Matthews v. Quinton Ex Rel. Quinton

rebuilding of plan conservation

the salmon resource. abolishing No. 3 Ordinance adopting traps people

fish of Alaska adjustments

unaware economic that some cons pros and required.

would he many

the issue been considered salmon

years. persons engaged All trend.

industry obvious had notice of the overwhelming 1948, the referendum of

adoption in 1956 No. 3 of Ordinance in 1958

passage Act of the Alaska Statehood day early of the

clearly arrival indicated the be effect- people could

when the will must be sub- Temporary

ed. inconveniences preventing policy

ordinated to a dedicated

exploitation of one of annihilation known

greatest natural resources food seasonal

mankind, regulation of equitable greatest

harvests re- conserving and

greatest number, while be- posterity. judgments

building for

low are affirmed. (substituted for A. MATTHEWS

Howard Dafoe), of Educa Commissioner Don M. Education; tion; Fair Alaska Board Gourley, District; Jack banks School Transportation Fairbanks Officer Baggen, District; Edgar I. School capacity Board of as President his Dis of the Fairbanks School Directors trict, Appellants, QUINTON, friend,

Judy Kay next Law Quinton Loyola Quinton, I. R. rence behalf herself and all other on Quinton similarly situated; Lawrence R. Quinton, Loyola behalf I. of them similarly situated, Appel others selves and

lees. No. 48.

Supreme Court Alaska.

April 3, 1961.

Rehearing Denied June School, Conception Elementary

late non- a public school within the in Fairbanks and is an Fairbanks School District which incorporated independent school district. Under the laws children be- of Alaska all tween years seven and age, sixteen completed until eighth grade, have required to attend school. Attendance may be at either a school and compulsory child resides school, more than two miles from a unless transportation is furnished.2 The law also empowers defendant Alaska Board Education, require things, other to among school districts enter with to contracts into Gen., Ralph Atty. Nor- Moody,. E. operation, Board for the or sub-con- Gen., ap- Atty. for Schwalb, man L. Asst. tracting operation, transportation of the pellants. systems pupils for to and from the schools respective within McNealy, Act- Merdes, Merdes service areas.3 A. & Edward ing Education, for Camarot, Fairbanks, appellees. the Board of the Com- missioner of into a con- Education entered NESBETT, J., DIMOND Before C. tract Fairbanks School District AREND, JJ. pupils more residing than one miles one-half from AREND, Justice. required school they were to attend. child, a a This is class action school Judy resided more than one and one-half Judy Quinton, who, parents, Kay with her School, Conception miles from Immaculate au- sought enjoin the defendant school to public elementary but there was a transport her on thorities from refusing up through grade, with classes the sixth less nonpublic school school bus to the one than miles and one-half from her home. summary which she was attending. From operated The Fairbanks District School judgment Judy in favor of and all children by Judy’s school bus went home and situated, plaintiff similarly class transported public junior children to the appealed.1 defendants high and senior schools in Fairbanks. As adopt With some modifications we shall Concep- this bus near Immaculate went the statement of facts from a written School, tion Judy used it for opinion rendered the lower at the court January 28, 1959, her school until when summary filing judgment. time of Gourley, defendant offi- Jack complaint District, amended cer this case was the Fairbanks School February 21, At filed time issued directive resulted in law plaintiff Judy years directive, age was eleven suit. Under im- effective attending mediately, grade the fourth in Immacu- all buses were judgment enjoined determining rights permanently pose of 1. This school bus transportation; (3) refusing stop defendant Commissioner of Education discharge attending nonpub- Alaska Board from and the of Education point along withholding transporta (1) schools at a school bus lic route plaintiff such schools. to the class on tion the basis of nearest proximity to a their they school which 37-7-1, ACLA Section attend; (2) applying do not 37-2-8, amended, ACLA distance test than that of the dis Section 37-2-8, (§ place Ch. 51 ACLA tance residence SLA Cum.Supp.1957). pur- of actual attendance for the attempted passed, or elementary school all laws up discontinue picking passed, by in said Ter- legislature one-half closer than one and living provisions with the from a and were not inconsistent ritory miles * * * nonpublic be null discharge schools shall passengers at this section discharging such en route but were to do and void.” public elementary only upon arrival at seriously opinion in its trial court school. in the questioned validity Chapter the controversy court, As in the the lower the light provision of Section 9 and constitution here turns the effect that just concluded Organic quoted, Act but by the passed of an Alaska ality statute yielded and provision such to the force relates which legislature Territorial in 1955 constitution language of the Alaska state at transportation to children the free adopted. We subsequently ratified and nonpublic in Alaska. SLA schools tending pertinent say shall about the have more to 37-6, ACLA (§§ Ch. 37-11-4 to along provisions further of the constitution question in Cum.Supp.1957). The statute opinion. in this referred margin is will be set out in the and reading Chapter One hereinafter as position appellants the take that, at the in mind provi statute must bear Chapter that violate the 39 does not still enactment, time of Alaska was Organic if it is given sions of the Act Territory and had its constitution for is en they interpretation to claim which this Organic Act Alaska.5 Section 9 argue Chapter They titled. public prohibited appropriation nonpublic Act respect transportation purposes buses, nonpublic funds for school by public school school children that, language: following such states and means merely “ * * * money prescribed any public dis children live more than nor shall they could Territory which appropriated tance school he from they attend, ride the any municipal corporation for then are entitled to therein sectarian, any nonpublic school bus to the support or benefit school, actually attending, the other are denominational or requirements “com con- as to the statute under the exclusive * ** parable routes” hav- and distances” and “same government; trol of the provided 4.Chapter children shall likewise be for 1955: “Section SLA compulsory who, compliance recognizes Legislature in facts: with the these Alaska, “(a) non- all education laws of attend schools for Attendance ages in and administered schools which are of seven children between compliance compulsory, except 37-11-1, years 37- with Sections is sixteen child, residing where more 11-2 and 37-11-3 ACLA cases where a in order to reach such his is not two miles than non-public schools, transportation. must travel distances furnished with comparable with, “(b) and over en- routes all children The health of is as, long requiring dangered by and over routes them to walk same distances attending weath- in inclement to school distances endangered transported. safety, also, er; schools are their and requiring walk them to so This be admin- “Section 3. Act shall highways along have no schools of Educa- the Commissioner istered supervision sidewalks. tion the direction under protect “Therefore, in order Education, Board of of the Territorial safety all school children health all the total cost of such trans- objectives Alaska, achieve appro- poration paid from funds shall be compulsory education laws of Legis- purpose of Alaska, priated is enacted. this statute lature.” places In those in Alaska “Section provided seq. under where 21 et § 48 U.S.C.A. 5. 37 Stat. 37-2-8 ACLA 1949 Section public schools, attending § 77. 6. 37 Stat. 48 U.S.C.A. words, appel- In other tion ‘It been met.7 that controls directs ing it. helps up, strengthen the words build lants us construe make asking “his statute successful 1(a) organiza- school” Section to mean “a On issue tions.’ school.” State ex Brown rel. Traub v. ** pupils the lower court ruled order Without there could sense, make illogical 39 to the crucial dis- say school. tance is not to the nearest furnishing distance is not public school or the distance to other some aid the institution em- while nonpublic ployment furnishing but distance which teachers books, child must travel in order reach non- accommodations and fa- * * * public school he cilities which is are such an attending. With aid. ” we ruling accord. Then authority there is another line of Having which ruled on Chapter thus construction holds that a statute such as given to be 39 deter- is for 39, pupils we need of the mine next it school and whether was a valid enactment not does contravene con- provisions provisions . under stitutional the restrictive of Section prohibiting use of Organic 9 of the question funds for nonpublic Act. the benefit aof transpor- whether school.10 providing statutes The rationale of the courts two support tation of nonpublic children to at schools view latter is forth set expense are in District Appeals contravention of Court of for prohibition constitutional appro- Fourth against the District of California in Bowker v. Baker,11 priation public school funds or follows: support funds for the or benefit of sectari- general reasoning line of run- “The private an or (nonpublic) has been ning through uphold those cases which before the courts of number the land on a right pro- of the district of occasions. authority line of One holds transportation [nonpub- vide for free that such statutes are violative con- of the starting finds lic] provision stitutional rea- mentioned.8 The point police power of undoubted soning employed support position of this promote wel- state to perhaps best stated in York the New practical aiding ways the fare case v. Board of Education9 where- Judd young. general- education of the It is in the court said: ly held that the direct benefit conferred “ * ** only Free children with an inciden- is to the pupils private induces attendance the school. tal immaterial benefit schools; purpose that this indirect benefit not promote appropriation money interests of religious institu- private purposes school or sectarian and does not violate supra. Valley 612; 4 7. See note A.L.R. Visser v. Nooksack No. School Dist. 699, 33 Wash.2d Milquet, 8. rel. v. State ex Van Straten 198; McVey Hawkins, 207 P.2d v. 392; 1923, 109, 192 180 Wis. N.W. State 44, 1953, 364 Mo. 258 S.W.2d 927. Brown, 1934, Traub v. 6 W.W. ex rel. 181, 835, 181, 1938, 200, 582, 576, Harr. 36 Del. 172 A. writ 9. N.Y. 15 278 N.E.2d 1938, error 9 W.W.Harr. 789. dismissed A.L.R. 118 187, 478; 187, 39 Del. 197 A. Judd v. Board of Education of Baltimore Coun Education, 1938, 200, Board 278 N.Y. Wheat, 1938, ty 314, 174 v. Md. A. 199 reargu 576, 789, 118 15 N.E.2d A.L.R. County 628; Adams v. Commissioners of 1938, 712, ment denied 278 N.Y. 17 N.E. Mary’s 1942, County, 550, 180 Md. 26 St. 134; Gurney Ferguson, 1941, 2d v. 190 377; Baker, 1946, Bowker v. A.2d 73 254, 1002; 122 Okl. P.2d Sherrard Cal.App.2d 653, P.2d County Education, Jefferson Board 1942, Ky. 469, 963; Cal.App.2d 653, 171 S.W.2d 167 P.2d Mitchell v. Consol. School Dist. No. Wash.2d 135 P.2d 125 N.E.2d Plymouth, giv- Mass. against provision any constitutional compel would lie 410 held that mandamus denominational aid to ing State _ provide trans- school committee to town schools.” portation attending private ele- pupils one here is raised question Since the mentary schools same extent that also Alaska, we have impression in first pub- provided committee the decisions carefully considered read and elementary pupils. court lic Kentucky, Connecticut, courts of the hold- question by avoided the constitutional which, at Jersey, and New Massachusetts that, rights ing personal property since Mary- blush, might to follow seem first body involved, committee were how- find, We rule. land California constitutionality of question could squarely did ever, courts provided trans- for such statute here. before face the issue us I portation. Newtown, Snyder v. Town Jersey The New Court Errors 770, appeal dis A.2d 147 Conn. Appeals, in Everson Education v. Board of 692, 5 L.Ed.2d missed 81 S.Ct. Ewing Tp.,14 presump- on the rule of could be used held that school constitutionality tion the state sustained of public or common support for the of legislation which the authorized local that a Connecticut It was held also schools. districts make to rules and contracts municipalities vote to permitting statute transportation the children of to and gen pay from their should whether school and also held the resolution un- valid children transportation of for the funds eral appellee, township der which the board con nonpublic violate a not to schools did education, of authorized reimbursement art. provision, C.G.S.A.Const. stitutional “ * * * parents money expended by of them for law person shall 1, that § * * * transportation of their children Catholic join support compelled to or be parochial shown, schools. Since it was not association.” religious any congregation, church or way other, any one the the of 12 funds involved came from [133 N.J.L. County Board of Sherrard Jefferson support A.2d “the fund for of the 336] Appeals Education,13 Kentucky Court the presumed the court free schools” that the could held funds had payment money out constitu- was made used for the tionally purpose. available for that years Three attending schools. that the court would have decided obvious Ky. Henry, 1945, later, Nichols v. any showing made otherwise if had been 1385, the 434, 191 S.W.2d A.L.R. mingled argued that the funds as court, though reaffirming decision same opinion.15 dissenting Be that the as individu- case, Sherrard held that the the may, Jersey New amended its constitution transporta- pay for such counties could al years permit transporta- later to such two funds, but out general out of tion tion.16 taxes raised levied any funds purposes. for educational eventually The Everson case reached the States,17 Supreme Court of Supreme Court of Massa- the United The Judicial unpersuasive Quinn five to deci- v. School Committee four chusetts portation. reported page The 775 note 2. latter case is 12. 161 A.2d at Board as Everson v. of Education of Ky. 469, 1942, 294 171 S.W.2d Ewing Tp., 1944, N.J.L. 39 A.2d N.J.L. 44 A.2d re- Jersey versing judgmént pages the New 15. 44 340-341. A.2d Supremo taxpayer, Court in favor of 45 infra. 16. See note Everson, challenged right who had parents Education, 1947, Board to reimburse v. Board of of the 17. Everson parochial school children for bus faros U.S. 67 S.Ct. L.Ed. paid in connection with school trans- 168 A.L.R. 1392. Jersey men the New Jersey New statute constitution and then hold upheld the sion Court that the general use of the fund to above. state’s tioned Jersey pay accepted finding question of the New being “that Appeals anot violation of and Fourteenth Court of Errors and as the First nor Jersey] statute Amendments of the federal constitution.21 neither [New passed resolution school board] [of Having Chap carefully examined pursuant in conflict with to it was ter 39 provision and that 9 of Section provisions of constitution or the State the Alaska Organic Act proscribed 18 Actually, in issue.” Federal Constitution appropriation funds for held it, Jersey court we view New support sectarian, or benefit of de general only general funds private school, having nominational or could con districts weighed jurisdic the decisions from other trans stitutionally pay used costs tions against right for and of a state “the portation nonpublic But schools. provide for the free could support free fund schools” nonpublic schools, being special Historically not he so used. regard mindful of the due which should en used school funds aside were set judicial be had for a determination of the schools. tirely support of free Supreme United States Court on a related worded early state constitutions matter, we hold that 39 violated thought mind that plain provisions Organic Act come money available above mentioned. limited from that fund and would he support income free schools. long In its schools Alaska has inadequate from has such funds found provided the secular education of all supply to money the needed for prevent any but it does child however, recourse age and so this modern obtaining from secular or both secular New general funds.19 The had the is also schools, nonpublic sectarian education in con that the Jersey court concluded state provided only that these the schools meet “gen prohibit the use of stitution did prescribed.22 secular standards If those non pay eral funds” met, parent standards the guardian Organic Alaska Act public schools. The right has a constitutional to send the child “general distinction between made no such nonpublic to a school.23 The of exercise support the of free funds” “funds right by this the individual is not incon against proscription the Its was schools.” with sistent our determination that the 20 public money.” “any of appropriation legislature Territory of the of Alaska un analysis, Supreme Court provisions

