The Nevada picayune., 1885-03-19
SCHOOL DIRECTORS.
An Official Opinion and Cita-
 tiOnS as to tn cir
Jurisdidtion and Powers in Controlling
 District Sc.,e ols.
LITTLE ROCK, March 10, 1885.

perintendent of Public Instruction.
 DEAR SRI have the honor to acknowledge the receipt or your communication of the Eth inst, in which you ask my official opinion as to the legality and binding force of the following resolution CT re6- ulation, adopted by the board of directors of tho school district of Prescott, to wit:
 "Resolved, that such children only are entitled to admission as pupils in the Prescott free school as were residing ih the school dis triet of Prescott on the first day of the proceeding September, and if names of such pupils do not ap- pear on the enumeration, applica- tion for admission must first be made to the school board. Pro- vided the children of the bona fide
 
 citizens who may attain to school age during the year may be admit. ted during the year." ;,
 I have examined with mach care the decisions of many of the Amer ican courts ill relation to the pow CTS and duties of school directors and trustees, but have not been able to find any adjunction which reaches the precise question propounded by you and am therefore, compelled to put such contraction upon 1t as 1 may be- leive to be consistent with the spirit and intention of the laws of this State in relation 10 free com mon schools.
 The latter clause of section S264 Mansneld's Revised Statrtes, reads as follows. "The Board" referring to the board of directors of single school districts, may make rules and regulations for tn cir o~r government and for the dispat cl and regulation of school business and affairs of the district rot in- compatible with law"
 The supreme court, of Iowa ln the case of Burdick vs Babcock 3l Iowa, 562, 5G5, ill speaking ol certain rules adopted by the board of directors of school district by which certain pupils were sus pended for absence and tardiness say: ''Any rule of the school not subversiveof the rights of the chil dren or parents, or in conflict with humanity and the Precepts Of di- vine law, which tends to advance the object of the law in establish ing public schools, must be consid- cred reasonable and proper" So, in this case, the single question seems to me to be, is the regula- tion of the Prescott beard sub versive of the rights of the children or parents, or in conflict with 1 humanity and the precepts of di- vine law ,and does it tend not to ad vance the object of the law in es- tablishing public schoOls7 If not, then it is reasonable and proper, otherwise it is unreasonable and improper, and cannot be enforced. And this is the question to be determined and should be deter mined, as I conceive by ascertainine as nearly as possible the spiri! and intention of the legislature in dividing the counties into school districts. and investing each of such districts with certain powors to be exercised independently of the others, and the scope and ex' tent of such powers.
 We find by article If, of the Con stitution of this State, section 3 that it is made the duty of the gen eral assembly to provide,b general laws, for the support of common schools by taxes, not to exceed 1T any one year two mills on the dol lar on the taxable property of the State; and by ar anual per capits tax of one dollar to be assessed on every male inhabitant of this State over the age of twenty-one years This much is imperative on the gen eral assembly. But the same sec tion provides that ''the general as sembly may, by general law, au' thorize school districts to levy, by a vote of the qualified electors O such district, tax not to exceed five mills on the dollar in any one year for school purposes. Provid ed further: That no such tax shall be appropriated to any other dis trict than for which it was levied.'