Opinion
12765
November 16, 1929.
In the original jurisdiction, Fall Term,. 1929. Writ quashed.
Original application for certiorari by Clara A. Heath and others against John G. Richards and others, as members of the State Board of Education, and others. The application for writ of certiorari, return, motion to quash writ, and decision of the County Board of Education, all directed to be reported, are as follows:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARIThe petition of the petitioners respectfully showeth:
1. That on and prior to March 8, 1929, E.G. Coe was the principal of North Charleston High School in school district No. 4, Charleston County, S.C. and had acted in such capacity for some five years.
2. That on and prior to March 8, 1929, Lois W. Benson was the principal of Chicora Graded School in school district No. 4, Charleston County, S.C. and had acted in such capacity for some six years.
3. That on and prior to March 8, 1929, Washington Green Pringle was the principal of North Charleston Graded School in school district No. 4, Charleston County, S.C. and had acted in such capacity for eleven years.
4. That C.E. Lepley and F.J. Aichele have been trustees of said school district for many years by appointment.
5. That W.W. North and Samuel Hughes are and have been trustees of said school by election since 1927, and Mrs. Viola Henderson was elected as trustee in November, 1928.
6. That Clara A. Heath is the president of School Improvement Association of Chicora Graded School, and is acting on behalf of said association and the parents of pupils in said school in said district.
7. That Mrs. A.S. Thomas is the president of School Improvement Association of North Charleston Graded School and is acting on behalf of that association and the parents of pupils in said school in said district.
8. That Mrs. F.J. Aichele is the president of School Improvement Association of Rosemont Graded School, and is acting on behalf of said association and the parents of pupils in said school in said district.
9. That Mrs. C.M. Watson is the president of Parent-Teacher Association of North Charleston High School, and is acting on behalf of said association and the parents of pupils in said school in said district.
10. That on March 8, 1929, over the protest of the minority trustees and the Parent-Teacher Association and School Improvement Associations above set forth, the majority of said trustees, viz., Messrs. W.W. North, Samuel Hughes, and Mrs. Viola Henderson, refused to re-elect the said E.C. Coe, Lois W. Benson, and Washington Green Pringle, and elected in their place and stead R.C. Henderson, W.B. Goodwin, and Arthur Lanham, and refused to give any reason for such action, although called on to do so by Messrs. Aichele and Lepley, constituting the minority of said trustees.
11. That your petitioners duly appealed to the County Board of Education as provided in statute. Whereupon the majority of said trustees were called upon by said board to show cause why their action in not re-electing said principals should not be reversed.
12. That said majority of said trustees appeared and filed a return in which they raised the following legal questions:
First. That this was not a matter of local controversy over which the County Board had control. That the matter of electing teachers was within the province of the trustees.
Second. That the contracts of the three principals were fixed for one year, and had expired, and that the board of trustees had not seen fit to renew them, and that their action was not subject to review by the County Board.
Third. That the County Board had only authority to refuse to confirm their selection of teachers upon cause shown, and did not have the power to direct them to re-elect the teachers in question.
13. In this return no question was raised as to the competency of the old teachers, nor was there any testimony taken in regard to the competency of the new teachers. A petition was filed at the hearing before the County Board on behalf of certain taxpayers, electors, patrons, and friends of school district No. 4 signifying their willingness to stand by the decision of the majority of the trustees in matters pertaining to the operation of the school system.
On the other hand, the petitions filed by the petitioners herein specifically indorse the old principals, and ask their re-election and the resolutions of the Parent-Teacher Association, and the School Improvement Association likewise do the same.
14. The return of the trustees to the County Board states: "These Trustees are content to rest their case on the power and authority committed to them by law and the endorsement of their conduct by the large number of residents, electors and patrons of the schools in said School District as reflected in the endorsement aforesaid filed with this Board."
15. A hearing on this appeal was held by the County Board of Education on April 4, 1929. At this hearing no testimony was taken, and it was conceded by counsel on both sides that the sole questions before the Board were questions of law as to the powers of the Board to annul the action of the trustees and to order them to re-elect the old teachers.
16. That Mr. M. Rutledge Rivers, the attorney for the County Board, and a lawyer of eminent ability, was present at the hearing as the counsel and adviser of said Board.
17. Thereafter, viz., on April 8, 1929, the County Board filed its written decision prepared by Mr. Rivers rescinding and declaring null and void the contracts with the three new principals, and directing the trustees to continue the old teachers in office and renew their contracts for the ensuing year. From this decision the majority of said trustees duly filed an appeal to the State Board of Education, and the County Board filed a return to same.
18. Your petitioners submit for the review by this Court herewith a printed copy of the record as filed with the State Board of Education in connection with said appeal, which shows all petitions, returns, and orders referred to herein.
19. That at the hearing before the State Board the sole questions presented to said board were questions of law concerning the power of the County Board to issue the aforesaid order.
