St. Paul daily globe., 1892-02-01
COURT MUST DECIDE.
Attorney General Clapp Sub
mitS His Answer to Min
neapolis Ministers.
Courts Must Officially Deter
mine What Constitutes
Public Schools,
And When Public Money May
Be Withheld in Proper
Instances.
Cases Where Unintentional
Hardship May Fall on
Other Schools.

Attorney General Clapp has prepared
his reply to the request of the Minis
terial Association of Minneapolis for
legal light upon the school question.
The opinion was made public yester-
day. 1t is addressed to Rev. M. Falk
GjertSen and is as follows:
You make the following inquiries of
this office:
First-When the character of school
is brought in question, and disagree
ment OF opinion exists, whether the
school in question is public school
within the meaning of the constitution
and laws of this state, who is to officially
determine the character of such school?
Second-What would be the proper
legal proceedings to prevent the pay
ment OF public school money to such
schools as are not conducted as public
schools within the meaning of the con-
Stituti0n and statutes of this state?
L understand these inquiries are sub
mitted on behalf of committee of
which you are chairman. The answer
to the first inquiry is necessarily in
volved in the answer to the second in
quiry.
Under the laws OF this state the money
used for the support of public schools
is derived from several sources. There
is what is known as the current school
fund, consisting of the general school
fund, together with One-mill state
school fund.
There is also local mill tax levied
by the county commissioners, and a
fund accruing from liquor licenses, es-
trays and fines. In addition to this is a
special tax voted by the district, not
necessary, however, to consider in con-
nection with this inquiry.
The state superintendento OF public in
struction is required to make all ap-
pointment of the available current
school funds in the state treasury.
among the several counties of the state,
on the first Monday in March and the
first Monday of October of each year
(and provision is made for remitting to
the several counties such apportion-
ment, less what is turned in tax settle
menD upon the basis OF enrolment and
attendaDce; the evidence upon which
the state superintendent acts being the
reports of district clerks made to the
county superintendent, and by that Off
Ger reported to the state superintendent.
After the state superintendent has
made his apportionment to the several
counties of the available current school !
funds, the county auditor is required to
make an apportionment of the money
IN the county treasury accruing from
the current school fund, liquor licenses,
estrays and fines; the so-called local
one-nill tax not being apporotoned, as
1t belongs with the special tax to the
districts i'll which it is raised.
The apportlOnment made, by the
county auditor is based upon the en-
rollment and attendance as reported to
him by the county superintendent.
There are certain conditions attached
to the apportionment not necessary to
mention here. SIe
have, at some length, referred to the
sources from which the money used for
the support of the public schools is de-
rived, and the manner in which it is ap-
portloned to correct misrepresentation
as to the powers and duties of the state
superintendent. While that officer is
vested with certain authority under our
school code, yet the law depends finally
for its administration and execution
upon local agencies. 1t will be seen
that the state superintendent only ap-
portions the current school fund upon
reports furnished previously by district
clerks. Nor does the state superintend-
ent apportion to districts, but directly
to the county. Should the state super
lntendent assume to determine whether
any district reported was not, IN
fact. a public school in contem-
Pio1ioH VI tIe law, anu re-
duce the county apportionment on
that account, the county auditor might
treat such district as entitled to ap-
pOintment and include it in the distri- |
button of the funds allotted to the
county by the state superintendent, in |
which ease the state superintendent in |
stead Of visiting his condemnation |
upon the supposed offender, would, in |
act. deprive ali the other districts in |
the county of proportion of the fund. |
1t might be urged that if the state |
superintendent makes an apportion- |
ment upon basis including district |
not, Ill fact, entitled to any public |
moneys, and the auditor should throw |
such district out of his computation, |
the other districts in the county would |
receive portion beyond what they |
were legally entitled to, but an answer |
to this suggestion is found in the fact |
that the county auditor is subject to le- |
gal proceedings to compel him to make |
proper apportionment or prevent him |
from making an improper one as the |
case may be, while the state superin- |
terfdent is probably not subject to such |
proceeding. 1t follows, therefore, that |
II public moneys are likely TO be ap- |
pOrtiOned to district which, it is |
claimed is not entitled to the same, the |
remedy Is by a proceeding TO restrain |
the county auditor from making such |
apportionment, Or if he refuses to make |
an apportionnent to district lawfully |
entitled thereto, proceedings may be in |
Stituted against him to compel him to |
make such apportionment. In either I
case the court, which is the only tribu- |
Hal which can uthoritatively pass upon |
the question, would determine whether |
the district was or was not entitled to |
its share Of the public school moneys. |
| have the honor to be very respectfully, I
MOSES E. CLAPP. /
Boycott Rates (