New Oregon plaindealer. (New Oregon, Iowa) 1859-1866, 1865-06-30
NEW OREGON, HOWARD COUNTY, IOWA, JUNE 3 =, 1855
Mt Scho.ql Decision.

Appeal from the Board of Directors to tn
coanty Superintendent of Howard Count
A. D. c. V",w wton and others,
VersuS.
District township of Forest City.
The herring of said appeal was civ.
en- at Lime Springs June 3rd 9Th etl
and decision rendered June TIN 1856
Judge Goodrich for appellants, Judg,
Berry and Col J. l., Foster for appel
! lees.
The record and evidence in this case
show that the electors of sub district
No. one, in said township at their reg
ular meeting in March 1865 asked fo,
S400 for the purpose OF erecting a
school house therein, hi also the priv.
Iilege Of selling the old school house
and that these requests were granted
by the electors f the district VII
ship at their first regular meeting
thereafter that it was understood and
spoken Of by all the electors of said
sub district, whc voted for this tax,
that sail school house should be erect
ed on the site # the old one in Lime
Springs, that the Board Of Directors
at an adjourned meeting April 22nd
1868, ordered the secretary to certify
to Clerk Of the Board of Supervisors. a
tax Of ten mills on the dollar of the
taxable property Of said sub district t,r
the benefit Of the school house fund,
aud voted that the sub director be en-
powered to build two school houses
therein, and required to submit his
contracts to the Board for itsapproval; ;
that the Board Of Directors at another
time levied a tax Of FIVE mills on the
dollar Of the taxable property Of sub
district No. two, !2r the payments Of
debts, Contracted for school house pur-
pnEcs prior to 1858; that saii board
AZ ncOther time approved n cnntract
..i,} :.,nsz fn oook for money loaned by
him to sub district NO one, for the erec
ton Of school house in Newbury be-
irg in the western part Of said sub dis
tlitt, and also a contrrct with II, ?.
Marsh for building the walls Of said
school house, and the secretary was in-
s,ruGlel to draw an order of $50 on
the treasurer in his favor, in acccrdance
with said contract; that said school
house site in Newbury is one half.
mile from the western boundary Of said
sub district, and two and one half miles
from the eastern boundary and that a
school house there would accommodate
twonty-four scholars; that the said dis
trict has no title to tie site en- which
said school house is being built, and
that James Grcenleaf, X p. Cook of
the Board of Directors and G. G. Hew-
EFT, have given bonds to the district
township in the sum of one thousand
dollars, toindemnify the district against
loss provided no title can be obtained; f.;
that the site on which the old school
house now stands, is one mile from the
eastern boundary Of said suo district,
L ln
dry. ard that sixty five pupils would
be better accommodated here than at
the new site NeWbury; that the two
school houses in contemplation would
cost abou. $500, and that the assess
ed valuation of all the property in said
township, is $33,565, Of sub district
No / $3.50, 9,565 and of sub district NO. 2
GA coo,
The first question to be decided N
this controversy is: did the Board OF
Directors act within the limits of their
authority, in ordering the erection Of
two SCHOOL houses without authority
from the electors? In my opinion
they did not, for the reason that it
would involve the district ina debt
which would require another tax tc
pay, not yet levied by the district town.
ship, and if the electors of the district
township, or sub district should refuse
to levy another tax for the payment Of
ihis debt, the Board Of Directors would
have no power to levy it, for it was
not contracted prior to 1858. They
have no RIGHT to issue any order on the