In the final the der the of Section 9 the nothing more than Organic Everson case in the did Act had authority pass no interpretation of accept court’s required the state statute which the use of 21. The 18. Id., 19. Everson cle Justice A.2d page 4, Ewing Tp., 33 constitution. visions CT. sack Wash.2d IX, Valley 330 U.S. same at Black, with Chief Justice Vin- section page article 336; 67 v. Board of School holds true under 505, S see also Visser v. Nook opinion was written at 6 of the Alaska state VII, 207 page Dist. 133 N.J.L. section . P.2d ^[91] L.Ed. No. page A.L.R. at at Education 717, ^[168] the and arti- page pro- 1 3 9 by 44 8 . 23. Pierce v. 22. These standards are set forth in sec- U.S. final 39 A.L.R. 468. ports. tions 37-11-1 to diplomas, and attendance and Butledgo, Douglas concurring. sented. son and Justices pertain eighth Erankfurter Society S.Ct. to teachers’ grade 37-11-3, Murphy, examinations Sisters, 1925, Justices and Burton dis- 69 L.Ed. ACLA 1949 certificates, annual re- Reed' and Jackson, and; pay chil- applicable to be P. here. school; nonpublic such legislature Territory because 1854 the dren to hold, funds, Washington consti- passed use we providing a law that a nonpublic school. prose- tutes a benefit defendant in a criminal case and the exercise legislation cuting attorney, Nor is valid with the assent of point court, police power, shall later might as we submit the trial to the court except capital charged was out. cases. Ellis robbery stipulated that he should Quin- Judy point appellees, At this be tried by jurors. jury eleven found argu- interpose parents, ton her guilty him and Ellis aside moved to set that, Chapter 39 violated ment even if the verdict as a new trial. void and for under Organic Act here provisions The lower court granted the motion for upon passed consideration, court ever reason that not waive the con- Ellis could constitutionality during question of its by jurors. right stitutional a trial twelve Hence, territorial status. Alaska’s motion, appealed The state con- when force and effect was in full statute tending that n inasmuch as law oper- became Alaska constitution state adop- the statute books the time of 3, 1959,24 was rati- January ative of Washington tion state constitution XV, section and confirmed article fied (1889), and section of article provides: of the constitution which provided laws which constitution Territory force in the “All laws in Territory of were then in force effective date Alaska on Washington repugnant to the con- and not therewith and consistent constitution until stitution should in full force remain they until continue full force shall expired by their own limitation limitation, are expire by own repealed law legislature, this amended, .repealed.” incorporated laws became into the accept as a argument We cannot valid as considered dictionary26 gives the sound one. existing until declared constitutional law “valid” one of the definitions word competent judi- to be unconstitutional phrase “in force.” Professor Wil- state, authority. claim the To this cial law in his work on constitutional loughby appellate replied: the court years the thirty ago that some stated hardly of “But we think this .rule by be tested the validity of a statute is sound. Section construction powers legislature a at the constitutional be construed as article 27 could not and, tested, it if so of its enactment time statute, the re-enacting a as all force power, beyond will not legislative the continue in all it had was to force by a valid constitutional be rendered then in exist- laws which were valid subsequent by amendment, except re-enact- ence.” ment.27 principle finding the Wash- recognize legal the consider the We We supreme provision, court on similar which from ington State that a constitutional Ellis, by expressly Wash. shows question language in State the used or VII, uary 3, 1959, particular present was not Article action commenced 24. The twenty-seven January 1 thereof.” until Section days date state the effective after Webster, Diction- New International constitution. Unabridged 1960). ary, (2d ed. may argument from have stemmed 25. This Willoughby, Constitutional Daw 27. 1 opinion lower court (2d at 11 § United States ed. efficacy of this that “the was stated 1929). obviously yield- Organic Act clause page language 28. 60 P. at to the force ed and after Jan- from Alaska Constitution public er intended to educational institutions. necessary implication that it * * * antece- Schools shall so established retrospectively validate operate be No renders free from sectarian control. legislation, unconstitutional dent money paid consti- public shall be legislation to which from all such valid relates, re-enact- provision religious tutional without direct benefit of attempt- by legislature, or other institu- ment unless educational obligations impair tion.” validation ed rights.29 or contract divest vested Appellees conflict concede that there is bearing cases the sub- examined, we on judicial philosophies to stat- .relative j require ect, constitution- validating that the Chapter utes of such main- kind as but reference, provision al must make some tain that constitu- favoring the view slight inferential,