20. That said appeal was heard by the State Board of Education on June 13, 1929, and on the same day the said board filed an order of which the following is a copy:
"We are here confronted with a case involving the statutes of law relative to the powers of the local district boards of trustees with reference to the employment of teachers. We have no other course than to make our decision in keeping with the laws of this State governing such matters.
"We, therefore, reverse the action of the County Board of Education of Charleston County."
21. That Miss Washington Green Pringle was not present and took no part in said hearing.
22. That it will be seen from the foregoing that both the County Board and the State Board of Education acted in a judicial capacity, and that the questions decided involved serious questions of law of grave public importance — affecting the welfare of the school system of our state and the powers of the boards of education not only in Charleston county but in every county in this State.
23. That the State Board erred in not holding that the County Board had full power to refuse to confirm the contracts made with the three new principals and to rescind the contracts made with them and declare the same null and void.
24. That the State Board erred in not confirming the action of the County Board of Education in refusing to confirm such contracts and in declaring same null and void.
25. That the State Board erred in not holding that the County Board had the legal power to direct the school trustees to continue the old teachers in office and to renew their contracts for the ensuing term.
26. That the State Board erred in not confirming the action of the County Board in so directing said trustees.
27. That the State Board of Education erred in failing to follow the statutes of this State in regard to the matters involved in said appeal, especially the matter of employment of teachers by local school boards of trustees and the powers of county boards to supervise their actions and to make orders regarding thereto.
28. That the State Board erred in refusing to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of our State, especially the cases of State v. Dick, 134 S.C. 46, 131 S.E., 772, and State v. Daniel, 52 S.C. 201, 29 S.E., 633.
29. On information and belief petitioners allege that the State Board erred in disregarding the opinion on the law as furnished them by the Attorney General of this State in regard to the law applicable to the matter involved, a copy of which opinion is hereto attached as part of the petition.
30. That under the statutes of this State no appeal is provided from the ruling of the State Board of Education, and that, unless this Court reviews the action of said State Board by a writ of certiorari, your petitioners will have suffered the loss of their legal rights without any appropriate legal redress.
31. That your petitioners have suffered wrong by the decision of the State Board of Education in misconstruing the law of this State, and have no other adequate remedy at law for the redress of same save by application to this Court for such a writ. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari be issued by this Court directing that the State Board of Education do certify to this Court all proceedings and papers connected with this matter which were before it on appeal from the County Board and its decision thereon for the review and determination of same by this Court with the same power and authority in this matter as though it had been carried by appeal to this Supreme Court. H.L. Erckmann, J.N. Nathans, Thomas P. Stoney, Attorneys Pro. Pet. State of South Carolina, County of Charleston.
Personally appeared C.E. Lepley, who on oath, says that he is one of the petitioners in this cause, and that the facts stated in the foregoing petition are true of his own knowledge, save as to those therein stated to be on information and belief and as to those he believes it to be true.
C.E. Lepley.
Sworn to before me this 20th day of June, A.D. 1929. J.A. Johnston, Notary Public for South Carolina. (Seal)
MOTION TO QUASH WRITTo Messrs. H.L. Erckmann, Charleston, S.C. J.N. Nathans, Charleston, S.C. Thos. P. Stoney, Charleston, S.C. Attorneys for Petitioners:
Please take notice that on Monday, October 14, 1929, at 10 o'clock a. m., on behalf of W.W. North, Samuel Hughes, and Mrs. Viola Henderson, constituting a majority of the board of trustees of school district No. 4, Charleston county, S.C. respondents above named, we shall move the Supreme Court to quash the writ of certiorari herein upon the ground that said writ was improvidently issued, in that no error of law appears upon the face of the order of the State Board of Education sought to be reviewed herein so that the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to entertain said writ, because:
(a) The matter of the decision of the local board of trustees not to re-employ a teacher or teachers whose contract of employment has expired is not a matter of local controversy in reference to the construction or administration of the school laws which would give the County Board jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such decision, so that in reversing the decision of the County Board of Education in such case there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education.
(b) The contracts of employment of the teachers in question having legally expired, the local board of trustees had full power to employ any legally qualified teacher it might desire who, in its opinion, was satisfactory and competent, so that there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in sustaining the local board of trustees in this particular.
(c) The teachers and parents who took the appeal to the County Board of Education from the decision of the local board of trustees by their petition to said County Board of Education showed no grounds nor asserted any legal right of appeal, as said teachers had not been discharged during the terms of their contracts of employment — the trustees merely having refused to renew their contracts of employment which had legally expired, so that there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in affirming the action of the local board of trustees in this particular.
(d) The election of the new teachers in question holding proper teachers' certificates as required by statute being from the class from which the board of trustees have the right and power to select as successors to the teachers whose contracts of employment were not renewed, there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education sustaining the action of the local board of trustees in this particular.
