Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1883-08-23

The Sussex Schools.
Sussex has been blamed often and
much for parsimcny in respect to her
school system But this is not the
trouble with the majority of the school
districts of Sussex ut present. Their
position Ia the peculiar one OF having
with the law as 1t existed when
they levied their assessments for the
current year and of being By that very
act debarred from complying with the
law OF a fortnight later and thereby
sharing in the benefit of the State fund,
increased, as 1t was, within that time.
For clear understanding Of this state
of affairs let US 80 back to the law as it
existed prior to the 18th of last April. 1t
provided, (sec. s. chap. 1853, vol. XVII:
1t shall be the duty Of the school commas
sioners in each of the school districts OF the
State, annually, in the month of April to
assess and levy, without regard to any vote
thereon in each of their respective districts, |
that is to say: in each OF the school districts
in New Castle county, the sum OF one hun
dred and fifty dollars in each of the school
ulstTlcts Vi hSnt county, tue SUN VI une uuI-
bred and twenty-five dollars and i'll each OF
the school districts in Sussex county, the
sum of sixty dollars, to be applied to the sup
port of the schools in their districts respeo-
lively.
And, it is further provided (section 3,
chapter AZ, Revised Code) that this
annual meeting shall be held on the first |
Saturday in April, and that "no vote |
respecting tax shall be taken at any |
"other time than the stated annual |
meeting, or the substitute therefor"
This, therefore, is the awkward |
dilemma in which the people of Sussex
find themselves Some two-thirds of the
school districts In that county held their
annual meeting on the first Saturday OF
April, voted to raise the amount then
required by law, (s60), and then ad-
journed. On the 10th of April the Legis-
lsture passed a supplementary act, the
second section of which says:
That no district in Sussex county shall
receive any appropriation from the State
until it has raised, by tax, the sum of seventy
| five dollars.
"Those two words "by tax' are now
provokingly in their way. Some,
perhaps all, OF these unfortunate dis
tricts are prepared to raise the additional
SIS by sub 'cription, but the Attorney
tieaersl's opinion is that this would not
be in compliance with the law and that, as
the school commissioners likewise lack the
legsl authority to cause supplementary
levy 10 be made, such districts cannot be
awarded any portion of the last school
dividend.
1t wal legislative blunder, but one
for which tue representatives OF Sussex
and Kent are primarily responsible. This
act, which was originally known as Mr..
Messick's (SusseX) school bill came up
for consideration III the House, sitting in
CoHmittee OF the Whole, on March Both
last, on which ouras on nearly the whole
day was spent upon it. The represents
tiyes from K4nl and Sussex being at til at
time divided over the main question at
issne-hDw the fund hnnld be apportoned
smoGg the counties New Castles claim
that it he distributed on The basis OF the
nnmber of pm pills enrolled was agreed to,
: Messr5. Dukes, Risler, Wheatley and
Roillns, all of Sussex, voting with the
Flew Castle members in support OF this
eminently Just proposition; eminently
just we say because New Castle, as was
stated ia the debate then made, furnishes
one-hali the pupils aid raises ssS, 900 Of
the $I05, 0oG revenues from which the SD
preparation is to be taken.
After this superintendent had beer
agreed to, and after the Sussex and Kent
# men who had voted asains. 1t had demon.
II strated that they would stand by Speake,
I Bates, in opposition this time to the res
h of New Castle county, in supporting tn,
"a claim Of Wilmington to an equitable an
O. portionment Of New Castle county's shar
o. the fund within the county, DIR. Levi
Of Kent county, moved an amendment
!. that no school district should be eatitls,
"a to share in the appropriation until it ha,
4 raised by taxation an amount equal to it
A quota Of the appropriation.
4. Then it was that Mr.. MessiUk made tn
, statement that it would be impossible TO
"a some districts in Sussex to comply witt
& this provision. '.as they were too hone
b, slessly poor.n But the amendment a
DR.. Lewis was agreed to, chiefly by tn
- votes Of Kent and Sussex members a
. nearly all the Nay Castle membsrs. re-
q gardipg IL as matter which concerned
Sussex county chiefly. refrained fror
i voting upon it,
The matter was then dyonnsd mt;
April 18th. when the bill came nm 10
final action In tbs Honss and altar tb
:, manbsrs from the lower COMMITTEES had
! upder the mistaken imnression that tn
:. House had adopted the smandmsnt
ayreei nnon in Co,,mittse If the Who'll
torn those amendments, To njeeas game,
ally the act as IL now annsar
:, in the r.cantlv nrintsd vo,nme n
the law. was aoraad uno, an,
nassad aa comnron,isa ,,.,surs
ard subseousptlv adonte, bv tho s.nat
without anv alteration al,bone,, ssnato
uarston Triad in vain 10 b.vs ,be sso