New Oregon plaindealer. (New Oregon, Iowa) 1859-1866, 1865-06-30

, purposes and oblige the districG town.
: ship to vote ia x to pay it and thereby
defeat The intent of the law. But the
board Of directors have no right to levy
a tax for school house purposes, except
for debts contracted prior to 1853, and
therefore all other debts contracted by
fhem FOR said purposes, and for which
no prov sion has been made by tax, are
not binding on the district township.
The board of directors were author
ized to bui'd but ore school house, the
icost of which should not exceed the
amount Of tax n " LEVIED, and previous
" levied. Have tbey regarded tie
wishes of the people in his matter and
have they acted for the interests of all
in the sub district2 The evidence shows
that there are about ninety. children in
sub district NO. one, between the ages
Of five and twenty one years, and that
three fourths of them would be better
accommodated by a goo 5 .hoI hou }e
on the old site in Lime Springs than
on the site recently established in New
bury. Therefore "the greatest good to
the greatest number" would NOT be re-
garded in erecting school house on
the new site. Besides, the District
Township has no title to the land, on
which the proposed school houseis being
built in Newbury, and before the cree
ton Of any school house, q GOOD title
to the site should always be obtained.
What if the owner Of slll site should
become deceased, before such q title
could be obtained, woulda bond Of
thousands dollars fully indemnify the
District against loss; it is true, it
would In great measure, If two Of the
bondsmen IS members of the board aud
constituting majority should feel dis
posed toprosecute themselves, but while
'..Vo..uA -an..oo.- ..v~~~ ut.ms- "uiit,
the school Chi drea would be deprived
of many advantages, which they would
have otherwise enjoyed. Tn re-
gard TO the right the board of dircc-
tors to borrow money I would say, that
they have the right to borrow money
on account Of the teachers fund and con-
t.ngent fpud, and to the full amount Of
any tax which may have been levied
for school house purposes, bus farther
than this they cannot lawfully g, for
otherwise, it would create debt on ac-
count Of the school house fund Which
only the electors can make aud which
is a power they cannot delegate.
But as the money which the dis
trict board Of directors of said
township borrowed of Joseph Cook was
obtaind by contract for specific pur-
pose, and that purpose unlawful, there
fore said contract is not binding on the
district township. The school law re-
quires farther that if the aggregate Of
the sums applied for by the several sub
districts shall exceed S mills on the S
of the property ofthe district township
the board shall reduce it proport;onalIv
to that rate. The evidence ia this case
shows that the aggregate does exceed
this per centum and the board of direo-
tors neglected to do what the law re-
quircs. Is this Gecisio. ofthe board?
If not what i, the reuedy? Without
answering the question directly, | will
say it is my right and duty to give
notice Of the fact 10 the board sapcr-
visors who undoubtedly have tie right
% act according to my decision in this
! case, and accor ding to the requirements
of the school law. In regard to the
cons,itutjonaIity Of that portion of the
school law which makes the county
superintendent a judicial court, my
opinion is, that it is cops titutiona', for
! this reason, ti1at all "cts of the board
of education are by the constitution
made the supreme law of. the State,
in school matters unless amended by
the general assembly (code oflowa page
1901 section 81 In this way all acts of
the board of education have been con-
sidered hy tho general assembly adopt
ed, amended, or rejected, and thus vir-