(e) The County Board of Education had neither authority nor power to order the local board of trustees to elect and employ any particular teacher after the expiration of his or her contract of employment with the local board of trustees. so that, in confirming the order of the County Board of Education in this case, and affirming the action of the local board of trustees, there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in this particular.
(f) The right and power of the local board of trustees to select and employ teachers in the schools of its district and under its jurisdiction being absolute and subject only to confirmation or rejection by the County Board of Education, there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in reversing the order of the County Board of Education ordering and requiring the local board of trustees to elect and employ certain named teachers in place of others elected and employed by said local board of trustees.
(g) The County Board of Education under the statutes of South Carolina having power only to confirm or reject teachers employed by the local board of trustees, the initial power to select and employ being vested exclusively in the local board of trustees, there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in reversing the order of the County Board of Education in this particular.
(h) The contracts of the teachers in question having legally expired, said teachers and other petitioners on the appeal of the County Board of Education had no legal standing by which to force the re-employment of said old teachers under new contracts with the local board of trustees, so that there was no error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in reversing the order of the County Board of Education in this particular. John I. Cosgrove, S.T. Lanham, Attorneys for W.W. North, Samuel Hughes, and Mrs. Viola Henderson, Constituting a Majority of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 4, Charleston County, S.C. Respondents Above Named.
RETURN OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4Respondents above named, W.W. North, Samuel Hughes, and Mrs. Viola Henderson, constituting a majority of the board of trustees of school district No. 4, Charleston county, S.C. expressly reserving and in no way waiving their rights under their motion heretofore made and served to quash the writ herein, making return to the writ of certiorari in this cause, allege and say:
First. They deny each and every allegation in said petition contained not hereinafter specifically admitted.
Second. They admit paragraphs first, second, third, fourth, and fifth of said petition.
Third. And for further answer and return to said petition these respondents deny that there was any error of law on the part of the State Board of Education in reversing the order of the County Board of Education in this cause, and allege that said order of the State Board of Education in this matter was legally sound and valid for the following reasons:
(a) Because the matter of the decision of the local board of trustees of the school district not to re-employ a teacher or teachers whose contract of employment has expired is not a matter of local controversy in reference to the construction or administration of the school laws which would give the County Board of Education jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such decision.
(b) Because, the contracts of employment of the teachers in question having legally expired, the local board of trustees had full power to employ any legally qualified teacher it might desire who in its opinion was satisfactory and competent.
(c) The teachers and parents who took this appeal to the County Board of Education by their petition showed no ground nor asserted any legal right of appeal, as the teachers in question had not been discharged during the terms of their contracts of employment — the board of trustees merely having refused to renew their contracts which had legally expired.
(d) The election of the new teachers in question holding proper teacher certificates as required by statute were the proper class from which the board of trustees had the right and power to elect successors to the teachers whose contracts of employment had not been renewed.
(e) The County Board of Education had neither authority nor power to order the local board to elect and employ any particular teacher after the expiration of his or her contract of employment with the local board of trustees.
(f) The right and power of the local board to elect and employ teachers in the schools under its jurisdiction is absolute, subject only to the confirmation or rejection by the County Board of Education.
(g) The County Board of Education under the statutes of South Carolina has the power only to confirm or reject teachers employed by the local board of trustees; the initial power to select and employ being vested exclusively in the local board of trustees.
(h) The contracts of the teachers in question having legally expired, said teachers and other petitioners in their appeal to the County Board of Education from the decision of the local board of trustees had no legal standing by which to force the employment of said teachers under new contracts with the local board.
Fourth. That the board of trustees of school district No. 4, Charleston county, S.C. is now and has been since July, 1927, composed of five members, three of whom are elected by the qualified electors of said district and two of whom are appointees of the County Board of Education; that for some years prior to 1927 the said board consisted of only three members appointed by the County Board of Education. This system not having worked satisfactorily to the residents of the said school district and the patrons of the schools therein, the General Assembly of South Carolina by Act approved April 13, 1927, provided:
That thenceforth the said board should consist of five members, three of whom should be elected as therein provided, and the other two appointed by the County Board of Education. That by this means the General Assembly, South Carolina, intended to give, and did give, to the trustees elected by the people a majority vote on the said board of trustees as against the minority appointed by the County Board of Education, and that these respondents are the regularly elected trustees under the said act of the General Assembly, and constitute a majority of the said board as contemplated by said act.
That at a duly called meeting of said board of trustees of school district No. 4 of Charleston county held on March 8, 1929, all of the trustees being present, there was considered the matter of electing and employing teachers and principals for the schools of the said district for the term September, 1929 — June, 1930, all of the contracts of the teachers and principals of the schools of the said district expiring by their own terms on June 30, 1929. That at said meeting the contracts of several teachers of the said schools, including those of E.G. Coe, Miss Washington Green Pringle, and Mrs. L.W. Benson were not renewed by said board. That contracts of employment for the term September, 1929 — June, 1930, were made with other teachers and principals duly and legally qualified under the laws of the State of South Carolina as fully appears by the transcript of the record of said proceedings on file with this Court.
