Appropriation by the money derived from taxation to the
supplying of school books free for children in private as well as
public schools is not objectionable under the Fourteenth Amendment
as a taking of private property for private purposes where the
books furnished for private schools are not granted to the schools
themselves, but only to or for the use of the children, and are the
same as those furnished for public schools, and are not religious
or sectarian in character. P.
281 U. S.
374.
168 La. 1030, affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirming
the refusal of a trial court to issue an injunction to restrain the
state Board of Education and certain officials, appellees herein,
from expending tax funds for the purchase of free school books.
Page 281 U. S. 373
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellants, as citizens and taxpayers of the State of
Louisiana, brought this suit to restrain the state Board of
Education and other state officials from expending any part of the
severance tax fund in purchasing school books and in supplying them
free of cost to the school children of the state, under Acts No.
100 and No. 143 of 1928, upon the ground that the legislation
violated specified provisions of the Constitution of the state and
also § 4 of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal
Constitution. The supreme court of the state affirmed the judgment
of the trial court, which refused to issue an injunction. 168 La.
1030.
Page 281 U. S. 374
Act No. 100 of 1928 provided that the severance tax fund of the
state, after allowing funds and appropriations as required by the
state constitution, should be devoted "first, to supplying school
books to the school children of the state." The Board of Education
was directed to provide "school books for school children free of
cost to such children." Act No. 143 of 1928 made appropriations in
accordance with the above provisions.
The supreme court of the state, following its decision in
Borden v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La.
1005, 123 So. 655, held that these acts were not repugnant to
either the state or the federal Constitution.
No substantial federal question is presented under § 4 of
Article IV of the federal Constitution guaranteeing to every state
a republican form of government, as questions arising under this
provision are political, not judicial, in character.
Ohio ex
rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District, 281 U. S.
74, and cases there cited.
The contention of the appellant under the Fourteenth Amendment
is that taxation for the purchase of school books constituted a
taking of private property for a private purpose.
Citizens'
Sav. & Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall.
655. The purpose is said to be to aid private, religious,
sectarian, and other schools not embraced in the public educational
system of the state by furnishing textbooks free to the children
attending such private schools. The operation and effect of the
legislation in question were described by the supreme court of the
state as follows (168 La. p. 1020):
"One may scan the acts in vain to ascertain where any money is
appropriated for the purchase of school books for the use of any
church, private, sectarian, or even public school. The
appropriations were made for the specific purpose of purchasing
school books for the use of the school children of the state, free
of cost to them. It was
Page 281 U. S. 375
for their benefit and the resulting benefit to the state that
the appropriations were made. True, these children attend some
school, public or private, the latter, sectarian or nonsectarian,
and that the books are to be furnished them for their use, free of
cost, whichever they attend. The schools, however, are not the
beneficiaries of these appropriations. They obtain nothing from
them, nor are they relieved of a single obligation, because of
them. The school children and the state alone are the
beneficiaries. It is also true that the sectarian schools, which
some of the children attend, instruct their pupils in religion, and
books are used for that purpose, but one may search diligently the
acts, though without result, in an effort to find anything to the
effect that it is the purpose of the state to furnish religious
books for the use of such children. . . . What the statutes
contemplate is that the same books that are furnished children
attending public schools shall be furnished children attending
private schools. This is the only practical way of interpreting and
executing the statutes, and this is what the state board of
education is doing. Among these books, naturally, none is to be
expected adapted to religious instruction."
The court also stated, although the point is not of importance
in relation to the federal question, that it was "only the use of
the books that is granted to the children, or, in other words, the
books are lent to them."
Viewing the statute as having the effect thus attributed to it,
we cannot doubt that the taxing power of the state is exerted for a
public purpose. The legislation does not segregate private schools,
or their pupils, as its beneficiaries, or attempt to interfere with
any matters of exclusively private concern. Its interest is
education, broadly; its method, comprehensive. Individual interests
are aided only as the common interest is safeguarded.
Judgment affirmed.