SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN H. QUICK, AUDITOR, AND WILLIAM ROBESON, TREASURER, OF FRANKLIN COUNTY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Springfield Township challenged an Ohio law that equalized state school funding by accounting for proceeds from the sixteenth section (federal land grant proceeds) when distributing the general state school fund, arguing this violated federal law requiring those proceeds be used exclusively for township schools. The Supreme Court held that expending sixteenth section proceeds solely for schools within the township where the section exists complies with federal law, and states retain discretion to equalize overall educational funding through their tax and appropriations powers without providing additional state funds to townships receiving federal bounty.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.
The twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act-declares, that where is drawn in question the construction of any statute of the United States, and the decision is against the right set up or claimed by either party under the act of Congress, such decision may be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed, in the Supreme Court, on writ of error. Here it is claimed, for the inhabitants of the township, that the fund arising''from the-proceeds of the sixteenth section shall not be estimated in distributing.the general school fund óf the State derived from taxes paid info the State treasury. The acts of the Legislature equalise the amount that shall be appropriated for the education of' each scholar throughout the State, taking into the estimate the' moneys' derived from the proceeds of the sixteenth section, with the proviso, that the whole of the proceeds shall be expended in the township. If it be more, then an equal portion to each scholar elsewhere furnished by the State fund — still, the township has the benefit of such excess, but receives nothing from the treasury; and if it be less, then the deficiency is made up, so as to equalize according to the general provision.
And the question here is, whether the State laws violate the acts of Congress providing that the proceeds of the sixteenth section shall be for the use of schools in the loionship. And our opinion is, that expending the proceeds of the sixteenth section for the exclusive use of schools “in the township” whore the section exists, is a compliance with the legislation of Congress on the subject; nor is the State bound'to provide any additional fund for a township receiving the bounty of Congress, no matter to what extent other parts of the State are supplied from the treasury.
The law is a perfectly just one; but if it were otherwise, and the school fund was distributed partially, nevertheless those receiving the bounty from Congress have no right'to call on this court to interfere with the power exercised by the State Legislature in laying and collecting taxes, and in appropriating them for educational purposes, at its discretion.
We hold, that a true construction was given to the acts of Congress referred to, and order that the judgment be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Ala. v. Schmidt, 232 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1914)
-
Davis v. Indiana, 94 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1876)…an equality with them in regard to educational means, but of funds of the State derived from other sources, and that in so doing they did not violate the conditions of the trust on which the State received those lands. Springfield Township v. Quick, 22 How. 56. There seems to have been no further trouble in this matter, until, by an act of the legislature of 1878, the school trustee, who was treasurer of the township, and who had previously collected and distributed the mdney arising from this school sec…