That, although contracts of other teachers in the county school districts were not renewed, the three above named are the only ones who have sought to raise objection to the authority and action of this board. That these trustees, in the exercise of the power and judgment placed in them by law, and acting for the welfare and best interests of the educational advancement of the schools of the said district and for the good of the service, have employed and selected in place and stead of the dissatisfied teachers who have appealed in this cause the following:
Vice E.C. Coe, as principal of North Charleston High School, R.C. Henderson.
Vice Miss Washington Green Pringle, as principal of North Charleston Graded School, Arthur Lanham.
Vice Mrs. L.W. Benson, as principal of Chicora Graded School, W.B. Goodwin.
That the successors to the said three teachers who have brought the appeal in this cause are in the opinion of these trustees fully competent and experienced to hold and perform the duties of the positions to which they have been elected.
Mr. R.C. Henderson, who has been elected principal of the North Charleston High School, has been employed in school district No. 4 under the observation of these trustees, and has given eminently satisfactory service in every particular, and his references are of the highest order as fully appears by reference to the transcript of the record in this cause.
Mr. Arthur Lanham has likewise been employed by this Board heretofore, has been under the observation of the said board in the performance of his duties, and has given markedly satisfactory service to this board. He is an A.B. graduate of Wofford College, S.C. and holds excellent references both as a principal and teacher, as will appear by reference to the transcript of the record herein.
Mr. W.B. Goodwin, though not heretofore employed by this board, has come to it with excellent recommendations as to his ability as a teacher and principal. He also is an A.B. graduate of Wofford College, S.C. and has brought excellent references to this board, as fully appears by reference to the transcript of record in this cause.
As appears from the foregoing, the said teachers selected by this board to fill the positions in question hold teachers' certificates and credentials of marked excellence which in the opinion of these trustees amply qualify them to fill the duties of the positions to which they have been elected.
These respondents, constituting a majority of the board of trustees of the school district, Charleston county, being the members of said board elected by the people, further show:
That one of the issues of the campaign preceding the election of the trustees of this school district in 1928 at which these three trustees were duly elected was that of the further retention as employees and teachers in said school district of the three teachers who are petitioners in this case. That the attitude of these trustees in regard to the renewal of the contracts of employment of these three teachers for further terms in the schools of said district was well known to the electorate, and that, notwithstanding such known attitude of these trustees, and with full knowledge that, if elected, they would not renew the contracts of the said teachers for a further term, the electorate of said school district voted these three trustees into office by large majorities over the other candidates, there being six candidates in all for these positions.
That upon the election of these trustees, as they are informed and believe, these three teachers, petitioners herein, full well knowing the position of these trustees with respect to them, immediately set to work to stir up the residents of the said school district and the patrons of the schools therein to have themselves retained. Petitions were circulated in their behalf, and even little children of the schools, in at least one case under their direction, and of which they held the high office as principals, were required to indorse them for re-election by these trustees. That in consequence of such activities the said community was greatly stirred, being actively aided and abetted by the minority members of said local board of trustees, in respect to the re-election of these three teachers.
These respondents further show that they are informed and believe that there have never been any formal meetings of the School Improvement Associations and Parent-Teacher Association, in whose behalf the petition in this case is alleged to have been brought authorizing the taking of these proceedings by the parties signing herein for and in behalf of the said School Improvement Associations and Parent-Teacher Association, but that said appeal has been commenced by the so-called representatives of the said associations without formal and legal authorization of the associations which they purport to represent; that, for instance, Mrs. F.J. Aichele who signed the petition in this cause in behalf of the School Improvement Association of the North Charleston Graded School, is the wife of Mr. F.J. Aichele, a minority trustee of this board, and these trustees allege that her interest in this matter lies in supporting the attitude of her husband in his contest as a minority member of said board with the majority members thereof; that Mrs. A.S. Thomas, signing in behalf of the School Improvement Association of Rosemont Graded School, which said school has no interest whatsoever in this appeal, as no teacher nor principal connected therewith has been affected by the action of these trustees, but has always been bitterly opposed to these trustees, as her husband was at one time a candidate for the office of trustee on this board but was defeated by the people upon election day; and that Mrs. Heath, who has signed the appeal herein in behalf of the School Improvement Association of Chicora Graded School, has likewise bitterly opposed these trustees at all times, and she through her husband, who is employed with C.E. Lepley, the other minority trustee, has been co-operating with the minority members of the said board in their contest with the majority members thereof. Mr. Heath at one time was candidate for the office of trustee, but was defeated in the election.
These respondents further show that, since the commencement of these proceedings before the County Board of Education, their action has been fully indorsed by the resident electors and patrons of the schools in question, petitions of indorsement having been signed by almost 500 residents and electors of said schools who originally signed the earlier petitions for the retention of the teachers in question.