however or statute tionality persuasive, reflects the more by intended to be validated.30 Tested by judicial current trend and is called principles just stated, 1 of arti- section Supreme the decision United States constitution, cle XV of the Alaska in our disagree Court in the Everson case. We opinion, by language does not show except as is a to the statement there used, directly necessary impli- either judicial philosophies. conflict in the cation, operate it was intended key IX words section 6 of article retrospectively Chapter so as to validate and section 1 Alaska of article VII follows, therefore, Chapter It constitution, insofar as is con- this case today remains void as it was cerned, purpose” are “for a day of its enactment. Appellees “direct benefit.” contend We ques- next address ourselves to the Chapter very serves valuable tion of whether under 1 of article section purpose by compliance with encouraging VII and section IX of article .6 compulsory the state’s law and education constitution, Chapter may now contributes to the health welfare through validated re-enactment eliminating highway hazards state legislature. We believe not. nonpub- climatic conditions Alaska for Section 6 of article IX our constitu- further lic children. is their specifically tion declares that designed to contention that 39 is levied, appropri- “No tax shall parents aid and their children. made, ation money pub- connection cite the cases property lic transferred, shall nor jurisdictions which hold that used, except credit be for a school children non- public purpose.” the chil- schools is for benefit of This is general expresses measure and dren and confers no direct benefit very policy. definite It be con- needs to the schools concerned. sidered, however, in relation to section 1 the legislature It is that in enact- true provides article VII which ing Chapter recognized following 39 legislature “The general shall as stated statute itself: facts in system law establish and maintain open “(a) Attendance at all children schools for all to may provide ages the State and between the children seven oth- Annotation, 1947, well, 1941, 125, 524; 171 1072- La. A.L.R. 199 5 So.2d 1079, Superior Court, in which the rule stated v. is Lee Cal. 191 many 972; Boyd Olcott, 1921, in cases relation 214 P. thereto are cited v. 431, 448; P. discussed. 102 202 Or. Northern County People’s Utility Wasco District v. People Roberts, County, ex rel. McClelland v. 210 Wasco Or. 305 P. 766, 771; Brokerage 148 N.Y. 42 Porto Rico N.E. 2d Co. v. United 399; Young, 1911, States, 1934, L.R.A. Fontenot v. F.2d 408; Tug- La. So. CCPA 236. Peck years compulsory, health, and sixteen ex- safety class-' welfare of his cept child, in those cases re- mate along where who rides his home is because siding his more miles from anyone say than two route. Nor can is not trans- furnished with 1.49 grader, school first lives who portation. walk, miles from his school and has to

“(b) The than, health children is will of all feel the cold not less endangered by requiring as, walk to face them to an risks older same traffic long grader distances sixth to school in who nonpublic inclement school weather; also, gets safety, and their to ride on bus be- school endangered requiring in them to so cause he at a along lives the bus route and along highways nonpublic walk to their schools distance of 1.51 miles from the that have no school of sidewalks. his choice. “Therefore, protect order to high- Neither the inclement weather nor safety health and all school chil- way justifi- traffic hazards used as a Alaska, dren and to achieve Alaska passed cation for the first law

objectives compulsory education provide transportation to chil- Alaska, laws is enact- this statute chapter dren. We .refer to 83 of section ed.” Alaska, of the Laws of pro- to legislature But this intent were au- simply stated that school boards safety all school tect health and to thorized contract for the carried children in Alaska was not out pupils more “who a distance of reside nonpublic only enacted. statute (2) than two miles from the school transporta- free required attend, children to entitled trans- are or where such must those who Chapter 39 are portation necessary tion under children afford to. same comparable and the distances Dis- opportunity travel attend school.” attending children routes over which the been the tance from school seems to have transported. motivating legislation schools are force are words, nonpublic children who time. along pub- living enough to be fortunate just By has said we do what transporta- given are school bus route lic legislature has no imply that the mean nonpublic school All other

tion. authority provide legislation for compulsory at- mile two living within safety school children health and of all than one and and more limit tendance Nor do we mean to decide Alaska. are left their school miles one-half discriminatory in its nature. Chapter 39 is themselves. fend for Chap- time saying are at this is that weAll truthfully said that cannot not effectuate the intent ex- ter does highways and the weather winter severe legislature. therein pressed Fairbanks around sidewalks without argument Turning now to health, welfare hazardous to less transportation of school child who nonpublic school safety of nonpublic schools school buses is bus route along a school live does child,31 than we to school of direct to walk has therefore resulting theory” children and the bene- seems tho of benefit “child 31. The support Throe of seven in of a fit of the state. mem- advanced first have ap providing court took of the view that for bers statute Louisiana stating pur unconstitutional, statute was funds for the propriation of nonpublic maintenance of for “the sec- books of chase schools, may v. however valuable be In Borden Louisiana tarian children. they perform, 1929, Education, is not a 168 La. the work Board State justify purpose 663, 1183, 655, so as to the ex- 67 A.L.R. 123 So. public money penditure supreme in court hold Louisiana support.” n such appropriation for the benefit fur say that, opinion, again transportation tained that our is the least- nishing items, of such essential these or that it does expense not in constitutes a direct aid, fact and encourage, sustain expressed support, just very school. This was the view do, as York, process Okla Delaware, the courts of New purpose which is -its to accom- Kentucky,32 and plish. homa, Washington, and it, No less is essential dis payment very it was favored also view cost, of its than Louisiana Maryland,33 senting jurists teaching payment the classroom or Jersey,35 (in case),34 New Many a textbook the teacher’s sustenance. adopted the types courts equipment, where the state now considered four dis theory, by the essential, child benefit better with- could be done Su States senting the United out. Justices Educ preme Board of Court Everson v. me, therefore, “For feat is im- Rutledge in ation.36 Said Mr. Justice possible indispensable select so Everson case: costs, item composite from the of total is “Finally, transportation, where it and characterize aiding, it as not con- needed, as education is as essential to tributing to, sustaining promoting or any is other Its cost element. propagation is beliefs it expense, part ex much a total the very end about. bring of all to cept amount, as the cost at times in maintained, Unless this can and the lunches, textbooks, of school it, Court does not maintain aid- writing and equipment, athletic oth given Payment thus outlawed. materials; items er indeed of all more, nor no Now as composing the total burden. any education, the less essential always the core the educational secular, religious pay- whether than process teacher-pupil relation is the tuitions, ment for for teachers’ sala- equip ship. the richest Without ries, buildings, equipment for nec- go ment and facilities essary materials. Nor is Educa naught. See v. Board of Judd directly less related, giving in a school tion, 15 N.E.2d 278 N.Y. religious instruction, primary prover 118 A.L.R. 789. But the religious objective all essential conception no Hopkins Mark bial items of cost are intended to achieve. country’s longer suffices for re No line rational can be drawn between quirements. buildings, with Without payment larger, not more such but library, equipment, text out without necessary, payment items materials, and with books and other transportation. can line that bring teacher out be so drawn is one between more dol- pupil together in an effective such Certainly in this lars less. realm environment, teaching there can a line can be valid constitu- what our the skeleton of even ”37 * * * require. Hardly main- measure. can it be tional times Ewing Tp., 1945, listed 133 N.J.L. cases in which the states A.2d rejected benefit the- 338-343. text the child supra. ory in note 8 are cited Education, v. Board of 36. Everson Baltimore of Education 33. Board 47-49, 330 U.S. S.Ct. Wheat, 1938, County 174 Md. 711, 740. L.Ed. 628, 633-642. 199 A. Judge Jersey Case the New Court Board Borden v. Louisiana State Appeals, of Errors who wrote the Education, 168 La. 123 So. dissenting opinion in the Everson case 655, 662-664, 67 A.L.R. being it was considered when the state court, pointed among Education out v. Board of of that the weak- 35. Everson by years About two after the United States consideration reason of the deci- opin- case, sion in Supreme supra, Court had handed down its the Everson we supreme case,38 the are the ion in the Everson constrained to hold that Washington Washington although decided court of the state of constitution Dis- Valley precepts, in is a Visser v. Nooksack School based the same 506,39 payment trans- rights trict No. that of clear denial herein the of the as- the portation appellants.” violated parochial by schools serted not feel state constitution. The did court case, appellate court most recent Everson itself decision in the bound the found, which we have strikes down respect case and in that stated: nonpublic chil of school Mc public dren on buses is that school of pro- “Our own state constitution Vey Hawkins, 1953, S.W. 44, 258 364 Mo. property money or public vides that no court, supreme 2d Here the Missouri support shall be used in institutions of sitting banc, per en curiam delivered a re- particular wherein the tenets aof opinion parochial of ligion Although the deci- taught. are pupils public buses was supreme cisions the United States of expenditure public school of highest the con- court entitled to are purposes main support than the and related they bear on sideration as public tenance of as directed free schools must, court, questions we before this statutory provi the constitutional and provisions of our light in clear of the the state, notwithstanding sions of decisions state constitution and our furnishing claim such trans buses thereunder, respectfully disagree any dis portation greater did not travel Everson portions of by any make tance different route construed, in opinion might be that, special stops consequently, any and transpor- abstract, stating that as outlay expense no additional of expense, to tation, furnished furnishing of kind was incurred schools, is attending religious mentioning transportation. Without While support of such schools. case, expressly court .re the Everson necessary support degree of theory.” jected “child-benefit religior constitute an establishment First Amendment under appellees’ spite contention iron constitution is foreclosed Federal case controlling Everson case in the argument, supervision growth, as in tlie “child benefit” nesses of athletic and the avoiding bodily limita- constitutional a means am un- activities and exercise. I vagueness impos- tions, logic distinguish “are its between the able satisfactorily distinguishing sibility against using funds for one as expenses parts sys- from another one item of of the of the another several long process pursued by child education.” toward tem pro- education, 339] 44 A.2d con- N.J.L. He [133 ‘the advancement literacy : tinued motion and the health perceive quickly safety’ Every step pupils. [the “child “We argument] applies merely process is, presumably, benefit” educational poten- therefore, and, costs but benefit of the child many theoretically and varied tial costs of items state. for the benefit of the entering Consequently, argument sound, into modern education. There is if the point. logical stopping items, legisla- Related is within the discretion already system, ture, restraint, ad- free of constitutional having practically provide field to the vast to do with dition the entire cost imparting knowledge, parochial the actual of education installation maintenance of cafe- as in schools.” well promotion preservation terias, Page 936, supra. pupils, employment the health keep- inspectors nurses, medical Wash.2d 207 P.2d development ing records the “or opinion the words indirect” contrary to of after bar and word at the Alaska “direct” District of should not be used Court for the District by holding “they reason that the would itself bound reach it out to that felt in finity practically” propose fol- case,40we to shut and the Everson out the chil in dren private in Wash- reasoning Courts of of the from low the such free care Delaware, and as was Missouri, by ington, being given Wisconsin the state wel department fare that Oklahoma and hold to all children.42 pub- nonpublic schools to Several delegates the constitutional expense contravention lic would be in convention in the floor debate on the issue our state constitution. of whether section of article VII should be amended to include the “or words in- remains for consideration There direct,” mentioned but minutes of appellees that the claim the them, one of Buckalew, expressed Mr. an make convention the Alaska constitutional opinion the matter, in stating that, refusing to unmistakably it clear in President, amendment “Mr. “indirect” I add term don’t think question VII, constitu- has yet by to article section been answered any persons explicitly of the tion, delegates spoken intended who have on subject. bus trans- this eliminate If and not continue word ‘indi- rect’ there, children. inis portation nonpublic school it going for to elim- do re- inate any will, almost the convention41 kind The minutes of It aid. Health, example, Edu- on lunch, eliminate veal that the Committee the free drafting eliminate in bus transportation, Provisions cation Welfare eliminate and for example, VII, section article we had a school or an sentence the last money shall “No institution that where had a provides bene- it any for the direct would eliminate giving the State paid funds private edu- support to the child religious or other because that any fit of words institution,” support be indirect to the insti- considered would cational that the and felt I think when tution. the members and “indirect” “direct” 41. All in this Welfare tion, tary cation or other minutes seek out have wrote judgment mittee ords constitutional Everson. erwise. Committee Roland “ using separation * holding reasons if he now adopted references religious Honorable ** dissenting State, country Provisions, Alaska Constitutional Armstrong,, opinion was his explained word “direct” This section proceedings convention Juneau, between affiliations, departments based, Health, had been weakened in this Yernon Justices Everson reasoning custody below, felt himself feeling spoke Committee’s Alaska. a member of the to the convention church and frankly are independent Education D. Forbes opinion to the of the and ruled gives as follows: case, for the Com- help bound he admitted the edu Conven- right decision Alaska Secre- action would them state Rec- wall who oth- ing the use of take paid from indigents the committee ment. Now 55-56. Convention vate amendment educational tutions ed Convention matters, matters out in the clusion of society this interfere become funds, to serve where there are institutions, floor wherever of welfare. We would also n ^[*] doubt this Committee, light any religious denominational Minutes, of our here to institution.’ hospitals homes relative to funds people I strong n .” Alaska word reads away of letters am sure this motives, clarify as we January through as has touches on ‘No welfare object does other practice when there that no one on We that have we money useful or other Constitutional and we disbursement been amend part those insti do did health and educational to the in the direct one cases for given 1956, pp. not wish prohibit shall be part this to of this state help point come pri 944 it, they ought point

