Opinion
September 27, 1948.
1. Consolidated school districts — bonds of.
Section 4341, Code 1942, dealing with consolidated school specified areas, expressly provides that all other provisions of law with reference to bonds for consolidated school districts shall apply to such specified areas, and thereby Sections 4342 and 6370, Code 1942, dealing with the same subject, are in pari materia with Section 4341, and they are to be construed together, each as a part of the other.
2. Statutory construction, statutes in pari materia.
When several different sections of a Code deal with the same subject matter, these sections are to be so interpreted that they shall harmonize with each other and that each shall stand with as full effect as possible, consistently with the other related sections, and that they shall each be made to fit into the general and dominant policy of the particular system of which they are a part.
3. Election for issuance of consolidated school bonds — when not necessary.
The dominant policy of the cited sections, 4341, 4342 and 6370, Code 1942, is that no bonds for a consolidated school district shall be issued without the consent of the majority of the qualified electors of the district. When the majority of the electors have signified their consent by a petition for the issuance of the bonds, it shall not be necessary to have them repeat at the polls what they have already expressed in their majority petition.
4. Bonds for consolidated schools — purposes within the statute so authorized.
The terms used in statutes authorizing the issuance of bonds are to be construed in their most comprehensive sense, so that if the purposes to be accomplished are within the purposes specified by the statute they are within the statute. Hence a petition "to construct, erect, and equip a new school building; to move, relocate, make alterations and additions to the existing principal's residence, and to move, relocate, make alterations and additions to the church building located on the school property and now being used as a school building" is within the statute, Section 4341, Code 1942, which authorizes bonds for constructing school buildings and teachers homes, and equipping said school buildings and teachers' homes." See also Section 6370, Code 1942.
Roberds and McGehee, JJ., dissenting in part.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hinds County; H.B. GILLESPIE, J.
Chambers Trenholm, for appellants.
The Board of Supervisors had no authority to issue the bonds here involved without an election.
Appellees will of course assert that under the case of In re Validation of Bonds of Orange Grove Consolidated School District, 187 Miss. 373, 193 So. 6, the Board of Supervisors had a right to issue these bonds without an election, under authority of Sec. 6370. That case, however, dealt with a consolidated school district, not a specified area district, and this court was careful to note that "The petition did not require an election to be called, but for the sole authority relied on, referred specifically to Section 6643, Code 1930." (Sec. 6643, 1930 is the same as Sec. 6370, Code 1942). Thereupon an order was entered in accordance with the petition, and validation proceedings were instituted, whereupon, notwithstanding 133 out of 161 of the qualified electors had petitioned for the issuance of the bonds, 112 of them appeared and protested. It was held that such change of mind came too late to find place in the validation proceedings, and that the clause "in the manner provided for by law" in Sec. 6643 did not operate to bring into that section the provisions of Sec. 6737 of 1930 (Sec. 6532, Code of 1942) nor Chapter 152, Code of 1930 (the public debt statutes) so as to require an election. By the same token we submit that a similar phrase in Sec. 4341 cannot operate to bring into that section the conflicting provisions of Sec. 6370. It will be noted that Sec. 4341 was one of the statutes used as a predicate for the bonds in the case at bar, and necessarily so, and that Section and Sec. 4342 are mandatory as to an election, and were complete in themselves as to creation of the district, authority for the issuance of the bonds, manner of expenditure of the money, manner of holding the election, purposes of the issue, and time limit as to issuance, with a reference to other acts as to the other details. There was no necessity to refer to Section 6370. It may be that in the Orange Grove case, predicated solely upon Sec. 6370, this court was justified in saying that it was not necessary to incur the expense and delay of having the electors repeat at the polls what they had expressed in their petition, so that the words "in the manner provided for by law" in that section had reference only to "the details of the issuance, and not to the primary question whether or not the bonds shall be issued." In this case, however, where Section 4341 is the only predicate for the issuance of the bonds, and is referred to in the petition, the order and bonds, we submit that its mandatory requirement as to an election, coupled with the requirements of Sec. 4342, cannot be dispensed with by the reference to other laws as to issuance, payment, levy of taxes, etc., but that that reference, as in the Orange Grove case, must be limited to "the details of the issuance" herein above mentioned. In its final analysis, therefore, the Orange Grove Case is more of an authority for the contention of the appellants than for that of the appellees.