These respondents further show that they have always been informed and advised that the power and duty to employ the teachers in the schools of said district is vested wholly and absolutely in the board of trustees of the said school district; that the County Board of Education is without authority to order a school district board of trustees to elect and employ any particular teacher, the County Board of Education under the laws of the State of South Carolina having power only to confirm or reject teachers employed by the local board, and that this is the power that has always been exercised by this board under express ruling of H.H. McCarley, Esq., the County Superintendent of Education for Charleston county, who on more than one occasion has so advised these trustees.
Wherefore, these trustees, respondents above named, having now filed return to the petition for certiorari herein, and having filed with this honorable Court the transcript of record on which the order of the State Board of Education was based, respectfully pray that said writ of certiorari be dismissed. John I. Cosgrove, S.T. Lanham, Attorneys for W.W. North, Samuel Hughes, and Mrs. Viola Henderson, Constituting a Majority of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 4, Charleston county, S.C.
DECISION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATIONThree teachers, Edmund G. Coe, principal of the North Charleston High School, Miss Washington Green Pringle, principal of the North Charleston Graded School, and Mrs. Lois W. Benson, principal of the Chicora Graded School, applicants for re-election, were denied renewals of their respective contracts by a majority of the board of trustees of school district No. 4, Charleston county, where said schools are located. The Parent-Teachers Association of North Charleston, the School Improvement Associations and teachers and two trustees above named, and others, have appealed to this County Board of Education to reverse the action of the trustees, because such action is capricious, detrimental to the best interests of the pupils of the designated schools, and unfair to the teachers involved.
That no reason has been assigned and no cause stated why the teachers should not be continued in office, because there exists no ground for the refusal of the trustees to re-elect them.
Counsel for both appellant and respondents agree that the issue submitted for the determination of this board is purely a question of law; respondents contending that this board has no jurisdiction in the premises, for the reason that the duty to elect teachers is reposed by the statutory law of this State in the trustees, and appellants on the other hand contending that such authority in the trustees is subject to the supervision and orders of this board.
The facts are that Mr. Coe has been principal of the high school for five years, Miss Pringle of the school in which she serves for eleven years, and Mrs. Benson at the Chicora School for six years. They have intelligently, industriously, and efficiently performed their duties as teachers and principals. The schools have prospered under their guidance and management. The parents find no fault, pupils are content in the ministration received, and the trustees themselves proffer no complaint and prefer no charges; in fact, two of the trustees, the two who have held office longest, are emphatic in their advocacy of the retention of the teachers.
These conclusions are not only uncontroverted by the record in this controversy, but are based upon the knowledge of this board, of the recognized fitness of the teachers concerned, which is so well known that we take judicial notice thereof.
In illustration, the following report of commendation, by a state supervisor of high schools, is cited:
"Several times recently it has been said that as a supervisor I am too hard — expecting and demanding standards that the average teacher cannot reach. I must plead guilty to expecting high standards and I must also plead guilty to condemning a lack of them. However, where criticism is made there is always offered a suggestion for bettering conditions.
"On the other hand when I find good work, and a good organization well planned and carried out, I am just as ready to commend as I am to condemn. There are some schools which serve as an inspiration for the setting of higher standards, for when one finds a group of teachers doing an especially good piece of work one is made to feel that all teachers should do equally as well.
"A school of this type, you will be interested to know, was visited on a recent trip to Charleston. On Thursday, January 17th, a while was spent in the North Charleston school. Having visited this same school several years ago when it was in its infancy, my mind immediately drew a picture of the almost unbelievable contrast.
"The grounds attractively laid out, were clean and well-kept. Every classroom was visited and although I did not have time to stay through several recitations in each room in order to judge the type of teaching going on, I was impressed with the apparent orderliness and the earnestness of the pupils in the classes.
"An attractive feature in connection with the school is the lunch room where nourishing food is served to the pupils during their noon recess.
"One cannot always judge a school by its appearance, but the appearance is usually a pretty good index to the type of work going on. I make this statement without fear of contradiction — this school was the cleanest one I have ever been in — and I have been in nearly all of them. The principal challenged me to find a dirty or ugly place on the walls. They looked as though they had been painted a few days before but she said not. The walls of most new houses are ornamented with drawings or markings before the end of the first year. Cleanliness is one of the most essential lessons that pupils can learn in school and these pupils have evidently learned it.
"There is a total enrollment in the school of 307 with an average attendance of 264. There are 30 pupils in the kindergarten which are not counted in the above enrollment. The teaching force has eleven teachers, including the kindergarten teacher and principal."
But, say the trustees, as the statutes of the State have designated them to elect teachers, this board is without jurisdiction to direct whom they shall elect.