vote I think under- state.46 on That needs to be clarified. stand the word “indirect” cuts out It has been power— said that police the everything, just comprehensive all kinds of broad though eliminates is—it support.” may not be of exercised in contravention plain and unambiguous inhi- constitutional ap- From such a state the of record bitions In Balti- Board of Education of min- pellees have that the would us infer Parke, County Wheat,48 more Judge v. make utes of the constitutional convention dissenting, sovereign conceded unmistakably delegates clear police has inherent and reserved transporta- eliminate intended not to free power safety, promote to enact laws nonpublic We for tion children. health general society welfare of but expressed meaning find no such clear power stated that this be exercised must any re- give those minutes us as within constitutional his It was limits. interpretation. Pro- liable assistance in As opinion, and judges two of the other “Every observed, once Willoughby fessor dissent, who concurred in the that the ex- upon acts member of such convention police power tension of the exercise as influence him motives and reasons transportation of school personally, debates and the motions and dangers pedestrian because of travel necessarily purpose do not indicate by public highway, would adopting a of a convention be of legality doubtful even if it were particular We feel that clause.”44 protect, an effort of the state to without con- delegates to the Alaska constitutional discrimination, all school children. people their vote who vention and summary judgment is reversed with left it court the constitution to this ratified directions dismiss the action. transportation of decide whether free nonpublic schools would con- children to NESBETT, J.,C. concurs. a “direct” benefit the schools. stitute otherwise, intended we If DIMOND, (dissenting). Justice constitu- that the framers of our certain majority’s dissent from the I harsh and example set tion would followed unjust In reviving the lifeless conclusion. New York New people of corpse Act, of the Alaska Organic issue and settled the controversial Jersey realities ignores court and establishes a for providing the constitution itself interpreta- harmful rule of constitutional school children non- transportation of concluding that the In tion. expense.45 public schools at state directly benefits a of a child it dis- opinion inescapable Earlier we stated on the regards facts record of Convention, consider we not as- did the Constitutional police power exercise a state facts that the does valid sumes record provided at 69. in 1947 43. Id. constitution VIII, 4, part paragraph article section Willoughby, Constitutional Law of 44. Legislature 3, may, thereof “The (2d 1929). 32§ States United ed. reasonable limitations within as to dis- prescribed, provide to be tance 11, York amended article section 45. New ages of children within the its constitution after eighteen (5) (18) years of five in- (see in the Judd case note 8 and decision any clusive, to and from school.” supra), permit legisla- page expenditure provide supra. Pages ture 937 and Mitchell v. Consolidated School Dist. any from to and school. Board No. Wash.2d 135 P. of Central School District Education 612, citing 79, 146 A.L.R. 2d authori etc., Allen, 17 Misc.2d No. ties. Jersey, N.Y.S.2d 186. New adopted entirely hand, new Md. 199 A. support. expressing criticism or benefit” a private school.1 The state literally “all” the school bus statute prohibits because constitution payment afforded money children in Alaska are funds for the “direct imputes to transportation, unjustifiably benefit” such school.2 con- I am motives, and legislature Chapter fictitious vinced that 39 confers no benefit usurps de legislative prerogative any private school, kind on the necessary termining appropriate what is legislative therefore a valid enactment public good. pointing that In out whether tested Organic under the Act or weather are as detri and traffic hazards the constitution. But I submit that non-public mental court has established a harmful rule of transportation un who are not entitled to in validity construction measuring the qualify who do der 39 as to those existing an against organic statute an law statute, it given by for the assistance longer no existed after Alaska be- suggests an unfair dis the existence of a came state.3 deny crimination; ultimately and then in It is an established doctrine American non-public ing bus to all jurisprudence legislative that a enactment very compounds the it presumed constitutional,4 to be valid and appears de discrimination which it and that the authority determining final plore. so construing the constitution whether this is judici- so is vested in the saps constrictively, narrowly and it ary.5 any If this significance doctrine has meaning from the strength and takes the at statute, all it means that a until declared rights classic statement of human court, operative invalid a is an fact. article, is dedi first that “This constitution The act involved here was so considered. * * n all principles that cated to Since its enactment in at the equal equal persons are and entitled time the state constitution became effec- opportunities, under rights, protection tive, operation; respected it was in it was * * a child permitting *.” In the law obeyed by charged with the only bus on condition to ride a school duty executing the laws. is in ef- public school, it has the he attends a that ought This fect now. is as it be.6 restricting effect of the natural coercive If at the time the constitution became parents, acting in accordance right of operative presumption validity still preferences, direct the legitimate their Chapter 39, recog- attached to and it was children; and thus it education of by all something nized concerned as theory lib disregards the fundamental meaning, a and had rather than existed power general erty which excludes exist, nullity something that did not to standardize educa government it then I submit that was a law “in force” tion of children. XV, meaning of article within section 1. Organic Act. 1.The Alaska as it was consistent with the con- long So prohibited appro- Organic Act

