The Northern Pacific farmer. [volume] (Wadena, Minn.) 1878-1885, 1882-05-25
ABSENT OR TARDY.
Causes for which Pupils Hay b Expelled
from tho Public Sah:els.
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.

ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.
Hon. D. L. kiehlc, Superintendent of Public In
struction;
Dear Sir-You state that "a board Of education
in an independent district has adopted the follow
ing rule. Whenever during any term any pupil
has been absent three half days or tardy and ABB
sent three times without good excuse, said pupil
shall be suspended from the privileges Of the
school, and can only be reinstated only by ma
jority vote Of the board at Of its meetings:'
and ask, ':Win fair Interpretation of the law in
section 3, G) authorize school boards to lay this
condition upon pupils who desire the benefit Of
the school?''
BY subdivision of section Ill Of Laws of Mix.
! nesota relating to the public shool, boards o:
education Of independent school, districts have
power and it Is made their duty to superintend.
and manage in all respects the schools of said dis
trict, and from time to time to adopt rules for
| their * government and instruction t** for
! the reception Of pupils 4 q y their SUSPENSION
Z =. =
this clause have the right TO adopt rules for the
| suspension and expulsion of scholars must be
be conceded. The language is too plain to admit
of question; unless it should be claimed that the
right to attend school is one absolute right and
not one to be enjoyed on reasonable conditions.
The authorities are numerous and by the ablest
court in the land that this right is not absolute
one, but is to he enjoyed subject to system end
der under established rules:
THAT III this respect the citizen il in subordi-
nation to the lawful rules for the regulation Of
schools and the improvement of scholars in lar::-
ing; and this is for tho same fundamental reason
thet he is in subordination to the statutes them
selves on that or any other subject, and it is no
more his right to defy or disregard those rules
than it is to defy and disregard any statute that
affects him citizen In respect to schools o.
any other subject Involving the common veal
Ferretcr VS.. Tyler. IS bt 4is.
Sherman VS.. Charleston, S Cush lG,
Stephenson vs. Hall, II Barb. -.
Spiller vs.. Waburn. Il Allen 1.7.
Spear VS.. Cummings, q Pick. 2A.
Burdick vs.. Rabcock, Il Iowa 5G.'
Hodkins VS.. Inhabitants of Rockford, los Mess.
Ill. .:.. -....> = = + - --a. II.
People vs. School Officers, Is Abb. Proc les.
The power being thus vested in such board the
sole question to be examined and considered is
as to whether the rule under consideration is r
reasonable and proper one. II it is, it is valid
If not, it is invalid.
This, however, does not imply that the board
are the ultimate judges whether the enforcement
Of the rule in given case is Lawfully requisite
and proper. When such question, Of lawful1,ess II
made between a party against whom the rll,
operates and the board, this question is open be-
fore the courts for consideration and decision.
under all the circumstances.
Is this rule then, reasonable and proper one-
think It is. As said by the supreme court Of
Vermont tls Vt. 471} in case arising under q
somewhat similar rule: '.The rule in question is
fort tbo ~ ind
staney in attendance, That such constancy IA es-
scntial to such improvement instruction. is not
debatablc. That such attendance il requisite ~
matter Of regulation in order to the necessary
classification Of the scholars IN reference to age,
capacity, studies and profc eslcy is not dcbatable
Those who attend constantly cannot be required
to lingcr in order that the incons;ant may keep
along with them: nor can such ineonstan. schol-
ars keep equal pace with tho~, who attend con-
stantly. The rule then is such is contemplated
BY the statute so far the purpose Of it Il con-
ccrncd. That purpose is Indispensable to the At
tainment of the object aud end proposed by the
statutes both to the individual scholar and to
all others who may be affected by his attendance
and ABSENCE In 81 Iowa $50 u rule which prs
vided that .any pupil who is absent nix half d.
in any consecutive four weeks, and two tin. Z
tardy shall be counted one absence, unless d,
tanned by sickness some other unsvoidaf Q
cause shall be suspended from tile schools unt
the end OF the terin unless rcinstated by the snpc,-
lintcndent or board was sustained As being le:
sonable and proper rule. The court says tfi s
..any rule Of the school not subversiye OF tn.
rights of the children or parents or in conhitt
9en se object q Ss Law
establishiny public schools must be considered
| reasonable and propcr',-that object being stated
state'' Again they say. .''the rule requiring COZ
slant and prompt attendance Is for the good Of the
pupil and to secure the very ollscss The law had