Followed to its logical conclusion, their position would seem to be that it matters not if the teachers in question have faithfully and efficiently performed their duties, have devoted the better part of their active lives to the welfare of the schools in which they have been for so many years uninterruptedly and satisfactorily teaching, and that, although there now exists no just cause for discontinuing their valuable services, and although as a precedent such treatment may be demoralizing to the teaching profession if the only reward for work well done is summary dismissal from service, instead of continuation therein, that nevertheless it is within the scope of the prerogatives of the trustees to act as they may determine, and the victims of their caprice, teachers and pupils, have no redress by appeal to this board, and the latter no jurisdiction to prevent the threatened wrongs. We do not think that the law is susceptible of such interpretation.
On the contrary, we are of the opinion that the trustees are subject to the supervision and orders of the County Board of Education in the performance of the duties imposed by law upon them relating to the election of teachers; and that, to prevent impairment of the advantages now enjoyed by the pupils and in justice to their teachers, whence come these advantages, the County Board not only has jurisdiction but that it is its bounden duty to correct the mistakes of the trustees by directing them to renew the contracts of employment of the present teachers.
In the case of State ex rel. Windham v. Dick, County Superintendent of Education, et al., 134 S.C. p. 46, at page 49, 131 S.E., 772, the Supreme Court of this State said:
"These proceedings were instituted in the Court below by the petitioner for the purpose of determining `the right (on the part of Petitioner) to teach a certain public school in Darlington County.'"
And at page 51 of 134 S.C. 131 S.E., 774, that in the consideration of this question it is necessary to examine the school laws applicable thereto, quoting same as follows:
"Section 2630, Subdivision 2, Code of Laws 1922, Volume 3, gives to the Board of Trustees authority `to employ teachers from those having certificates from their County Board of Examiners or from the State Board of Education, and fix their salaries, and to discharge the same when good and sufficient reason for so doing present themselves subject to the supervision of the County Board of Education.' Section 2616 of the Code of Laws of 1922 provides that —
"`The Board of Trustees in each school district shall take the management and control of the local educational interests of the same * * * and shall be subject to the supervision and orders of the County Board of Education.'
"Section 2597 of the Code of Laws of 1922 is as follows:
"`The County Board of Education shall constitute * * * a tribunal for determining any matter of local controversy in reference to the construction or administration of the school laws, with the power to summon witnesses and take testimony, if necessary, and when they have made a decision said decision shall be binding upon the parties to the controversy: Provided, That either of the parties shall have the right to appeal to the State Board of Education and said appeal shall be made through the County Board of Education, in writing, and shall distinctly set forth the question in dispute, the decision of the County Board and the testimony as agreed upon by the parties to the controversy, or, if they fail to agree, upon the testimony as reported by the County Board.'
"Section 2548 of Code of Laws of 1922 (Civ. Code) provides that —
"`The State Board of Education * * * shall have power to review on appeal all decisions of the County Boards of Education, as hereinafter provided for. Appeals to the State Board of Education must be made through the County Boards of Education, in writing, and must distinctly set forth the question of law as well as the facts of the case upon which the appeal is taken, and the decision of the State Board shall be final upon the matter at issue."
"There can be no doubt that it was the purpose of the Legislature in the enactment of the law above quoted to provide an appropriate remedy, with suitable tribunals and methods of procedure, `for determining any matter of local controversy in reference to the construction or administration of the school laws.' The present matter, the disputed election of a teacher by the trustees, comes within the provision of the law as being such a `matter of local controversy' to be determined, if possible, by the proper school tribunals provided for by statute."
Consequently the controversy in this case, the disputed election of teachers by trustees, is a matter of local controversy to be determined by this board of education, to the supervision and orders of which the trustees are subject.
The cases decided by the Supreme Court of this State, cited by counsel for respondents as sustaining their contention, are clearly distinguishable from the case now before this board.
In the case of Hughes v. School District No. 37, 66 S.C. 259, 44 S.E., 784, the cause of action was an alleged breach of contract made by school trustees with a teacher, who sued the trustees for her salary, and the Court held that such breach of contract was not a matter of local controversy in reference to the construction or administration of school laws, but an ordinary suit for the recovery of money, and properly instituted in the Courts; that there was no evidence to sustain the objection made to the payment of the salary that the teacher was without a certificate authorizing her to teach, and, in the absence of such evidence, the presumption being that she had a certificate, the trustees had the right to employ her. A very different question from the proposition submitted by the respondents in this case that trustees of a school have a right to discontinue the services of teachers and employ others, when there is no good reason for the change.
The issue for this board to determine here is not whether the trustees of school district No. 4 have the right as an abstract proposition to employ the teachers whom they have undertaken to elect in the places of those appealing to the board, but whether their action, unsupported by just cause or reason, in refusing to re-elect or re-employ the teachers who have served so faithfully for years, is subject to the supervision and orders of this board.