The stitution it was intended to continue in money “support limitations, expired by priation until it its own force (1912), Willoughby, Law, 77§ U.S.O.A. 4. 1 Constitutional § 1. 37 Stat. 42-43, (2d 1929). (1952). 27 at 47 § ed. Const, Marbury Madison, 1803, YII, art. § Cranch 2. Alaska 177-178, 177-178, 5 U.S. 2 L.Ed. January a state on became 3. Alaska 73; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust 3269, 24 Exec.Proclamation No. Co., 157 U.S. 15 S.Ct. (1959), Fed.Reg. 48 U.S.O.A. note 759, 810; 673, 39 L.Ed. 16 C.J.S. Consti- preceding Alaska Statehood section Law 92. § tutional (1958), Act, 48 U.S.O.A. 72 Stat. Close, 1942, preceding 21. At section moment 201 La. 6. See Wall v. Constitution became effective So.2d State superseded Organic Alaska Act. repealed. only valid and were Territorial or was amended not. If that such limitation was and had not been declared restriction or laws existed constitution; operative harmony court, they with the invalid were be then law consistent required —they presumed it be also were in force. It was Logi- Organic Act. with the Territorial were valid. also validity or cally, then, this means adopted construction there- was constitutionality of such statute explained only this sourt can be limita- against the tested after theory legislature that if an was act state constitution. new forth tions set Organic invalid under the itAct was not delegates to the Convention law; inoperative, no conferred people law framing organic rights, imposed no duties and afforded first for the society entering political into for basis actions taken it.9 such under If already community time, a but rather for a true, broad it universally statement is be It can existing laws. with organized logically would follow that something nature they presumed knew was not a at the law time of enactment could unneces- They felt laws. effect of those not be a in force at con- law the time the provide for impracticable sary stitution became effective.10 body lawof new an entire enactment of But it been has found this statement existing statutes the state when for qualifications. must be taken with Pro- Consequently, suffice. in most instances fessor Willoughby recognized this some only reasonable they did what thirty years ago. spoke He of “circum- continua- for provided practical; legal stances under rights obliga- which they were where laws Territorial tion of consequences tions or are attached to They thus harmony the constitution. with legislative later enactment which is held system of statu- the state established unconstitutional”, “the stated that if legal effect as tory with same law judicial retroactive pronounce- force by the re-enacted had been statutes ment as to unconstitutionality not com- branch the state7—that legislature for 11 plete.” too, courts, The have seen the all derives government the state problem. The Appeals Court of constitution. authority from the Circuit, Third speaking taxing of a stat- adopted reference thus The statutes ute, said: “in force” were those that “Accepting unconstitutionality The constitution. date of effective 1929, act as determined gives the dictionary says that the Supreme State, Court it was one of definitions “valid” as word none the less a statute under which the dictionary But the force”. “in phrase school district acted when it levied its “opera- phrase means states also years taxes for the 1937 and 1938.”12 8 assume more reasonable It is tive.” Appeals The Court of District intended. dele- is what was that this Columbia, referring laws were after the belief that not determine gates could parte Bustillos, 1920, 449, People 10. Ex McClelland v. Rob ex rel. 26 7. N.M. See 641, 886, 448, erts, 1895, 194 P. 889. 34 N.Y.S. 13 Misc. 1896, 360, 650, 42 N.Y. affirmed Willoughby, Law, 11. 1 Constitutional 8§ 1085, 399. L.R.A. N.E. (2d 1929). at 11 ed. Dictionary, Webster, New International Phipps Pittsburgh, v. School District of 1960). (2d Unabridged, ed. at Cir., 1940, F.2d And see Shelby County, 1886, Dougherty’s Sons, also J. 118 U.S. A. Inc. v. 9. Norton v. Com 178, 186; Revenue, Cir., missioner 30 L.Ed. Internal 6 S.Ct. Hackett, Chicago, 121 F.2d I. & R. Co. L. S.Ct. 57 L.Ed. 228 U.S. 966, 969. invalid, unconstitutional meaning. unlawful an and without act declared effect, transport said: Monies used children who did force never 'illegal attend the school were “ * * * approach is Yet a realistic expenditures. In fairness to Alaska tax- ”13 * * * eroding this doctrine. payers, those now be re- should monies per- problem, has principle, and the covered by the state. Mr. haps explicitly stated most But problems. this raises From serious when, speaking Hughes Chief Justice whom, for example, would the state seek court, he said: unanimous recovery expenditures? of those Would clear, however, quite “It is it be the whose Commissioner Education the effect of broad as to statements duty it was under 39 to administer unconstitutionality determination of the statute? be the bus Would it qualifications. taken must be been, contractor to whom the monies have statute, prior to actual existence of a now, be, being paid? Or would it operative determination, such a perhaps, bus, the child who rode the school consequences which fact may expense, in violation of past justly ignored. The cannot Organic Act and the constitution ? by a new always cannot be erased I would doubt that the executive branch the judicial effect of declaration. government, of our which so has success- may subsequent invalidity ruling toas fully statute, validity assailed the the of in various have considered to be go choose to that far. But it did if particular aspects, respect —with not, places then it in the inconsistent itself relations, corporate, and individual and position of on that the saying one hand particular conduct, official. private and act a nullity, was of force and effect Questions have of claimed to rights whatever, saying in on the other hand vested, status, prior deter- become of of really operative that it did force have some finality and minations deemed to have prior to the effective court’s date of this accordingly, acted judgment If declaring the invalid. statute policy light in the nature both the past it is may considered that the not be appli- previous statute its the and of because, rights disturbed become g., e. have cation, These demand examination. vested or prior because determinations questions are the most difficult among to have deemed have been finality made engaged atten- of those the perhaps even because of considerations federal, courts, it tion of state public policy, broad then all fairness is manifest from numerous decisions operative there recognized should be that an statement of a all-inclusive Chapter force of time the 39 con- principle invali- retroactive absolute stitution became and the fact that effective ”14 * * * dity justified. cannot be meaning it was a law “in force” within XV, article section 1. are, indeed, questions, There as difficult the Chief Adherence to incongruity stated. Another striking is found Justice invalidity might rule of absolute retroactive holding the court’s that it bound consequences well in this have undesired decision Supreme of the United States Chapter It 39 Chapter case. could mean that in the Everson Court case.15 If 39 really day were not a it was enacted enactment, law when void on the was as was, 1955, every says under majority action taken it was then it to be con- Warring 1941, App.D.C. Rockaway Colpoys, Supply v. lations Board v. News 303, 642, 646, Co., Inc., 1953, 122 F.2d 136 A.L.R. 1025. 345 U.S. 73 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. County Drainage 14. Chicot District Bank, Education, Baxter State 308 U.S. 15. Everson v. Board of 84 L.Ed. 330 U.S. S.Ct. S.Ct. L.Ed. 711. 332-333. See also Labor Re- National status, must Act, says one recognize Organic existent it

sistent the court should system go existed, judicial back in time ascertain whether as it then whether power up determine act would have under limitations stood Territory found organic found in law act limitations was void under ignore logical a Alaska. But it Organic chooses Act. approach condition utilizing such —that Territory. Its In Alaska was a Chapter measuring validity also court, judiciary one district consisted of pro- against judicial restrictions on court Congress.16 That act created upon the Terri- imposed then nouncements laid down as was bound to follow law reaches torial District Court. This court Court; Supreme by the United States Act; past Organic into the to resurrect deci- pertinent disregard a was not free present it then assume returns to felt, Supreme if it sion of Court a court, prerogative bound in was here, decision does deci- pertinent matter like this to follow unpersuasive.17 Supreme sion of Court. the United States New use-of held that Everson was If the the rule applying court insists transporta- Jersey’s general pay for fund to invalidity, then as to absolute retroactive was parochial schools tion of children to entirety. applied I submit in its it should be fourteenth not a violation of the first and apparent done, readily If it would be amendment to the federal constitution. force”, “law used court found that monies constitution, and within the meaning of private purpose, for a rather than bearing Organic that the Act has no Alaska have the effect and that did not at all on issue in this case. parochial schools. supporting manifest, said also, court from what the History. 2. Constitutional have been to that no benefit was considered proceedings If all the Con- relevant if it schools, conferred and considered, it are stitutional Convention ques- had, constitutional the decision on the “direct abundantly be clear that the will way. have the other tions would VII, proscription section benefit” in article preclude public was not meant trans- con- to decision, then, have been would That portation non-public attending of children validity Chapter 39 had trolling if the court, however, to schools. refuses This by District been determined Territorial importance any pro- attach of such to per- court, regardless of the That Court. position ceedings. takes it was particular judge, aof would sonal views to court decide whether free left to required that the use have been to hold non-public of children to provide monies to constitute a benefit schools would direct non-public neither to schools, if delegates to the and that schools. supported nor benefited such they would, Convention had otherwise necessity, intended Chapter have been 39 specific provision made would have act the Alaska be valid declared to transportation. In constitution for such contrary Terri- and not to the Legislature short, majority sets value on con- Organic Act. torial history determining stitutional constitu- incompatible posi- demonstrates the This tional intent. court has taken. that this order tions right justify its assumed to test think, I That, The words unsound. against validity of the now non- 39 require definition; “direct benefit” if (1900), 48 322 U.S.C.A. § 16. 31 Stat. v. Tuna Packers International L. & W. Union, D.C.D.Haw.1947, F.Supp. 562, 72 Lindeberg v. Howard, Cir., 1900, 9 146 Missouri, Ry. also K. & See T. Co. 604; 2 F. Krooger Alaska Fed. Walker, Co., 27 Okl. R. v. Twin Buttes P. 554; Hawaiian Ariz. P. port, not, operation be would not maintenance, did this case before includ- entirely proper ing transportation In such a auxiliary court. case it is and re- services, perhaps necessary any and even schools or as- except course extrinsic in order therein evidence those Public Schools meaning supervision- certain the words under which those the exclusive and and at the was written direction (Emphasis time the constitution of the State.” adopted.18 of such important added.) An source history found evidence On December Committee on adoption up events which led to the Preamble and Rights Bill of submitted used, section where the words were and report to the Convention and transmitted pro-