The purposes for which the bonds here involved were authorized to be issued are not within the statute authorizing such bonds.
In the case of Vollar v. Warren County, 156 Miss. 625, 126 So. 390, it was held that where bonds were authorized to remodel and repair a court house, they were invalid for the purpose of erecting a building separate from the court house.
In a case arising under Sec. 6643, Code of 1930, now Sec. 6370, Code of 1942, the petition asked the issuance of bonds of a consolidated school district "for the purpose of rebuilding, remodeling and repairing the present school building and teachers' homes situated in said district, and for the purpose of equipping said school building and furnishing the same with all necessary school supplies." The notice of election upon said bond issue stated the same purposes (facts in syllabus by the court), and the resolution of the Board did likewise (quotation from opinion by Circuit Judge). This court affirmed the Circuit Judge in holding that the addition of the words: "furnishing the same with all necessary school supplies" rendered the bonds illegal, notwithstanding the use of the words "equip school buildings" in said section 6643, and quoted him with approval as follows: "I think in all bond issues the purposes for same should be free from ambiguity. The proceedings should clearly show such purposes upon their face, and show with such certainty that their issuance will be wholly within the statutory power." Board of Supervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733.
In a later case involving bonds of a consolidated school district sought to be issued under the same statute, the purposes were stated to be: "to erect, repair and equip school buildings, teachers' homes, etc." On appeal this court, after quoting the purposes set forth in the statute (the same as now contained in Sec. 6370), and the purposes as set forth in the petition, said:
"The quoted statute expressly states the purposes for which the bonds may be issued thereunder, and contains no such language as to permit the indefinite construction that it would be available for purposes of like kind and character. It will be observed, however, that the petition contains the following language: `to erect, repair and equip school buildings, teachers' homes, etc.' The three letters last quoted constitute an abbreviation of et cetera, and according to the great weight of authoritative opinion, as cited by both sides, this term, when following things particularly named, means `and other things of like kind or purpose as compared with those immediately theretofore mentioned.'
"The petition requested, therefore, that the bonds be issued to erect, repair and equip school buildings, teachers' homes, and for other purposes of like character — from which it follows that the petition was broader than the statute, prayed for things which the statute did not embrace, and therefore falls within the principles announced in Board of Supervisors v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733.
"Thus it is that the salutary principle declared in the Clark case, supra, comes into decisive operation, namely, that in all bond issues of this nature the purposes for same shall be free from ambiguity; that the proceedings for their issuance must clearly show such purposes upon their face, and show it with such certainty as will distinctly disclose that their issuance will be definitely within the statutory authority." Hisaw v. School District, 189 Miss. 664, 198 So. 557.
Avery Putnam and Geo. J. Schweizer, Jr., for appellee.
Sections 4341, 6370 and 6370-01, Code of 1942, are not in conflict, and section 6370 has been construed as providing for the issuance of consolidated school bonds without an election.
Section 5982, Code of 1930; Chapter 48, Laws of 1938; Chapter 147, Laws of 1942; In Re Validation Bonds of Orange Grove Consolidated School District, 187 Miss. 373, 193 So. 6.
Appellees' construction that consolidated school specified areas, which are authorized by sec. 4341, may issue bonds under sec. 6370 without an election is in accord with the contemporaneous construction placed on these statutes by board of supervisors and circuit courts of Mississippi, as well as other authorities.
Briscoe v. Buzbee, 163 Miss. 583, 143 So. 887; Robertson, Rev. Agent v. Texas Oil Co., 141 Miss. 356, 106 So. 449.
The purposes for which the bonds are to be issued are within the wording of Sec. 6370, Code of 1942.
Vollar v. Board of Supervisors of Warren County, 156 Miss. 625, 126 So. 390; Board of Supervisors of Forest County v. Clark, 163 Miss. 120, 140 So. 733; Hisaw v. Ellison Ridge Consolidated School District, 189 Miss. 664, 198 So. 557; Weston v. Hancock County, 98 Miss. 800, 54 So. 307.