In the case of Sarratt v. Cash, 103 S.C. p. 531, 88 S.E., 256, the Supreme Court simply decided that the action of school trustees in exercising their discretion with regard to the location of a school building is not subject to interference by the Court unless so far unsupported by reason as to be arbitrary or capricious; because, under the law, the Court ought not to substitute its opinion for the opinion of a board of trustees, the tribunal by law to locate schoolhouses; that is not analogous to the question now presented of the right of the County Board of Education to review the action of trustees under the law which gives such right to the County Board of Education and declares that the action of the trustees is subject to the supervision and orders of the County Board.
Hence it is the duty of the County Board to substitute its judgment for that of the school trustees and to interfere with their decision where the County Board reaches the conclusion that such decision is erroneous.
As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the last cited case (page 535 of 103 S.C. 88 S.E., 258), referring to the duties of trustees:
"They are bound, under the statute and their oath of office, to exercise their discretion and judgment, in the language of the statute * * * `so as best to promote the educational interests of their district.'"
Hence, when their action, so far from promoting the educational interest of their district, is detrimental thereto, this board not only has the right but would be derelict in its duty if it did not correct the wrong so done.
In the only other case quoted by the respondent's counsel, Windham v. Black Creek School District No. 9, 143 S.C. p. 511, 141 S.E., 896, the question considered and decided was whether or not the teacher who brought the action had the right to sue in a Court of Law for the salary which had not been paid to her, and the Court decided that she had the right for the reasons assigned in the case of Hughes v. School District, 66 S.C. 259, 44 S.E., 784.
In none of those cases was the question here involved of the right of a County Board of Education to supervise and control the action of the district school trustees considered, the right given by statute, and clearly recognized and approved by the Supreme Court in the case of the State ex rel. Windham v. Dick, County Superintendent of Education, and others, 134 S.C. p. 46, 131 S.E., 772.
Accordingly, this board decides:
1. That it has the authority to review the action of the majority of the trustees of school district No. 4 from which the appeal under consideration has been taken.
2. That the trustees of school district No. 4 erred in refusing to continue in office the teachers appealing and in electing others in their places, for the reason that in so doing the trustees did not exercise their judgment so as best to promote the educational interest of their district, and because there is no reason whatever for displacing the teachers appealing, and that such action is unfair to them. They are teachers whose work and performance of duties have been beyond question beneficial to the schools and promotive of the welfare of the scholars.
The announced policy and purpose of this board is, that teachers who have rendered efficient service and under whose administration schools have developed, whose pupils have been instructed and cared for with an eye solely to their advancement, shall rest content in the knowledge that their positions are secure to them as long as the schools progress under their management. That they may give their whole time and talents to the education of their pupils without being harassed and annoyed with doubts and fears as to whether or not their positions may be taken from them without cause or justification.
It is therefore ordered that the contracts which the board of trustees of school district No. 4, Charleston County, S.C., attempted to make with Mr. R.C. Henderson, as principal of the North Charleston High School, and Mr. Arthur Lanham, as principal of the North Charleston Graded School, and Mr. W.B. Goodwin, as principal of the Chicora Graded School, be, and the same are hereby rescinded and declared null and void.
Ordered further that the said trustees erred in not re-employing Mr. Coe, Miss Pringle, and Mrs. Benson, and they are hereby directed to continue them in office as teachers in the respective positions now held by them, and to renew their contracts for the ensuing term, and that the action of said trustees in not so doing is hereby reversed.
And it is so ordered. (Signed) H.H. McCarley, County Supt. of Education. (Signed) Henry O. Strohecker. (Signed) O.J. Bond, County Board of Education of Charleston County, S.C. April 8, 1929.
Messrs. H.L. Erckmann, J.N. Nathans, and Thos. P. Stoney, for petitioners, cite: Certiorari: 12 S.C. 111; 52 S.C. 298; 129 S.C. 503; 11 C.J., 108; Authority of County Board: Secs. 2616, 2630, 2597, Code; 52 S.C. 201; 134 S.C. 46; 51 S.C. 288; 51 S.C. 288; 148 S.C. 218; 62 S.C. 409; 75 S.C. 93. Cases distinguished: 66 S.C. 82; 103 S.C. 531; 143 S.C. 511.
Messrs. John J. Cosgrove and S.T. Lanham, for respondents, cite: Cases distinguished: 134 S.C. 46. As to employment of teacher: 66 S.C. 259; 143 S.C. 512. Powers and duties of trustees: 103 S.C. 531; 146 S.C. 380; 130 S.C. 235; 84 S.C. 271.
