The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-22
THE SCHOOL APPROPRIATION.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN sEUnE-
TARY O'BRIEN AND STATE SUI
PER1NTENDENr LUsHER.
Mr.. Lushcr to show Cause why ne shall
Not Put the Appropriation tn the
Credit Of the school Heard.

| sfe0tt OF the scbOOl ABaFo.
The important differences existing between
the State Superintendent of Public Education
and the New Orleans School Board, concern
Ing the disposition OF the appropriation oi
the Legislature for the relief Of the school
teachers Of New Orleans, have resulted In
| additional correspondence between the two
parties to the misunderstanding which, how
ever now promises TO meet with an early
settlement. The correspondence ls published
In full and explains most comprehenslbIy the
attitude of both the State Superintendent and
the school board:
New ORLEANS March 10, 1879.
Hon. Robt NJ. Lusher, State Superintendent of
Public Education. Slate OF Louisiana:
Dear Sri have submitted your commu-
nications Of the twenty seventh utlmo. the
iifth instant and the fifteenth Instant TO the
president Of the city Board Of School Direct
ors, who has instructed me to say that there
Is no disposition on the part Of the board over
which he presides to engage In controversy
ON the subject of the respective duties OF the
Superintendent Of the State board and Of the
city board or Its treasurer.
Nevertheless he disagress with the view
expressed by you, that the law authorizes
you to withhold the appropriation OF $4,000.
or go much thereof as may be necessary for
the relief Of the New Orleans school board,
out Of the current school fund Of 1877. The
appropriation is for the relief Of the school
board.
1t Ia the usual and ordinary language of
appropriation acts, to declare that fixed
sum or money, or go much thereof as may be
necessary, shall be applied to the purpose
specified In the act. But who ls to determine
how much is necessary Clearly that officer
to whom the disbursement Of the money is
lntrusted.
You are authorized TO place TO the credit of
.&ti,, - n,ln Nit,a1t
collected from the back taxes OF the respeo-
tive years belonging 10 the school funds. That
is to say, you are required to place to the credit
OF the city of New Orleans out OF those funds,
thesum OF $4,000 u the taxes referred to pro
duce that amount; for, authority given pub
lie officer to do an act in which the public have
an interest, is equivalent to command.
You are not charged with the disbursement
Of the funds-you are only required TO place
them where they can be disbursed; hence the
cept to those who are the original owners and
payees of warrants and have remained So up
TO The time OF payment, TO be made appear by
affidavit indorsed Oh the warrants Ia rule
prescribed to the officer who makes the pay
ment, and Is a matter removed from the
Jurisdiction OF the superintendent, whose
duty is confined to placing the appropriation
to the credit Of the city Of New Orleans.
Viewed In the light OF these suggestions, II
Ia clear that the State Superintendent of Edu-
cation has no right to call for the alTldavts of
the employees of the city board, as O. con
dition precedent to placing the funds appro-
priated by the State 10 the credit OF the city
of New Orleans nor is he the legal custodian
of such atIldavits; nor has he the legal right,
nor Ia he vested with authority, as Supern-
tendent to criticise the conduct Of the treas
urer of the City School Board In making pay
ments to the employees of that board.
The City School Board is quite willing to
test the matter by Q writ OF mandamus adj
dressed TO the State Superintendent Of Educa-
ton, and not to the State Auditor, as suggest
ed for II liz the duty of the former TO place
the appropriation to the credit Of the city
board, II there are funds on hand to satisfy
the appropriation In whole or In part, and
performances of that duty can be enforced by
mandamua
Yours, very respectfully,
JOHN J. OBRIEN,
Secretary Of Board Of Directors of the Public
Schools, City Of New Orleans.