Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1893-04-12
THE SCHOOL LAW PROBLEM.
Ex-State Superintendent Palmer of
Waterbury Expresses some Ideas
Concerning Disputed Questions.

L all uudUic 10 ucttCl 80 ulduy ulll'
culties in the way Of executing the
present school laws as some do.
/. The State school tax law OF
1890 is not repealed by section SO Of
No. 81, acts of1892, which says : "All
acts and parts of acts inconsistent with
this act are hereby repealed" A bill,
as | understand, was introduced into
the Senate for the express purpose of
repeating that law, and the Senate,
after consideration, finally refused to
pass it. This is conclusive proof that
the Legislature did not intend to repeal
it. Again, it is difficult to see how one
law can be Inconsistent" with anoth-
er law so long as both can be fully and
legally executed without collision. The
execution of the State tax law will rot
conflict, in any respect, with the exc
cution of the town system law. The
tax law is to be executed this year in
the same way and under the same con-
ditions as in the past TWO years; for
section G declares hat the State treas
urer shall divide annually the money
among the towns, Sin proportion to
the number of legal schools sustained
The preceding school year" Not n
reason has been or can beurged against
the enforcement Of the tax law that
could not have been brought against Il
during the past two years. A law
may be inequitable in its operation
aud not ''inconsistent" with any other
law. The danger is not that there viii
be too many combinations of small
schools, but too few. The ) per cent
State tax law was a mere compromise
agreed to in the last hours of the legis-
lative session of 1890. Its purpose
was to ~equalize the taxes between the
towns, and it is one ofthe best school
laws ever passed in this State. That
kind of legislation is regarded every
where in the United States as extreme
ly beneficial to the small rural schools
and should not be lightly set aside.
The own directors should consolidate
the small schools for the good of the
schools. Suppose that two small schools
in a certain town are united 10 two
others. 1t is true that the town would
draw S72 less from the State treasury,
but by the combination, if it main
tanned the same grade OF schools, it
would save the expense of supporting
the two schools-at least 1925. But
the town ought to use this none SO
gained, or a large part of it, in improv-
ing the other schools.
2. Division of the public money.
The selectmen 'sshall annually
divide the school moneys in the treas
ury of such town among the school dis
tricts in such town." etc.-School law
of 1888, Sec. 233, No. 5,acts Of 1890,
Sec. 2. This Is the law of the State.
No attempt has been made to repeal
or modify it in any respect. There
fore. nothing can be palmer than that
it is the duty OF the selectmen to divide
the public money this spring. But it
does not follow from this that they
should pay it all over to the districts.
3. Surplus in district treasury.
TIE only question of any difficulty, as
it appears to me, in the execution of
school laws, relates to the DISPOSE ,
ton of this surplus. There is no stat
ute that governs, and therefore it must
be decided on general principles of
Some claim that it must be dis i
Iributed among the taxpayers, and 9TH {
srs that it must be turned into the
own treasury. Now those who claim
hat the surplus should be given to the /,
axpayers seem to have forgotten that !
he State and the towns, with the in !
,ome of the nnds-Huntington fund, 7
ease lands, etc.,-paid more than one \
lalf of the expenses of the schools. n
They paid for the year ending April /, :
l792, 1871, $780, 4, while the districts \
,aid s363,l26.57. During the past :
ear, the payments have probably been \
bout the same. If we admit that the
distribution among the taxpayers would
'e just and legal, it will be found, |
hink, in nine cases out of ten, that the
Dtire surplus belongs to the taxpay-
of the town and y o 10 those of the
istrict for in most districts the sur
lus viii consist of the public money
aid this spring or the money paid by
he State next July.
If there is anything to this claim,
'hich is very doubtful, il will be mere
onsense for anyone TO attempt to con-
ne the distribution to the residents OF
he districts. The surplus money must
o to all who have contributed to it,
nd in proportion as they have contrib
ted. After the towns and State have
,ceived their share. there will not be
lough left for anyone to wrangle over.
ONE men reason a though the schools
this time were in the condition Of a