A majority of the qualified electors residing in the Forest Hill Consolidated School Specified Area in Hinds County presented to the Board of Supervisors of the County a petition praying an order or orders for the issuance of the bonds of the Specified Area for the purposes hereinafter mentioned. The Board by proper order adjudged that the petition was signed by more than a majority of the qualified electors, and in all other respects adjudged all that the statutes required in that behalf and ordered the issuance of the bonds. The petition did not pray for an election and none was ordered, in which connection it may be added that in the argument it was asserted without dispute that the petition was assigned by more than eighty per cent of those qualified to sign it.
Objections had been filed by four of the qualified electors, who appealed from the order of the Board and the orders having been affirmed by the circuit court the four objectors have appealed to this Court.
A preliminary motion has been made to dismiss the appeal which we pretermit and proceed at once to the merits. Two points of objection and two only are argued here by appellants, and the first is that the bonds cannot be validly issued without an election.
The only statute which specifically provides for the creation of a "specified area" is Sec. 4341, Code 1942, and this for counties wherein "all of the territory outside of a municipal separate school district is embraced in a specified consolidated school district and includes parts of five supervisors' districts." In short the specified areas are for counties wherein what is called the unit system prevails. Such a county is the county of Hinds.
The statute further provides that "such area shall be a unit for the issuance of bonds and all provisions of this section and all other provisions of law with reference to the issuance of payment of bonds . . . and all other provisions in connection therewith applying to . . . consolidated school districts shall apply to such `specified areas.'"
Among the other provisions of law with reference to the issuance of bonds for consolidated school districts are Secs. 4342 and 6370, Code 1942, which by the provisions quoted in the foregoing paragraph are written into and become a part of Sec. 4341. Section 4342 deals with a case wherein the petition is by 20% of the qualified electors, while Sec. 6370 is addressed to a case where the petition is by a majority. Sec. 6370 reads as follows: "On petition of the majority of the qualified electors residing in any consolidated school district, the board of supervisors may issue bonds for such consolidated school district in the manner provided for by law, to erect, repair, and equip school buildings, teachers' homes, school barns, transportation vehicles, and for purchasing lands for schools; provided, the bond issue for other purposes on the property of said school district shall not be included in calculating the limit on the amount to be issued for the purposes herein provided, but only such bonds as may be issued for said district as a separate taxing unit shall be counted in calculating the limit of the amount, and the provisions of this act shall extend to and include county line consolidated school districts. The trustees of the school shall have authority to expend the proceeds of bonds for the aforesaid purposes and such funds shall be disbursed on pay certificates issued by the county superintendent on the order of said trustees."
Under this section it was expressly held that when a petition, sufficient in all other respects, is presented by a majority of the qualified electors of the consolidated district, no election is necessary. Orange Grove Consol. School Dist., 187 Miss. 373, 193 So. 6. It was argued in that case, as here, that under what is now Section 4342, Code of 1942, an election is mandatory, to which the district replied that if such a construction were adopted then it amounted to striking out from the statutes Sec. 6370 as being "a vain and useless enactment," and it may be added that it would strike from Section 4341, Code 1942, the quoted provisions as the application of all other provisions of law with references to the issuance of bonds for consolidated school districts.
(Hn 1) Undoubtedly the cited Sections 4341, 4342 and 6370, Code 1942, are in pari materia and we may here appropriately quote from our cases as follows: "Since these statutes deal with the same subject, there must be applied the well-established rule that statutes in pari materia, although in apparent conflict, should, so far as reasonably possible, be construed in harmony with each other so as to give force and effect to each." Greaves v. Hinds County, 166 Miss. 89, 98, 145 So. 900, 901. "It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that, (Hn 2) when several different sections of a Code deal with the same subject-matter, these sections are to be so interpreted that they shall harmonize not only with each other, so that each shall stand with as full effect as possible consistently with the other related sections, but they shall each be made to fit into the general and dominant policy of the particular system of which they are a part." Choctaw County v. Tennison, 161 Miss. 66, 74, 134 So. 900, 901. "In construing statutes, the court looks to the entire legislation upon the subject, and determines the policy of the Legislature from a consideration of all the statutes together." Hollandale Ice Co. v. Board of Sup'rs, 171 Miss. 515, 522, 157 So. 689, 690. (Hn 3) The dominant policy of these statutes is that no such bonds shall be issued without the consent of the majority of the qualified electors. If the proceedings are initiated upon a petition of 20 per cent of the qualified electors, but less than a majority of all, an election will be necessary to determine the will of the majority, but if initiated on the petition of the majority, then, as said in the Orange Grove case, supra [ 187 Miss. 373, 193 So. 7], "it shall not be necessary to incur the expense and delay in having them repeat at the polls what they have already expressed in their majority petition." We are not authorized to strike Sec. 6370 from the Code as appellants in effect insist but must allow it to stand, and as the present case is within it, appellants' first point is not well taken.
