Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-11-09

funds held by aviolate faithfully
ated"
Under ectior this Court in the case already
erred to- decide that the distribution fund
by the school law Of 1852 Is violation Of the Constu
From that PERIOD sss say the Court up 10 session Of the
Assembly Of lssa though the subject diveng the fund was
ued recognition OF the rights inhabitants to the exclusive
OF the Congressional Township fund
dueed 10 the mode Of administering the the township fund
unmPaed The Legislature carefully guarded against
mem0raso words esncng full knowledge Of tho history and pun
3oss The a. Nell gs Of The re
srued divert the fund commonly called the Congressional
fund or any part thereof from the object and purposes 70.
That recognition alone, thirty three years after tho grant might
n; ,s Such public duty
II cutweQhs world ofyscnay theories which would place any
aneed exPedency above the public faith nauguate
education by which Is distinguish from
breach OF public trust"
No any thing this
language The State forbidden divert
msappy the fund.- but cannot be released from her duty
trustee to administer faithfully and exclusively for the benefit
the legislation Of 1884, ponour Invalid The indignant Ian
% ohe Court on that could only have been
rage But 10 that instance the results attained little different
as is found in the act Of The township fund was indeed
ken bodily and commngd with the oherfus funds Of the State
proportion IT, by the Of the
the funds by tax, way again
the several township treasures Its amount thus increased was
operation Of tho law OF 1866 The result VOL the principle
Of the two laws is similar.
This them the Of breach Of trust The
trustee could not be sascd with abortve effort The pres
emit outrage aggravated by dupcy which seeks though SUBJ
decision rendered by the highest legal tribunal Of the State
Nor these arguments, that the mpcr-
OF its benefits II might have been well for the Legislature had
this difficulty been considered tho law adopted 0t :
this uopian idea which has Undue cd seek equality by oil
injustice One form Of inequality the unequal distribution Of private
property regarded evil and to be remeded by another
species Of inequality that OF the partial division Of public fund
The duty Of appoxmang equality In dispensing tho blessings Of
government the less obvious account Of lis difficulty And
whatever tho dcuI In other instances Is TO DO found In
None has been discovered hereore when the enumeration
Of the who are to be the subjects OF edussm nus
limitations which look free education Tor all And upon gen.
81 @ Ell ns % q. Ss y
ted 70 the Legislature oro may be Argued should every
child tho State be permitted share the division Of which
by the organic law be the vehicle for cheap and
H. The argue distribution proposed
by the plaintiffs unauthorized by the ohe act OF 1885, it.
self that authority section for
school, taxi and that h the school
the law valid IL the only that Is directed BY
The 9th section OF the act Of 1855 will be- remembered makes
the duty the Superintendent of Public Instruction to epo, 70
each county for distribution and thu amount Of ar collected o
school purposes this section the distinction carefully pre-
served between the Of between the income
the school fund, and the amount OF the school tax.
The defendants that the plaintiffs refuse regard THIS
between
distribution within the county treat the ayas OF both these sour
and employ them unit In eveng the inequalities
between the funds Of the several congressional townships And o
this confusion the derived from these distinct sources We
are unable to find any warrant In the law OF 1901
Its employed the 0l section sufficiently explicit
ain making tho said distribution tho auditor shall ascertain the
the township fund belonging to each city
soo fund as !" equure The amount Of available funds each city
be-" Nothing be clearer
than that the income OF the schoo
only money plaintiffs authorized TO distribute
qua be shown that this language embraces the money
levied and collected Tor school
argument unsound but until that be DONE we sha
insist that the raised by taxation must be equally distributed
shall
cess OF equalization
fund defined be, money whose income set apart for the
support Object The school fund has
its carefully enumerntedin the Constitution
tho school would have been OBJ
absudy the elements settled
competed fund.- variable and uncertain an annual tax
quenty there On what ground Intelligent reason
ing be considered part OF this fund
The section OF the act OF 1855 recaptuas the different
integral school fund.- they set forth IN the
Constitutions emitting rendered necessary by the decision
the school tax OF the school fund
simply declares that the and income OF the fund "Sha a
piled exclusively furnishing tuition in the common schools OF the
further scrutiny OF the 10lst section
makes the improperly OF this confusion gang The com
school fund the principal which, cannot b
diminished IL available by the expenditure ofts income
fund.- what depth stupidity descend when we treat
Of the OF the school fund! IL becomes
OF the fund.- and Of the income OF the fund
be regarded either the the Others but simply AZ
supplementary thing laid annually for school purposes to max
the nsuciency the school fund.- IL Is entirely distinct from
school fund.- only be dspos
cd Of byits peculiar and appropriate descriptions ,,on
J.D.H0WLAND.
/