November 16, 1929. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This case comes before this Court on an application for a writ of certiorari to the State Board of Education. The facts necessary for an understanding of the questions involved, briefly stated, are as follows:
On the 8th of March, 1929, and for a period of about five years prior thereto, E.G. Coe was the principal of North Charleston High School, in school district No. 4, Charleston county, State of South Carolina. On the 8th of March, 1929, and for a period of about six years prior thereto, Lois W. Benson was the principal of Chicora Graded School, in said school district; and on said date, March 8, 1929, and for a period of about eleven years prior thereto, Washington Green Pringle was principal of North Charleston Graded School, in said school district. That at that time, March 8, 1929, C.M. Lepley, F.J. Aichele, W.W. North, Samuel Hughes, and Mrs. Viola Henderson were the legal trustees for said school district, and were acting in such capacity. On the said date, March 8, 1929, the said trustees met for the purpose of electing teachers for the ensuing year, at which meeting the majority of the said trustees, Messrs. W.W. North, Samuel Hughes and Mrs. Viola Henderson, refused to reelect the said E.G. Coe, Lois W. Benson, and Washington Green Pringle, and elected in their place and stead R.C. Henderson, W.B. Goodwin, and Arthur Lanham, The other two trustees voted to retain the old teachers. From the action of the majority of the board of trustees the said E.G. Coe, Washington Green Pringle, and Lois W. Benson appealed to the County Board of Education of Charleston county, and asked that the action of the majority of the said trustees be not confirmed, but that they, the said E.G. Coe, Washington Green Pringle, and Lois W. Benson be allowed to retain their said positions. There was also presented to the County Board of Education of Charleston county a petition signed as follows: "Mrs. Clara A. Heath, on behalf of School Improvement Association, Chicora Graded School and the parents and pupils in said school; Mrs. A.S. Thomas, on behalf of School Improvement Association, North Charleston Graded School and the parents and pupils in said school; Mrs. F.J. Aichele, on behalf of School Improvement Association Rosemont Graded School and the parents and pupils in said school; Mrs. C.M. Watson, on behalf of Parent-Teachers Association of North Charleston High School and the parents and pupils in said school." In the petition by the last-named parties it was alleged that the said Arthur Lanham, R.C. Henderson, and W.B. Goodwin were without sufficient experience to serve as principals of the schools named, and alleged that the teachers who were not re-elected, by their experience, ability, and training, were better fitted to perform the work than the newly chosen principals; that the schools had prospered under the old principals, and their work had been very satisfactory to the parents of the children attending the said schools, and most beneficial to the pupils of the schools and mentioned other splendid things concerning said teachers and their long and faithful work. The petition charged the trustees who voted for the newly elected teachers with having acted with improper motives, but the record discloses no proof of this charge. In the prayer of their petition, the petitioners asked that the action of the majority of said board of trustees be set aside and disapproved, and that the said E.G. Coe, Washington Green Pringle, and Lois W. Benson be retained; and, further, asked that the board of trustees be instructed by the County Board of Education to carry into effect the action of the County Board of Education.
While the qualifications of the newly elected principals, Arthur Lanham, R.C. Henderson, and W.B. Goodwin is not a question before this Court, it may be stated that they are well qualified to fill the positions to which they were elected.
When the County Board of Education acted upon these petitions, it had before it not only the petition above mentioned, but had before it petitions presented to the trustees by the parents and pupils of the several schools in question, asking for the old teachers to be retained, also the report of the minority trustees, the return of the majority trustees, the minutes of the meeting of the board of trustees when the new teachers were elected, and copies of the recommendations of these teachers.
After consideration, the County Board of Education rendered its decision, and held that the trustees of the school district in question erred in refusing to continue in office the teachers appealing and in electing others in their places, for the reasons stated in the order issued (which order will be reported with the case), and ordered the said contracts made with the said Arthur Lanham, R.C. Henderson, and W.B. Goodwin canceled, and in the order declared the same null and void, and ordered and directed the trustees to continue in office the said E.G. Coe, Miss Pringle, and Mrs. Benson as teachers in their respective positions held by them and to renew their contracts for the ensuing term.
From this decision and order of the County Board of Education for Charleston County, the majority of said trustees of said school district, No. 4, of Charleston County, appealed to the State Board of Education, and the County Board filed a return to the same, together with all the papers which were before the board of trustees and the County Board of Education.
Upon hearing the matter, the State Board of Education issued the following order:
"We are here confronted with a case involving the statutes of law relative to the powers of the local district board of trustees with reference to the employment of teachers. We have no other course than to make our decision in keeping with the laws of this State governing such matters.
"We, therefore, reverse the action of the County Board of Education of Charleston County."
The matter now comes before this Court on a writ of certiorari issued by Mr. Justice Stabler, directed to the respondents, and made returnable on the first day of the October, 1929, term of this Court. In said writ it was provided that the writ was issued subject to be quashed for any good and sufficient reason appearing on return day, and respondents duly served notice that motion to quash would be made on return day. In making their return, respondents specifically reserved their rights under this notice, and, when the matter was heard, motion to quash the writ was made, upon the grounds stated in the motion.
Upon due consideration it is the opinion of the Court that the position of the respondents is well taken. It is therefore the judgment and order of this Court that the writ of certiorari herein be, and the same is hereby, quashed, upon the grounds stated in respondents' motion, which will be reported.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WATTS and MESSRS. JUSTICES COTHRAN, BLEASE and STABLER concur.