Schultes v. Eberly

82 Ala. 242
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 82 Ala. 242 (Schultes v. Eberly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schultes v. Eberly, 82 Ala. 242 (Ala. 1886).

Opinion

CLOPTON, J.

— By authority of the eleventh section of “ An act to establish a separate school district, to be known as the Cullman School District, in Cullman county, Alabama, and for the appointment of trustees for said school district, with certain powers and privileges,” the trustees levied a tax, which the appellant paid under compulsion, protest, and with notice of suit; and he now sues to recover the amount. — Acts 1884-85, p. 461. The question is, whether, under the State constitution, it is competent for the legislature to delegate to the trustees the power to tax. We have thus limited the question, as we do not wish what may be said to be understood as applicable to school districts created within the corporate limits of a municipal corporation, where the power to tax resides in the muni[243]*243cipal authorities, and is not in excess of the constitutional limitation. Though the amount in controversy is insignificant, great importance attaches to the question, as it touches and materially affects the legislative attempts, which have come into practice during the last few years, to extend and impart more efficiency to the system of public education, by the establishment of separate school districts, with powers in the trustees to supplement their share of the general school fund by the levy and collection of a special and additional tax. Its consideration should be approached under a due sense, on the one hand, of the incalculable advantages and benefits of a pervading and efficient system of public education; and, on the other, of the individual rights and public interests dependent on maintain^ ing intact the organic law, the declared will of the sovereign people.

The legislative power, conferred on the General Assembly, is plenary, except as restrained by the Federal and State constitutions, and by the rule, that it must be legislative in character and purpose. Whoever asserts the uncohistitutionality of a statute, assumes the burden to show some constitutional prohibition violated, or some limitation exceeded. The prohibition or limitation need not be express; it is sufficient if such is the manifest implication from the tenor and spirit of all the provisions relating to the subject-matter. The taxing power is legislative, and, being an incident of sovereignty, is only limited as to, the subjects and rates of taxation, in the absence of constitutional limitation, by public purposes and the needs of the government.. But we have not to deal with the power to tax, as conferred on the General Assembly. The right to exercise legislative power, and to delegate it to subordinate agencies and auxiliaries, are essentially different questions. The rule of constitutional law is, that when the constitution creates a department, on which sovereign power is conferred, the grant is exclusive, except as its delegation may be.authorized by the granting instrument. The power to tax, so unlimited in capacity, so far-reaching in effect, and so liable to abuse, peculiarly falls within the operation of this rule. — Cooley on Tax. 61. Whoever, in such case, asserts competency to delegate, assumes the onus to show constitutional authority, express or clearly implied.

Article 13 of the constitution (1875) commands: “The General Assembly shall establish, organize and maintain a system of public schools throughout the State, for the equal benefit of the children thereof.” The duty being enjoined, it is insisted that the incidental and necessary powers to [244]*244its performance should be implied, including not only the power to establish separate school districts, but also to confer on the trustees of such school districts the power to tax for educational purposes. The article designates special funds and a special tax, which, with such moneys as the General Assembly shall provide by taxation or otherwise, constitute the public school fund, which it is made the duty of the General Assembly to increase, from time to time, as the condition of the treasury and the resources of the State will admit. Section 4 declares, that the General Assembly shall provide for the levying and collection of an annual poll-tax, which shall be applied to the support of the public schools in the counties in which it is levied and collected. Other than a poll-tax, the article does not import that taxes shall be imposed specially for educational purposes. It seems to contemplate, that the moneys, which the General Assembly shall provide by taxation, are to be raised under the general taxing power, in the same manner as the general revenue is raised, and to be appropriated in such amounts as the condition of the treasury and the resources of the State may justify, but not to be less than one hundred thousand dollars per annum. The public school system, which the constitution enjoins shall be established, organized and maintained, extends throughout the State, and is for the equal benefit of the children thereof, operating upon and in favor of all alike, without special local rights, privileges, or burdens. In addition to the special funds enumerated, and a poll-tax, the power of taxation, as conferred on the General Assembly, and limited by the constitution, was deemed a proper and sufficient mode of discharging this legislative, duty. ' While there can be no question of the power of the legislature to establish separate school districts, and to create them bodies corporate, as auxiliaries in the administration of the general system, the constitution makes no provision for such districts, and no implied powers arise.

The “Cullman School District” is not created a corporation in terms; but we shall regard it, by implication, as a public corporation, being for public purposes, as otherwise it would be a palpable violation of the constitutional prohibition, “No power to levy taxes shall be delegated to individuals or private corporations.” There being no express authority conferred, the power to delegate must be implied ; but the implication only extends to such public corporations as are established exceptions to the general rule of incompetency to delegate. Says Justice Cooley: “There is, nevertheless, one clearly defined exception to the rule, [245]*245that the legislature shall not delegate any portion of its authority. The exception, however, is strictly in harmony with the general features of our political system, and it rests upon an implication of popular assent, which is conclusive. The exception relates to the case of municipal corporations.” Such corporations, being considered parts of the machinery of the government, governmental agencies necessary and most effective to manage the local affairs of the people residing in the designated locality, by custom immemorial, a portion of the political powers of the State has been delegated to them, to be exercised in local administration; and the authority to delegate, if not expresslj’ incorporated in the constitution, may be regarded as clearly implied. Cooley on Tax., 63. On this principle the framers of the constitution acted. The convention; without conferring express authority to delegate to municipal and like corporations, and yet recognizing and admitting its manifest implication, deemed it sufficient to declare limitations upon the extent of the delegation. Hence, after creating limitations upon the power of the General Assembly as to equality and rate of taxation on property, limitations upon the power of counties, cities, towms, and other municipal corporations, were also created in the same article of the constitution.

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

Related

Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc.
143 So. 3d 1 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2012)
Dobbs v. SHELBY COUNTY ECON. & IND. DEV. AUTH.
749 So. 2d 425 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1999)
Dobbs v. Shelby County Economic & Industrial Development Authority
749 So. 2d 425 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1999)
Ex Parte James
713 So. 2d 869 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1997)
Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. v. James
713 So. 2d 869 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1997)
Crow v. McAlpine
285 S.E.2d 355 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)
Opinion of the Justices
155 So. 2d 343 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Al Means, Inc. v. City of Montgomery
104 So. 2d 816 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Rollings v. Marshall County
82 So. 2d 428 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Department of Ind. Rel. v. West Boylston Mfg. Co.
42 So. 2d 787 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
In Re Opinion of the Justices
42 So. 2d 81 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Stewart v. City of Cheyenne
154 P.2d 355 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1944)
Wilson v. Philadelphia School District
195 A. 90 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman
174 So. 516 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Tucker v. State Ex Rel. Poole
165 So. 249 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
In Re Opinions of the Justices
155 So. 699 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Collins v. Hollis
102 So. 379 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Bradley v. State Ex Rel. Rockwell
97 So. 543 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Hill v. Moody
93 So. 422 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Harkins v. Smith
85 So. 812 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 Ala. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultes-v-eberly-ala-1886.