The opinion of the court was delivered by
At а meeting held in Vineland on July 27th, 1894, nine persons were elected school trusteеs for the township of Vineland. On the following day they met and organized as the board of education, took possession of the school property and proceeded to transact the business committed to
Under the constitution of this state only malе citizens are entitled to vote for officers elective by the peоple. Allison v. Blake, ante p. 6.
In State v. Deshler, 1 Dutcher 177, it was adjudged that trustees of school districts were officers within, this constitutiоnal provision. But it is said this adjudication has ceased to be authoritative, because since it was rendered an amendment of the constitution has imposed on the legislature the express duty of providing for the maintenance аnd support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools. I am quite unable to see how the imposition of this duty affects the question whether school trustees are officers, or whether, if they are made electivе by the people, any other than constitutional voters may vote for them. This duty of the legislature must be performed in accordance with all other сonstitutional provisions. The legislature cannot execute it by authorizing
The cases cited lеave, we think, no question debatable in this court as to the legality of excluding wоmen from the privilege of voting for school trustees.
This decision does not rеnder the act of 1887 inoperative. That statute confers upon women thе right to vote in school meetings upon all questions except the election of officers.
But if we had thought that the exclusion of the votes of women wаs illegal, still the mandamus requested would be awarded. For clearly the board which ordеred the payment of the relators’ claim was the defacto board of educatiоn. Its members had certainly a color of title, and their actual incumbency оf office was complete. The decision of the superintendents could neither deprive them of the former, nor oust them from the latter. Notwithstanding that decision by administrative functionaries acting ex parte, the indicia of a de facto board remained. Under these circumstances the acts of the board, in which third persons are interested, cannot be impugned on the ground that the title of the members- is ■defective.
Let a peremptory mandamus issue, commanding the collector to pay the order in question.