Appellants' second point is that the purposes for which the bonds are sought to be issued are broader than the purposes allowed by statute, and that since the petitioners may not have been willing to the issue unless the additional features were to be taken care of, there is for that reason no valid petition.
Under Section 4341, Code 1942, the authorized purposes are for "constructing school buildings and teachers' homes, and equipping said school buildings and teachers' homes." Under Sec. 6370, Code 1942, the purposes are "to erect, repair, and equip school buildings, teachers' homes . . ." The petition recites that the purposes are "to construct, erect and equip a new school building; to move, relocate, make alterations and additions to the existing principal's residence and to move, relocate, make alterations and additions to the church building located on the school property and now being used as a school building."
Many cases on the point are annotated in 124 A.L.R. pages 883-889 by which it is seen that generally they fall into two classes, (1) those that give a strict construction to the statutes, and (2) those that construe them broadly or liberally. Our state has been aligned with the latter group by Weston v. Hancock County, 98 Miss. 800, 54 So. 307, wherein it was held that (Hn 4) the terms used in such statutes as respects the purposes for which the bonds may be issued are to be construed in their most comprehensive sense, and thus that the statute allowing bonds to be issued for constructing roads included also the maintenance and betterment of roads already in existence. In brief if the purposes to be accomplished are within the purposes specified by the statute they are within the statute. Applying that principle the quoted statutes, or either of them, would comprehend what the petition prayed to be done by the issuance, as to which there is no ambiguity in the petition. We concur in cases such as Cotter v. Joint School Dist. 164 Wis. 13, 158 N.W. 80, and Beauchamp v. Consolidated School Dist., 297 Mo. 64, 247 S.W. 1004.
Appellants' second point is not maintainable and the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
I am in accord with the majority opinion except that I do not think the bonds in question could be legally issued without an election. This is a "specified area" school district. Secs. 4341 to and including Sec. 4345, Code 1942, prescribe the requirements for the issuance of bonds of such a district and the handling of the proceeds thereof. These sections expressly require an election to issue the bonds. Sec. 4342 authorizes the election to be called when a petition therefor is signed and filed by twenty percent of the qualified electors of the specified district and Sec. 4341 authorizes the supervisors to issue bonds ". . . at any time within four years after date of election authorizing same as the board may deem best."
But it is said that the foregoing express requirements for issuance of bonds are nulified by the following general, catch-all, incorporating clause in Sec. 4341 "such area shall be a unit for the issuance of bonds and all provisions of this section and all other provisions of law with reference to the issuance of and payment of bonds and the levy of taxes therefor and all other provisions in connection therewith applying to rural separate school districts or consolidated school districts shall apply to such specified areas.'" Section 6370 authorizes the supervisors to issue bonds of a consolidated school district (not a "specified area" district) without the necessity of an election upon the filing with the Board of Supervisors a petition signed by a majority of the qualified electors of the district. The majority opinion holds that a "specified area" district can do the same thing because of the above quoted incorporating provision in Sec. 4341. I do not think so for these reasons:
1. The catch-all provision says, that "all [other] provisions of this section" shall apply to the issuance of bonds by the "specified area" district. One "other provision" of that section is that the supervisors can issue the bonds "at any time within four years after date of election authorizing same as the board may deem best." Certainly, then, disregarding the fact that the next section (4342) expressly requires an election, the quoted clause incorporates the clause in the same section which authorizes the supervisors to issue the bonds within four years.
