The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1870-11-10

vote what per cent. should be levie'
upon their own taxpayers, and petition
ed the Board Of the District township
which consists Of the b-directors o
the several sub-districts therein, to give
them the house, levying the specified
tax upon themselves, and as = matter OF
course. an equitable per cent. on the
rest OF the township. The petition was
granted, the tax levied ana collected,
the site for the new school house fixed
where the old one had been, the building
committee appointed aud authorized to
borrow money, let contract, &c. 1t was
shortly after the contract for the work
had been let, perhaps, that the first signs
of disagreement manifested themselves.
Making no speculations as to its cause,
the fact seems to have been that at this
west side, in obedience TO which-the
three members Of the Board from that
side forming majority-the Board took
action re-districting the East Side, mak
ing third sub-district out of the south
part of one and the north part of four,
and relocated the school house site in
number one, serving notice on the
building committee to stop the building
then under contract and remove their
operations to the new site. The East
Side not relishing this change in their
plans, made not only without their con.
sent but against their earnest protest,
disregarded the action of the board and
the building went on az commenced.
In the meantime, F. Hinkhouse, one
of those who had by the re- districting
been cut of from the sub district in
which he had just been heavily taxed
to build a school house and put in new
one with no house or fund to build one,
appealed from the action of the District
Township Board to the County Super
intendent, others who were in the same
predicament as himselfma ing common
cause with him. After n long hearing
OF nearly a week, the Superintendent,
+. l.. Bassett, Esq, reversed the entire
action in the premises Of the Board.
On the part Of the Board, an appeal was
then at once taken to the highest
authority in school matters, the State
Superintendent of Public instruction;
who, after an imperfect examination Of
the case, reversed the decision of the Co.
Superintendent and sustained the Board.
This lief. matters looking very much as
1.-THE original building committee, who
by this time had the house completed as
at first contemplated, would also have it
to pay for. But the end was not yet.
Upon the presentation to the State
Superintendent of petition from
Hinkhouse and others, showing that all
the facts had not previously been before
him, that official ordered a re hearing
of the cause before the then County
Superintendent, A. b. Oakley, Esq,
who quickly decided in favor of the
Board and sustaining their action. From
this, appeal was again taken TO the
State Superintendent by the parties
thinking themselves aggrieved; and,
after lengthy and pains TAXI ing hearing,
including argument upon both sides, =
final decision was given only few
days since, reversing the whole action
of the Board in re districting, &C., and
legalizing the operations Of sub district
number one in building their house and
operating their school.
Pending said numerous trials aud
appeals, new ENHANCEMENT arose in
sub district number one. in this wise:
The law provides that notice of election
for sub-dircctor in sub districts shall be
duly posted by the previous director; or,
in case there is none, by the Clerk of the
District Township Board. Accordingly,
the old director in number one posted
his notices Of election; and, upon the
superstition that the re districting had
made new sub district without a
director, so did the Clerk Of the Board.
Both elections were held according to
notice, at different places, and two men
elected to the same office. The Board
admitted to its membership the one
elected under the call of its Clerk
rejecting the other; who at once entered
proceeding in the nature Of a quo
,oarrdnto against his rival. After one
continuance, the cause was heard at the
last term of the Circuit Court, and
decided in favor of the petitioner, the
order of the Court making him sub.
director, and wrestling that importan,
office from the party who had held II
until that time-held it only nominally
however, for school had been operated
in the new school house by the other
while he, having no school house, hae
no duties to perform up to his dismissa
from tho office except A a member q
the Township Board.
Still another case, this time in Distric
Court, grew out of the affair; this, also
springing up while the decision Of tn,
main question was in allegiance. Whe1
the District Township Board, by som'
OF the intermediate decisions, were il
the ascendency, it proposed applyin,