly-nc-1871.