The record-union., 1892-03-01
CITY EDUCATORS BEATEN.
They Cannot Compel the Trustees to
Levy a 35-Cent Tax.
Important Decision Rendered by SUI
perior Judge lin-suggestions,
but Not Demands.

The City Board of Eucation cannot
compel the Board of City Trustees to levy
tax of 35 cents on each S100 of valuation
for school purposes.
They essayed to do so by suing in the
Superior Court for writ of mandate, but
Superior Judge Catlin decided against
the educators yesterday. The decision is
as follows:
The petitioners seek the writ of man
GATE to compel the respondents to levy
tax of 80 cents on the 500 of taxable prop
erty for the support of the public schools
OF the city for the current year. The Pc
eitlon shows that the respondent did on the
lst of February levy tax OF 70 cents 1or
the purpose mentioned and AYERS that
such tax Will be insufficient The petit
TONERS claim that it is the duty Of the re-
spondents TO levy the amount OF tax by
them demanded, and that 1t is not within
the discretion of the respondents to re-
fuse compliance with such demand.
This contention is founded upon the
following sections Of the Act Of April Il,
1863, as amended by the Act of January
Is, 1870:
Section 1. The Board Of Education shall,
after the year 1868. annually. OF before
the first day of February, make and report 10
the Board of Trustees a statement in detail OF
the receipts and expenditures ior school pur-
poses in the city during the year then last
furnish detailed statement OF the probable
amount of money that viii be required dur
ing the current year, and the purposes for
which IL will be required and also an estimate
Of the amount that viii be received by the
city from the State and county for school par-
poses.
moneys needed as provided in section /, the
Board OF Trustees shall, at the time OF levy
ing other city taxes, levy direct special
school tax, which, after making proper allow
ances for delinquencieS, will produce q sum
that taken with the estimated amount to lie
received from the State and county, Will
make the amount required BY the Beard OF
Education; provided that in no case shall
SUCH special school tax exceed thlrty-1ive
cents on the one hundred dollars.
ION the part of the respondents it is
contended: First that under this
statute it is submitted to the judy
ment of the City Trustees to
determine the amount necessary to be
expended for school purposes each year,
and the amount, of the tax necessary to
be levied to liquidate such expenditure;
second, that if it be true that the Trustees
have no discretion in the matter, and
have only to comply with any demand
not exceeding thirty-hye cents which the
Board of Education NAV choose TO make
then, in order to make it compulsory
upon the Trustees to levy the amount de
uanded, the Board of Education must
strictly comply with the requisition OF
the statute in the matter of furnishing the
two detailed statements required by the
first section of the Act; and that IN this
instance the Board of Education have
not, in spirit, or substance, complied
with the law in that regard.
I'm the view that take of the question
in controversy it viii not be necessary to
determine whether or not the statements
furnished, and which are made a part Of
the petition, are sufficient or not II the
Trustees have no discretion in the matter
OF liking the amount OF the tax, these de-
tailed estimates and statements would
serve them little purpose. But If it is a
matter within the fair scope and inten-
ton OF the law TOR them to exercise their
Judgment upon, then these detailed state
ments will be valuable aids in the eXeT-
else of that judgment, more or less valu-
able as they may be more or less general
or particular in the details. The fact that
these detailed estimates and statements
are required as preliminary goes far to
show the necessity OF the law.
"Ihey would be of use only to the
Board Of Education to enable it to deter
mine what amount to demand, and of no
use whatever to the City Trustees to en-
able them to yield to the demand, if sim
pie compliance with such demand were
their only duty. The Trustees are given
until the firSt Monday in March to levy
the several annual taxes. The Board of
Education are required to furnish those
detailed statements and estimates en-
school purposes during the year then
last past as well as the probable amount
OF money that will be required during
the current year, and the purposes for
which it Will be required together with
an estimate of the amount that will be
received from the State and county, on or
before the lst day of February, thus Civ
ing the Trustees full month in case they
should need so much time for conSidera-
ton of the matter submitted TO them.
'"Fhe phrases used IN the Act of the
probable amount of money that will be
required and the amount required by
the Board of Education,' do not carry the
idea of amounts demanded, but rather of
amounts deemed necessary for annual
school purposes, and it is altogether too
doubtful and unreasonable, as a pTopo-
sition, to maintain thatthe Board ofTrus-
tees are denied any lot or part in deter
mining what amount is so required as
a necessity for the support of the schools.
Petitioners counsel relies on the sup
posed potency of the word 'shalP in the
text of the Act. But the use Of the word
must be considered in its relation to the
whole Act and the subject matter of the
Act 1t may, and doubtless does, in this
instance, impart the idea that the Trustees
must act and must levy tax. But Is 1t
so imperative as to require on the part of
the City Trustees surrender of all judg
ments as to tho amount of the tax, and all
consideration Of the question of what is,
or what is not required for the uses and
purposes of the city schools, and thus neg
alive what plainly appears from other
parts of the Act to be part of its design?
j think not. 1t would have been easy to
have employed terms which would have
left no room for DOUBT, if ii had been the
design of the Legislature to take away
all control and ali responsibility from the
board of City Trustees.
''Such was plainly the object of the Act
10 provide Tor the redemption of the
funded Indebtedness OF the City of Sacra-
mento.' passed in 1872, where il used those
uninistakable terms: The Board of Trus-
tees, in levying the tax under the pro-
visions OF this Act, shall be governed by
the request, in writing, of the Board of
Funded Debt Sinking Fund Commission
ers. or a majority of said Commissioners.
aud shall fix the levy at such a rate as is
bvthe Board OF Commissioners requested,
within the limits fixed by the first sec
lion Of this Act 1t is needless TO add
that this Act provided for no preliminary
report of past expenditures, or future
needs 10 be submitted 10 the consideration
of the Trustees.
Perhaps there may be other views and
constructions taken of the law under con-
sideratiOn, but there can be none IN my
judgment that do not leave it a matter of
much doubt. 1t is a familiar rule that the
way for the extraordinary remedy sought
ia this case must be clear, not DARK or