history would the recorded include an article on health, education welfare. Convention.19 ceedings of the Constitutional report This Delegate Proposal stated Supreme said As Court the United States 6No. had been “the considered and that respect with Federal Constitution: adopted Committee 3 and 7 sections gave birth to changes.” pro “The which some necessities Section 7 Constitution, posal, controversies committee, ap as modified peared preceded formation, which its the last sentence Section 1 opinion were settled conflicts of health, article committee’s education adoption, may be taken properly welfare, its and read: to its source the Constitution into enabled to view n n n correctly any j? particular provision in order purpose interpret mean- thereby tracing This is identical with the last sentence of ligious institution.” funds for “No money or other the direct shall be paid educational re- points The court out motions VII, article section 1 of the constitution. pur- necessarily debates do indicate changes made committee pose convention in of a apparent significant. Delegates John- particular point adopting a clause. But Coghill son prohibit had wanted con- that I are other make is that there use of direct in- addition motions proceedings, vention support, operation direct or maintenance of pur- debates, clearly show the non-public schools, specifically and had in- pose provision question, this in of the “transportation auxiliary cluded and other satisfactory aid furnishes a valuable and changed services.” The committee to a interpretation ig- be not should prohibition only against “direct benefit” to nored. schools, transpor- without mention of 1955 in At the Convention November auxiliary tation or other services. delegates Coghill introduced change inescapable: meaning of this is the Johnson Proposal Delegate No. which with 6 dealt rejected thought committee that trans- pro- subject of education. Section 7 portation auxiliary and other services part: in vided precluded by against should be the ban ** * be shall “No funds use of direct benefit indirectly directly sup- private or question used schools. There is no Law, Willoughby, 1, 23, § Constitutional 18. U.S. 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. (2d 1929). ed. at 1186. Law, Willoughby, Convention, Constitutional 21. 19. 1 Alaska Constitutional Pro- supra, posal 6, Education, at 54. § See also No. November Statutory Sutherland, Construction, § (cid:127) (3d 1943). 5001, at 481 ed. Convention, 22. Alaska Constitutional Re- Moore, 1900, port v. Knowlton 178 U.S. Committee on Preamble and Bill Rights Proposal 20 S.Ct. on L.Ed. Committee No. Shelley Kraemer, also See December institution”, any private parochial During debate with

but was its intent. that this committee would be a “contractual because on on floor the chairman a service question, providing basis and be stated, a would in answer to He Coghill’s and not to the institution.” given committee had Johnson hot wrong it rejected nothing providing saw with a proposal attention correct program money or not con lunch with Territorial permanently.23 obviously did providing program say- a health in a sider that op support, ing— bearing legitimate on the of incidental tended i. involved if implications the convention hill moved to sideration. has not benefit would it direct fectuate so committee school. eration e., Delegate Ralph This debate that amendment, pointed floor benefit, majority. proposed amendment, what did not end not possibility be forbidden of the legitimate public pui'pose because constitute maintenance of a school proposal indirect It is only direct, but also indirect of a referred advantages that followed amend the thoroughly prohibited.24 convention, revealing Rivers, in But there was prohibition against benefit were showing, by a direct to, has matter. out education and it merits being section what was not. in arguing been considered what Delegate Cog- showing might result A benefit to prohibited, able mentioned portion of When more that might be rejection involved came to was against con ef- in in a homes “would be needs Delegate Coghill stated that of some sort or another.” would have on which, peared to contradict asked private direct benefit to such school. prohibition against health rangements restrictive amendment considered that state On This is public standpoint private an instrument of a impossible “ child the other ^[*] what private school would not be banned ^[*] addition to significant. school because effect the ^[*] welfare benefiting I do not hand, deriving an understand children’s also indirect himself later. He * arrangements caring proposed Delegate Coghill If the author of .could amount provided * from it deny I feel benefit because indirect benefit, how foster *26 that to amendment of children that it the foster education. then homes bodily by a was ap- ar- a a to a said: He concern. This statement must considered “ * * * pur if there is a memorandum from the connection with expend money is to be pose Department for which Alaska Pub- Director of it does matter some ed does lic then Welfare which read to some benefit to an indirect Alaska, result convention. It listed the schools may con concern, which be private religious organiza- operated by private and definitely I want to tractor; don’t so tions, Territory paying which the was inserted indirect’ ‘or words see the Department.28 through the Welfare monies this section.” well con- delegates may believed, with sidering along Delegate these facts how asked indirect Coghill was Delegate statement, last private Coghill’s that forbid to a school. might accrue benefits prohibitive would be so as by saying there would indirect benefit be answered He furnishing making “any of wel- restrict needed wrong with nothing * * * welfare, fare arrangements services. health social Min- 26. Id. at 62-63. Convention Constitutional 23. Alaska p. utes, CO. Jan. 67. Id. Id. at 53. at 67-68. Id. at 57. Id. finally proposal Coghill of amendment court. proposed When Johnson prohibit Dele by bus for a certain vote, 19 to 34. a it failed

came to rejection had wished class of and its definite Johnson, who gates Coghill and the committee and the convention as transportation for children prohibit bus certainly schools, whole, ought great be public voted favor of attending The entire value in determining meaning “direct amendment. the restrictive the sec benefit” as relates to school bus trans- which had formulated committee pro portation. place rejected the and had discussion that took tion on education Coghill vot Coghill’s prohibit any on motion to indirect posal Delegates Johnson benefit, convention, rejection by and its against ed the amendment.29 should make all it clear that the convention a motion Finally, in connection prevent public wanted to was the use of strike all later defeated was funds for the establishment and mainte- educa- the section sentence of the last nance other than as schools, why asked tion, Delegate Rivers Victor Delegate put it, Armstrong “direct bene- “direct the words committee used appropriation building and maintenance A “support benefit.” fit” instead private delegates institutions.” The real- Delegate Arm- committee, member of ized attempting a neces- to effect strong, follows: answered this as sary good, such as the care and education President, prob- recall, we “As I Mr. protection of homeless children and the sup- question of ably discussed the safety, might health and that the state be port feel it needed to but we did not incidentally not in all cases be able to avoid section, I don’t particular in this aiding other interests which could not Rivers, recall, that we considered Mr. benefited It did wish direct action. certainly part I text. as possibility such a accom- to frustrate the Awes has with what Miss agree plishment of good. That common said, in Commit- although we discussed why only direct and not indirect legislation things tee such as direct prohibited. mainte- or the building a school school, which would private nance abundantly It clear that those who but it was our understand- support, formed the constitution did not wish to under ing that that would be covered stop payment directly monies This would this word ‘direct religious private or other institution benefit’. appropriation or prohibit the direct needy children, though cared for even private building and maintenance such institution also furnished education added.) (Emphasis institutions.”31 for those children. if this does not But institution, constitute a direct benefit to such clearly the committee what This shows then I fail to see how there is direct bene- meaning discloses had mind. parochial fit ato school if funds are benefit”, e., building i. words “direct paid ato school bus contractor allows who It was schools. or maintenance of the children to ride over established preclude aid incidental not intended to school bus routes. If the latter involves an in- private educational might result to a public funds, expenditure unlawful expenditure by-product of the stitution as a does, majority holds it then so must legitimate, funds otherwise practical matter, services. for health and welfare As a as those former. prohibition against construed the court has record the conven- I submit that this as to forbid also benefit so in- direct attention of the proceedings merits the tion Organic language in tlie Territorial used 29. Id. at 70-71. opinion. Act, in earlier this noted as benefit”, “Support 30. Id. at 76. “indirect”, Convention Min Constitutional 31. Alaska “direct” or modified 1956, p. utes, 76. Jan. weather, zero as exists in the doing such winter logically it has benefit. In so direct months in this Fairbanks where case arose. a harmful and restrictive committed itself to proof necessary, If can be found in the interpretation of constitution danger- record. a effectu- There was evidence of prevent legislature will sidewalks, ous thoroughfare, in with no where ating needed results legitimate and children walk in order to had to reach the general field welfare. parochial There was school. evidence of the School. to Benefit temperatures vicinity sixty winter in the flatly furnish- that the This court states degrees below There was the incident zero. ing public expense transportation grade walking first and second children non-public a a child who attends over one in so mile from school weather to school. a direct benefit such constitutes boys involuntarily cold that little two no assumption. It finds a gratuitous This is urinated and the urine froze to under- Chapter justification language in wear clothing. were cases and There support It record finds no where parochial had support de- little, any, case if and suffered from frozen noses and toes. purely cisions other courts. Considered dangers These children are real and assumption, as it is irrational. not illusory. provisions Chap- made Chapter legislature authorized In ter 39 have relation a substantial attending non- transportation public health, safety leg- and welfare. The equivalent substantially on a islature right had the to concern itself with attending schools. basis with children the needs of children—even those who clearly rea- expressed It this for two did right exercised their constitutional to attend objectives of the achieve the sons: other than a school. It no dif- law, compulsory education Alaska ficulty in expressing its declaring will—in a safety of school protect health legitimate public There interest. was not children. judiciary left to the imputing the task of legitimate ones. considerations Both legislature an undeclared intent comply compulsory with the A could child purpose, aiding as or benefiting by attending private education statute a private schools. It is not the prerogative school, well as a he would say purpose of this court to that the statutory requirement from the excused legislature 39 is not what the said miles he more than two from a school lived be. transportation was not furnished.32 It There is no evidence this case creating then, sense, to make made slightest inference that going to the child available Thus, of children benefits a school. right in order to assure that the by this court that there statement is such attending such thus to be in a benefit is but a sup- not a fact mere compulsory compliance with education re position. supposition And as a it is un- quirements, would real. warranted. health protection safety assumption appears same indefensible proper concern of the legislature. less indulged have been New York that this could be chal- inconceivable Appeals in v. Board Court of of Edu- Judd It is a lenged matter denied. of common cation, which the majority decision today’s highways knowledge to- rely. appears of this court that case extremely day’s danger- vehicles motor it was said: ous, Any children. especially to rational “ * * * Free subject the hazards person knows child is pupils attendance at the walking long distances extreme sub- induces school. to in 37-7-1, ACIA § purpose aiding is to children purpose of the in getting The to the school. private It seems the to promote interests of me that the as children are encouraged institu religious sectarian attend school given and are school ‘It assistance in getting there, it. directs controls and there will tion that be an increased and makes need and up, strengthen demand helps build for additional school This, organi as facilities. logically, schools a success will re- * ** sult in there pupils additional cost to the Thus, Without school. zations.’ the money spent by illogical to is be no school. It state for could trans- portation transporta of school say furnishing of children really that the cannot while institution school. The an aid to the effect is not of such tion transportation, fur if more employment of teachers children will attend nishing and other n ^[*] *»33 books, facilities accommodations are such an aid. posite tage school when —increased profit, transported, but costs and will will be expenses. not be just advan- op- said that be how it can I fail see practical holding in was that Judd promote transportation is to purpose of as children school, are reaching assisted in leg- school. interests of there enrollment, results an increased that 39, has said islature, in that this benefits the school because it chil- assist transportation is purpose of up”, strengthen would “build and make suc- safe- reaching their dren in cessful organization.”34 school as an safety. health and guard their But even if it could be established that may properly Chapter one see how fail 39 had a I substantial effect on the pro- not if Conception enrollment assume Immaculate Immac- attending the Fairbanks, children School at this vided would not be a Fair- at parochial school Conception “benefit” in the constitutional ulate sense. The it at provide would the school fact that more children attend a banks school does readily and just as I could expense. necessarily fact, not I aid the school. situation in this oppo- would assume think that this would have properly furnish effect increasing would site the demands on the parents expense. operation. would the costs of able find school was be when for assum- justification not see I do costs, meeting ways those additional of children number specified aif ing state, help from the that the results without because parochial school dropped out might be attain- in the case mentioned this transportation, Judd lack ed. the school. detriment result would assuming that justified would One transportation of children to children’s those circumstances parents or whether by other filled promptly places would promote advantage, state, not does had but attend had desired who school, despite good prosperity or class- crowded because unable to been decision that “with- statement Judd rooms. An no school.” could be there pupils out is that without a truism extension used If expense provid- be no would there Fair- maintenance construction then, see, I cannot ing school. I see school, then could parochial banks benefit, other than to the existence direct benefit abe there where child in society, aiding and to child where there see I fail to But school. would not exist reaching a school which spent, monies when any benefit receive edu there to solely for the but purposes, supra Education, note Board Judd 15 N.E.2d 278 N.Y. page 582. N.E.2d at A.L.R. exist, directly That is the cation, if children benefits a school. which would point. there, cost. only at considerable were attempt In final its claim to vindicate its conclusion In an effort to bolster transportation children confers directly benefits school, upon direct benefit the court states also this court school the expressed by that this was the view minority, upon arguments made in relies Delaware, Oklahoma, York, courts of New opinions case— dissenting in tire Everson Kentucky. Washington and I think that Jersey of Errors in tire New Court both made those furnish decisions courts Appeals35 and in the United States little, any, support majority’s for the Supreme I fail to see where Court.36 point view. arguments aid this court in its con only There are two decisions that have they thought be of clusion. But if any pertinency, real they are of no- assistance, applied then as to the issue York, support assistance. In New aid or they involved here amount substance religious school, to a “directly indi- or Payments (a) to this: made for text rectly”, prohibited by the constitution. lunches, equipment,

