State Ex Rel. Beattie v. Board of Edn. City of Antigo

The right of a child of school age to attend the public schools of this state cannot be insisted upon when *234 its presence therein is harmful to the best interests of the school. This, like other individual rights, must be subordinated to the general welfare. It will be conceded, we think, that the foregoing statement of facts presents a fair question as to the effect of the boy’s presence upon the school and the individual pupils attending the same. The question then arises as to what body or tribunal is vested with the authority of determining the question. The trial court seemed to be of the opinion that, while such authority rested with the school board in the first instance, its action in that behalf was reviewable by a jury and subordinate to the jury’s opinion thereon, as indicated by its charge to the jury to the effect that “It is incumbent upon the defendant to prove to you the needfulness of the rule in denying Merritt Beattie the privileges of the graded school by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” The power of the school board in the premises is set forth in sub. 5, sec. 101, ch. 197 (vol. II), Laws 1889, as follows:

“To have in all respects the supervision and management of the common schools of said city, and from time to time, to make, alter, modify and repeal as they may deem expedient, rules and regulations for their organization, government or instruction, . . . and the transfer of pupils from one department to another, and generally for their good order and advancement.” .

The situation here presented aroused the power of the board under that provision of law. Having acted, its determination should not be interfered with by the courts unless it acted illegally or unreasonably. State ex rel. Dresser v. District Board, 135 Wis. 619, 116 N. W. 232; Watson v. Cambridge, 157 Mass. 561, 32 N. E. 864; Kinzer v. Independent School Dist. 129 Iowa, 441, 105 N. W. 686. That it acted legally is without question. That it acted unreasonably cannot be said. The duty confronting the school board was a delicate one. It was charged with the responsibility *235 of saying whether this boy should be denied a constitutional right because the exercise of that right would be harmful to the school and to the pupils attending the same. He should not be excluded from the schools except for considerations affecting the general welfare. But if his presence in school was detrimental to the best interests of the school, then the board could not, with due regard to their official oaths, refrain from excluding him, even though such action be displeasing and painful to them. The record convinces us that the board took this view of the situation and considered the question with the highest motives and with a full appreciation of its responsibility. There is no suggestion that any of the members were prompted by bad faith or considerations of ill will. The action of the board in refusing to reinstate the boy seems to have been the result of its best judgment exercised in good faith and the record discloses no grounds for the interference of courts with its action.

There is one other question which, should be noticed. It is claimed that the school board never acted as a body upon the question of the exclusion of the boy from the schools and that its action is void within the rule “that when a board of public officers is about to perform an act requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment the members must all meet and confer together, or must all be properly notified of such meeting, in order to make the action binding. Individual and independent action, even by a majority of the members of the board, will not suffice.” McNolty v. Board of School Directors, 102 Wis. 261, 78 N. W. 439. It is true that' the exclusion of the .boy in the first instance was not the result of the action of the Board of Education taken at a formal meeting thereof. However, at its meeting on September 13th the board did meet as a board and conferred upon the question as to whether he should be reinstated. A motion was made that he be reinstated, which motion received no second. This amounted to a refusal on the part of the board, acting as a *236 board, to permit him to attend the public schools of the city. The point is not well taken.

The action of the school board, unless illegal or unreasonable, is not subject to the interference of the courts, from which it follows' that the complaint of the. petitioner should be dismissed.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.