2. The incorporating provision is so general, vague and indefinite it would seem impossible, with accuracy, to say just what outside statutes are incorporated into it. It refers to "all other provisions" for issuance of and payment of bonds and levy of taxes for that purpose and "all other provisions in connection therewith." There are "other provisions" in the outside statutes to which these general references could apply, such as method of levying taxes, disbursement of money, etc., other than the necessity, or non-necessity, of an election. Certainly such general, vague terms do not supersede and nullify an express provision in the same section, and in those following it, requiring an election. By limiting this catch-all provision to the requirements of the statutes to which reference is made do not conflict with the express provisions of the incorporating statutes all the statutes can be reconciled. They cannot be reconciled by permitting general, indefinite, and uncertain reference provisions to nullify express, specific requirements of appellate statutes.
3. It will be noted incorporating section 4341 refers to "rural separate school districts." Now, Sec. 6417, Code 1942, authorizes issuance of separate school district bonds "in the manner provided in the chapter on municipalities." Nowhere and for no purpose does the law authorize municipalities to issue bonds solely on the authority of a petition. They either have the authority by virtue of the statute without prior ascertainment of the will of the electors, or, if such will is required, then it is to be determined by an election. And, it might be added, that so far as my investigation discloses, this is true of all bond-issuing bodies of municipalities, counties and sub-divisions thereof, with the sole exception of consolidated school districts. So that the clause in Sec. 4341 referring to bonds issued by rural separate school districts gives no authority to "specified area" schools to issue bonds on the sole authority of a petition of a majority of the electors.
The majority opinion cites In re Validation Bonds of Orange Grove Consolidated School District, 187 Miss. 373, 193 So. 6. That case is no authority for holding an election unnecessary here. That case dealt with a consolidated district — not a "specified area" district — and the statute expressly authorized the issuance of the bonds without an election upon petition of a majority of the electors, which, as above remarked, is the only instance I have found where such authority could be based alone on such petition.
The majority opinion finds that the dominant policy of the statutes is that no bonds shall be issued without the consent of a majority of the qualified electors. That, no doubt, is correct. But that is not the question here. The question here is the dominant intent as to the method of ascertaining the majority consent. I do not believe the legislature has adopted, or will adopt, as its dominant intent, that the best method of ascertaining the will of the electors is by petition rather than by election. The petition method is too uncertain and dangerous. It is generally known how easily names may be acquired upon petitions. The personal persuasion upon the signers of the one presenting the petition; the interest of the presentor; the realization of the signers, or non-signers, that their position will be known and brought under criticism — these and other elements often make it difficult for persons to refuse to sign petitions. Again, that method is uncertain because it so often happens that signers do not know the full purport and consequences of the petition, as illustrated by the common report of the man who signed a petition for his own death warrant. There is no time or opportunity for calm deliberation on the merits or demerits of the proposition. The Orange Grove case, supra, is a fine illustration of the instability and uncertainty of petitions. There were 161 qualified electors in the Consolidated School District a petition signed by 133 electors was presented the supervisors asking for issuance of bonds of the district. The supervisors so ordered. Proceedings were promptly instituted to have the bonds validated by the chancery court. Within less than two months of the time of signing the petition, 112 of the electors of the district appeared at that validating proceedings and vigorously protested the issuance of the bonds. In other words, in less than two months there was almost a complete reversal of sentiment on the question. The election method is surely more accurate and definite than the petition method in ascertaining the will of the people. Under the election method publication is made of the amount, interest, maturities, and all details of the bonds proposed to be issued, and other objects for which the proceeds are to be spent. The election is usually some six weeks away. The people have opportunity to calmly weigh and study the merits and demerits of the proposal. They vote in secret. No one need know how any one votes. The personal appeal incident to presenting a petition and the chance of criticism from knowledge of the signing, or nonsigning, of the petition, are lacking. The elector is free to vote his will and his deliberate judgment.
It may well be hoped, at least by the writer, that the Legislature will never adopt as its dominant intent the petition-method of burdening the backs of the people with heavy bond issues and taxes.
McGhee, J., concurs in this opinion.