books, school athletic upon passing validity transpor- In of a salaries, tuitions, buildings, equip teachers’ statute, tation the New York Court of ment, necessary presumably materials Appeals obviously child, considered that trans- (b) payments But those benefit the portation school, constituted indirect and not a a direct benefit to the also constitute direct aid. The court said: Therefore, transportation directly (c) since child, directly support benefits the it also benefits “Aid or to the school ‘direct- ly indirectly’ proscribed. the school. -is The two words must have been used with some argument, Such an of course has no purpose; definite intent and otherwise says things substance. It that since certain why used at all furn- ? Aid directly benefit both the child and the ‘directly’ ished would be that furnished school, things then other related to edu- line, literally a direct both directly benefit cation which the child also itself, figuratively, to unmis- necessarily directly must earmarked, takably and without circum- in fact —whether so or not. Ob- ambiguity. locution Aid furnished viously stand logic. this won’t the test of ‘indirectly’clearly embraces contri- bution, made, relying to whomsoever reasoning, unsound circuitous- sight ly, collaterally, disguised, I court has think the lost otherwise what is really open straight, in this not in a point involved case. The direct course payments textbooks, open not that And avowed aid of the lunches, salaries, may be etc., teachers’ to the benefit of buildings, promotional constitute a institution or do not direct benefit of its * * * things purposes school. Those are not interests involved in involved, this action. What is purpose and the

thing, promote the interests is whether confers religious or sectarian in- school or say benefit on a a direct school. I it.” controls and directs stitution that transportation directly benefits a child and parents; but that there is his no basis in Similarly, in Oklahoma there was a con- holding fact or reason for prohibition against it also the use of stitutional Education, 1945, Education, 35. Everson v. Board of Board of 37. Judd 44 A.2d 133 N.J.L. 338-343. 15 N.E.2d N.Y. A.L.R. 789, reargument denied 278 N.Y. Education, 1947, Board 36. Everson v. N.E.2d 1, 47-49, U.S. S.Ct. L. 711, 740. Ed.

955 benefit, directly transportation The chil- holding that or use money for dren, as by 39, institution. confers Chapter authorized any sectarian indirectly, of say any indefensible, upon did a school is Court of Oklahoma Supreme The use fact and directed I the ma- reason. that appropriation and submit “The jority judg- transportation of this a court has rendered to ment on aid policy properly direct social should openly in children be left when such’”, legislature. practical effect In 'as public schools may court legislature a sectarian has held that the extended to was such aid provide despite constitu- for the clear welfare violation there was stating the fact by possesses authority, also that it both this it followed this But tion.38 supported traditionally “fully and under the constitu- was conclusion that its New tion. The power in the does court not have the reasoning and conclusion” such grounds act, nullify Education.39 legislative Board case of v. York Judd for to support, concede power make would be to case furnished The Judd transportation the court sovereign legislature, over holding its was since indirect, di- constitution people, and not and the and convert the that was aid conferred government view Hence, judicial court’s of this state into a Oklahoma rect. despotism. convincing. aid is was direct that there 4. Legislative Purpose. of the courts Decisions Delaware.. The legis- court critical of one of the even are Washington40 Kentucky and lative purposes expressed 39, Chapter i. constitutional value, since none of less e., protection safety of the health and the words either provisions involved used of all school points children in Alaska. addition, Wash- “indirect.” “direct” or out transportation that no provided on the part in major relied ington Judd non-public school children who do not live Gurney decision, upon the Kentucky, along routes, school bus nor for had based in turn case in Oklahoma children who live within one one-half conclusion on its Judd. miles from the they The attend.41 any point to has failed court Chapter concludes from this 39 court where another clear cut decision of does not legisla- effectuate the announced directly question there was involved tive intent. to direct amounted whether I purpose do not know what is served aid to and where indirect portion majority’s opinion, un- it was direct was made that determination suggest by less was intended to inference only case that this It was aid. Judd legislature that the had some ulterior motive consideration, and the given real was objective in enacting the statute—-its stated precedent can be used decision there being a mere fiction—and that for this rea- transportation con- a determination that appropriate son the act was not exercise upon a an indirect benefit school. police fers really power did not serve public purpose. forbid Alaska does not that. constitution 79, 612; Gurney 1941, Ferguson, 190 2d 148 Okl. A.L.R. Visser v. Nook 38. v. Valley 1949, 506, sack School Dist. No. 122 P.2d 33 P.2d 198. Wash.2d 207 Id., page 122 P.2d at Brown, 1934, 41. Tbe is au 6 Commissioner Education ex rel. Traub v. State by regulation A. thorized enter into con 36 Del. 172 W.W.Harr. pupils tracts of error dismissed W.W. writ 478; “who a distance of one and one- A. reside Harr. Del. County half or more from the miles v. Board of Sherrard Jefferson required Ky. 469, Education, attend.” 4 Alaska Adm. S.W. 100(a), 963; Code at 37. Dist. § 2d Mitchell Consol. School 135 P. Wash.2d No. prior Alaska”, expressing children in Long to the enactment it was legitimate for school concern for a class of discriminated, provided conferring who up virtue a law time against. phrase Education children”’ Territorial Board of “all school power obviously fact authority “Provide was intended to refer to transportation they that pupils children, a dis all regardless who reside of whether its school, tance attended public non-public were- established Schools.” practical con operation transportation was entitled to oth- they this statute if were attending qualified applicable regula- strued as erwise applying children under to public schools, tions of but here all even Board or Commissioner school benefits chil- children did receive the Education. not never intended that prescribed dren non-public the law. Under attending limitations Education, per the Board of were receive ac- children benefits over and above those they only mitted to if ride school buses corded the attending schools- statute, beyond lived If this a certain distance from had been the effect of the schools, afforded there and other children were is little doubt that the court would but transportation no be arrange- if there not a suffi even were more critical of such an cient number ment resulting of them in a certain because of living discrimination justify against public area to trans establishment of a school children. portation precisely route. the sit This is majority, therefore, justified not contemplated uation regulations existing stating Chapter that not effectuate 39 does of the They Commissioner Education. expressed the intent of legislature there- provide transportation may that a route not in. But even if this were it relates to so as be established where there are fewer than health safety, and not the statute still would eight living are children who residents fail proper for a lack legislative of a mo- along regularly highway; that maintained tive. The only act does not relate to health already extensions to routes established safety; purposes is one its declared may not be made at least unless there are objectives compulsory “achieve the regu three children and the extension is a education laws of Alaska.” This alone larly highway; maintained a route consideration; would be a sufficient may extension not be established for a one- legislation oppor- intended facilitate the way mile; one distance less than tunity get of children to both that a route must discon non-public, pub- serves a distinct tinued if average number of purpose.45 lic transported falls to five or below for two attempt makes a further consecutive months.43 justify legislative ob- criticism of the

