The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1874-01-02
To the Magistrates of Hardeman
County


ed. There seems to be belief that the
moneys on hand for school purposes,
which accrued under a former school
law and were apportioned to it, TO the
respective districts, must 90 to those
districts, and not be re-diUided. This is
grave error, and any one, to be satis>
fed of it, need only turn to sec. SO of the
school law, page ID, TO have it fully
explained. The above named section
reads as follows:
81 That all sums of money derived from
State or county funds, whieh are unex-
pended in any year, in any public school
district, shall go into the hands of the
county trustee, for re-division the next
year; but no sums derived from district
/ assessment shall be subject to re-diyis-
ion outside of the district
Herein, the law to me, is perfectly
plain 1t distinctly says all sums of
Money" it makes no exception The
law goes On to say v hat moneys shall
not be re>divided. 1t says, "no sums
derived from district assessment shall
be subject to re. division outside of the
district" 1t does not say this of the
moneys derived from the State or coun-
ty. What does 1t say of this ? Plainly
| enough all moneys derived from the
above named source shall be re-diVided.
But no, Say they who hold that it should
so back to the same districts to which it
was once apportioned, the are old
claims to be settled, and the money must
! 60 back 20 settle them. And another
| objection to its reedivision is. that it
would impair the right of district to
re~divide moneys that hand once been
| apportIoned to it. The latter clause of
the above section, clearly defines the
rights of "a district. If it was intended
that the moneys once appoctioned should
not be re divided, why did not the law
specify it, just as it has done about " dis
trict assassin nts." In answer to the
first objection, are not old claims good
under the present law as under former
ones? Can not the present board of
school directors settle these claims just
as well as the old beard could have done
Most certainly they can. The law clear
ly provides for them Sometime in the
year 1870. the sum of Sl74O,G6 was ap-
portioned to districts Of the county
This sum has been in the county treas>
ury for two or three years, most of it is
on hand Low, and it is claimed that this
must remain intact Must 90 to the
districts to which it was then apportion-
ed. That it would be injustice to take
it away from them | refer all who
maintain this, to the clause above, (sec
500 1t must be conclusive Let all
thinking men look at it, and judge for
themselves. Even the laws, in exist.
ence when the above sum was apportion-
ed, is explicit upon this point, and says
that a district forfeits absolutely its
quota of State appropriations for the
year, when it fails to take advantage of
the apportionment That law was re-
peaIed by the one which succeeded it.
and the present law (section So says
That all laws OF parts of laws, moons
sistent with the provisions of this Act
are hereby repealed"
If the law of 1870 was repealed by
succeeding one, it is natural inference
that the present law repeats the one that
proceeded it. again. the sum of$I7l9,94
accrued under the old law The most
of it was in the HANDS of the county
trustee for months and months. Yet
this sum had never been aPpartioned.
! Now, it is Joined to the fund aceruing
under the present school law, and divid-
ed with it. Is this right2 Is it fair
If the $1740,66 was kept back; why
should not the "a also be thrown
in with it Or Uice Uersa, if the SI7I9 ga
is taken from the old fund, Joined with
ttII.A pres ut, and divided, why should not
the Sl74O,66, that has been in the
treasury toI DAarly three years, be join
ed with the present fund aiso and prop
erly divided. 1t is moLey that came
from the county at large. 1t was derived
from State and county taxes and belongs
to the county in common. 1t looks ex-
tremely unwise at this late day, to say
that after a district has been allowed to
avail itself of this fund for years, ard
utterly failed to do 10, it shall now come
up and claim it. appeal to your wor-
shipful court to correct this error 1
ask you, to thoroughly investigate the
law, am fully satisfied of its purpose
and intent
The county trustee of Madison county
holds the same position that / do. He is
endorsed by the county superintendent
of his county. l have a letter at my
command clearly defining his position.
He says he will divide every dollar of the
r. school money in his hands emong the
districts of his county hold that he is
right. That his duty in the matter is
plainly set forth in section 43 of the
present School Law
l sincerely hope your worshipful court
will take the matter into earnest consid-
Grafton next Monday. / think this
money should be re-divided. It's in
your power to direct that it bs doae.
speak for the children of the county al
large, and not for any individual dis
tFict. J. f. HOPKINS.
Supt. Pub. Schools.
Bolivar. Tenn, Dec 29th 1873.
The Waynesborough correspondent Of
The Laurence Lonr1nE tells hnu Sootl