Show E D i i iiii i 1 1 THE ehr SCHOOL lar lat again agals kid give place in this issue imie fo to another r communication from judge judg Z brioc an the subject of the school law avo we do so out of courtesy to him asa as a lawyer of long experience V fit will bo be perceived tji til that I 1 t the same ground occupied in his former det letter letten tenis teris is gone ove over again ragain arid and as we thin 1 I without strengthening 0 bispo in the least the chief point of his first comma communication nied nica was the alleged ambiguity of f the school law in relation the powei power to tax pro prot i perty eie dif f for the pi payment ment of f school teachers rs the judge while admitting lin ain g that thab a tax for that purpose would not beany benny be any serious violation of tho the law that it is virtually au by implication in a proviso and may be included in tilo the general power conferred to assess for other othen school purposes ur poses in addition to tain objects leets specially designated yet advised trustee trustees snot inot not to levy levya a tax for that purpose we ave anthe on bhe the other lia lla wand hand dasho showed ved vea thai thal ample ampie powers for ail ali school pur purposes poses posts were conferred by the this law and and und supported our view by the tho judges own arguments and admission admissions si se he now colesto comes to the front again repeating ills his quotations from th the statute in connection with excerpts from the law that is is repe repealed alej and arrives at the conclusion that the tower r of taxation b y the trustees is ea owye left very ambiguous the fact is that trustees are left without an any Y power of taxation wha whatever bever there is no ambiguity about that formerly they had power to assess one ofie fourth of one per pen percent bent and this dould could be and was used often for the ilia payment of teachers without any ta special c al mention of that expenditure lirt firt in the hd law it being included then as now in tho the ilo iao term terms for other school purposes P but the trustees have no such tower power at present no tax can Jo levied by the trustees for any purpose it must be done by a two i thirds majority vote of the property ta taxpayers tax i payers present at a meeting called for that purpose and pur position is simply this that by such a vote a tax may be levied to any amount not exceeding two tivo per pen cent for any school purpose that may be agreed upon tf if money col S elected to pay a teacher is not for tor a school purpose then a tax for that object cannot be levied if that is a SIC gyc purpose then it certainly can be levied provided the property of or pon jion residents is not taxed for the payment of teachers i weare we yve aro are glad to see the judge calling in 0 common sense into court on this this thia question ivo vve refrained from summoning this witness though k min win tempted ted to do so in our former article reca teca because tise uise we did not desire to say anything that might appear kofl offensive en common sense eme Q says the term othero other school chool purposes particularly when wilen the payment of teachers is mentioned in the proviso includes such payment pay pas men t and for everything else necessary for the conducting of a district school common sense says bays a teacher is an essential to a school and pay beil heil t is necessary to secure his hig services therefore the pa payment ath jf the teacher I 1 is for one ofie of bf t the lie school purposes durpos nes ses mentioned in the lave iane law and really wo we see no object to he be gained in lix springing these doubts but to create uncertainty where before there was none except perhaps in one or two solitary instances now wow ow in rog reg regard gard to the notice of school meetings required by law it la is not fiot worth while to sp spend e nd much time on it the matter is so plain and simple the newspaper in which the notice appears mastbe must be published in the county and have general circulation there therein jn itis not a question of grammar but for our former witness wit vit ness common sense to decide if the law requires the paper to have general cu lation in the tile district then it makes it impe imperative that it be published in the district there are not a docen dozen school districts in lri the tile territory in which a now newspaper is pub b ishia the law aw s sis gis q nothing ing about either circulation or publishing in a district the judge ej in his first letter stated stat that the word therein meant tho the tho the district 11 which was a bare assumption and as we showed contrary to the wording of the statute we lve repeat we havo have no objection to both publication and Ii posting but tho the judge assumed to advise something not required by sf lawi and an at the h a same time to tp cou counsel jel sel the tile non exercise of powers th that a are arc authorized zed zea by law lav and I 1 seeing tl tabio atho athe was wms was wai so ploy elou a stickler for unambiguous bous provisions and triet brict strict inter interpretation pre tation of terms excluding nil all ers not specially mentioned we took occasion to that he e allowed implication in one case and nol not 1 t in in another in the same fame s statute tu and went vene even beyond the X requirements re ill en ts thereof in the case of notice for me meetings etin s consistency is as admirable in la law W a as s in religion the judge admits that neither section 4 or 5 says in bernis that the general circulation must be in the district but says other parts of the act aci do require it he is in error there is no mention of the i matter in any part odthe of the act ack except section 5 and that is so plain that it is marvelous why any one should hould quibble over it and it is 13 clear plear that mere circulation in the district ignot enough it lt must have general circulation iii in the county or the thic law will not be complied with the weak point I 1 in the judges judged position is that T while 4 lip insisting upon something that thab is is not stated in terms and not ovens evens even oven implied he rejects another thing because it is not pot stated cin rin in tin te terms rm while it is implied the judge must remember that he cited as a rule of construction that the intent of the Legi legislature stature must govern now he says log leg crieg 1 1 seators isla isia tors tons must say what they mean when wilen th they ey passa pass a law what does he wish to convey by this ax expression pres does he be desire to throw out ct implication entirely to discard e very every interpretation of a statute and receive nothing that is not specifically mentioned in terms we nya th because he gives several rules of construction says the abe co court urt may learn from the act its object and intent and SQ so construe it as to give timm effect act to each and every part pert ther thereof thereon eon eoP and hf urther permits the presence and influence of common sense in in court dourt that is all we v or any other supporter of the school law would ask on the question of the power of the people not the trustees mind to assess a tax for the lent bent payment of bf teachers among other school choo purposes and wd we would not bo be afraid to risk the decision of any competent unprejudiced court or body of intelligent men on the plain meaning and intent of the statute jn in regard to the latter part pirt of the letter we have haye no objections to td oner frer 0 vve ave ve do not know of or any bisp disputes i lites concerning the points referred to and further we think that when the trustees and others carefully read so as to understand the new school law jaw there will wili be few if any who will raise any controversy concerning it but that good citizens will trill unite to carry out its provisions provision for the general welfare and special benefit of the rising generation we have not taken up the subject ag again aln ain with any desire to dispute with our correspondent but haying having published his letter we consider it necessary to make these comp comments lents that confusion may be avoided and that none who desire to avail the themselves in of the provisions of the law may be deterred and so far as the arguments on the two points treated of are concerned ive vve we are of the opinion that both sides having been beon twice presented enough has now been said gald to enable the public to form their own conclusions |