Thus, literally jective by stating “all” that neither inclement the fact given transpor- highway nor children Alaska were not weather traffic hazards were justification a circum- used as law tation under 39 is not first peculiar passed provide transportation attending stance to children non- in Alaska to applicable It is schools. the same for school court states that children. school seems to have distance from attending extent to children schools. motivating legislation force for then, apparent, legisla- It is that when the time. ture in 19SSfor first time extended the non-public

assistance of quarrel proposition I have with the spoke “all may prime been a that distance have factor. (§ 87-2-8, Education, 1947, 42. SLA ch. 1§ 45. Everson v. Board of 1949). ACLA 830 U.S. S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. Snyder 719; Newtown, 1960, v. Town of 100(a), 4 Alaska Adm.Code § at 87. 770, 774, appeal A.2d Conn. 44. SLA ch. § 1. dismissed 81 5 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. expensive health and legis- undertaking But this mean that does not one may If lature safety factors. well the state legitimate felt could provide transportation weather thinks winter afford to a little about every every automobile conditions hazards of child in the and for and the traffic, dis- as the apparent problems gov- distance “The should be traveled. practical increases ernment justify, tance a foot may child must travel ones and safety. require, so do Distance rough do not hazards to his accommoda- be, relation tions, illogical, may bears such a real and substantial and unscien- — tific.” health safety proper scope cannot It is that the two not within the judicial considered forces separate motivating review for court to sit as provide superlegislature legislatures influence decide whether In the statute is fair unfair, un- for school children. or wise or wise, light living, contemporary gone enough realities of whether it has far suggest is astounding accomplishing purpose.48 that the court would safety that health factors were not 5. Conclusion. legislature which the in au- had in mind The basic, underlying controversy which thorizing transportation of school children gave rise litigation to this is not disclosed public expense. at by the briefs or opinion of this court. But it does recognized. exist and should be Chapter 39 in a real and sub- fact has health, safety stantial Those who deny transportation relation for despite non-public welfare of school the ma- attending schools jority’s contrary. This concerned suggestion to the with justified leg- they truly court is not such. Nor are denouncing solicitous about relatively expense islative minor legislative arrange- motive or the to the state ment will literally operation because “all” from the result transported anxiety, this 39.49 Their real state are not and the case, real issue legislature may schools. in this do what has to do with the very accomplish neces- existence of the religious can what is deemed sectarian or sary institutions, public welfare, stop educational short and the belief of persons some supremacy of those cases where the detriment to education few, administered aid, and controlled not afforded considered state the state. important expense less than the or incon- if might

venience to the state which result This was evident from proceedings of the mathematically the rule laid down were Constitutional Delegate Pro- Convention. posal 6, Transportation opin- of school children is No. mentioned earlier in this exact. copy 49, memorandum, court 46. of a See note infra. April 27, 1960, dated from Dr. Theo J. Metropolis City Theater Co. v. of Chi Norby, Education, Commissioner of 61, 69, cago, 1913, 228 U.S. 33 S.Ct. Ralph Moody, Attorney E. General 443, 730, 441, 57 L.Ed. Alaska. This memorandum indicates Day-Brite Lighting Co. Mis v. State of if the lower court’s decision 1952, 421, souri, 423, upheld, expense 342 U.S. 72 S.Ct. the additional 469, 472; 405, providing transportation Berman v. non-public L.Ed. for Parker, 1954, 26, 32, 348 U.S. 75 S.Ct. $17,- students 1961 would be 37; 27, 98, L.Ed. interesting California State 937.25. to note that Ass’n, Maloney, 1951, etc. v. legislative appropriation Auto the total “pupil for 601, 71 S.Ct. transportation” $1,- L.Ed. U.S. in 1960 was Buck, 793; 1941, 788, Watson v. 197,197.00 (SLA 1960, ch. § at 61 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. U.S. requested 289), and that the amount 1425; Sunshine Anthracite Coal budget year Governor’s fiscal Adkins, 1940, 310 U.S. Co. $1,300,000 (House 1961-62 was Bill 1263, 1272. 84 L.Ed. S.Ct. Session, Legislature, Second Alaska Eirst 6). appellants have furnished ion, solely subject representatives did not deal with the ficial education in Alaska. private the use of funds for schools. proposal spelled through That out in detail how The basic thesis which runs education should be handled in the new proposal primarily, is that education is provided State of Alaska. Section 2 exclusively, prerogative and func responsibility state; supreme "The State's the edu- tion of the that the state is people impli cation of its is here declared to be in this field. Evident is the clear clear, positive right and final." Section 4 would cation that the state should have the required legislature provide have to determine in the first instance whether a compulsory pub- private "for the attendance at some school should even be allowed to approved lic unless other exist, so, and if then what it should or provided." permitted Perhaps means of education are Section should not be to teach. permitted legislature implicit 6 would have there is even here a resentment or provide private "for the establishment of fear toward the existence of the by individuals, groups, institutions thought schools-a that was revealed corporations", but "under charter Delegate Coghill when, during debate on from the state." That section also would convention, the floor of the he said that required the state to establish unde- segregation "sectarianism in our educational fined "minimum educational standards system children",51 is bad for the and "The schools", such and would have allowed the people sending that are their children to teaching private principles private parochial type schools of over of insti requirements, provided and above the state segregating tution are themselves from the teachings "were not otherwise public they and therefore should not derive contrary to the statutes or the constitution the benefit from the tax dollar." 52 of the state." philosophy Such a of education was total- concept; objective obviously itarian in During debate on the floor of the con being by forcing to standardize children vention, Delegate Coghill, a co-author of them, practically, accept instruction from proposal 6,No. stated that he was President only. ignored school teachers of the Association of Alaska School Boards fact that the child is not the mere creature and "one of the framers of that twelve- state; right point program developed Anchorage of the it denied the natural we parents destiny program, to direct their last October." 50 That which had proper place children. It had no in the widely among disseminated the dele organic Alaska, law for the State of as the gates, page was a five document entitled ultimately by rej Principles convention decided ect- "Basic of Education to be In ing proposal. cluded in the Constitution for the State of Alaska", history important and it stated that it had been for That constitutional approved by background present mulated and the Alaska School to consider in the of the Superinten controversy transportation. Boards Association and the over bus The Advisory meeting place dents' Commission at a effort to all education under the com- plete Anchorage dominion of the state failed to succeed in October 1955. Since the recommendations and discussion in this as a constitutional measure. The United part Supreme document coincide in relevant with States court's decision in Pierce Delegate Proposal pre Society Sisters, 1925, No. it is fair to 268 U.S. portions proposal sume that of the 45 S.Ct. 69 L.Ed. was a bar to philosophy any possible legislative discussed here reflected the enactment education, just delegates compel not who would attendance at schools proposal, only. logical step, then, submitted the but also of the of- The next was to 50. Alaska Constitutional Convention Mm- Id. at 50. utes, 9, 1956, p. Id. at 64. Jan. religious importance tion of the enjoyment possible as far restrict spiritual char- exclusively con- ideals in the formation of education right acter, thing, will be an without opponents of abstract by the state. trolled practical meaning value. bar the extension sought right thus did who benefits to welfare general of school children attempting public school attend a provided by Chapter a benefit common 39 is against provision insert a constitutional non-public necessary any indirect public funds use grant To this as- children alike. They unsuccess-

to a school. deny sistance to some it to has convention, defeat but their at the ful they forego others unless their freedom of victory by the court’s into turned now been schools, the element of choice of embodies case. decision in foreign unfair treatment which is so to our Supreme Court case the concept liberty In the Pierce American tradition. a statute held that expressed the United States equality man was un- compelled attendance high purpose and noble convictions of our liberty of interfered with reasonably the Declaration of signed forefathers who up- direct guardians to parents expres- Independence. again given It was control. children under bringing of dignity by the men and sion classic The court said: women formulated the constitution for who the State of Alaska when said liberty theory of fundamental “The prin- “This constitution is dedicated to in this governments all ciples persons right that all have a natural any general repose excludes Union life, pursuit liberty, happiness, and to standardize power of the state enjoyment of the rewards of their own accept in by forcing them industry; persons equal that all and en- only. teachers struction equal pro- rights, opportunities, titled to creature of mere child is not the * * law; tection under the him and state; those who nurture right, cou destiny direct his have truly This is the American idea—the recognize

pled high duty, American is the tradition. reason for obligations.” prepare him additional being; our nation’s it has been America’s 53 today strength. But in Alaska that idea parents the kind liberty to choose phrase. reality This has become an abused their so given education be been behind it has obscured the court’s Pierce, clearly case; has lost much of power stated of its decision some by major- meaning persons effectiveness and meaning lost. Those Because of ity’s in this case. right decision exercise their inherent who to direct realities of contem- and social destiny pay economic of their children must now undoubtedly porary will living, price being equal there rights denied the impracticable will now find it parents says they who to which the constitution are en- their impossible sending continue titled. them, parochial To school. children to grave injustice decision is This court’s right edu- and natural the constitutional many citizens of this state. of their own children in schools cate their should be judgment below affirmed. express convic- selection, to thus I, Sisters, Society § art. 54. Alaska Const. 53. Pierce 69 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. 1070, 1078.

Case Details

Case Name: Matthews v. Quinton Ex Rel. Quinton

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 3, 1961

Citation: 362 P.2d 932

Docket Number: 48

Court Abbreviation: Alaska