Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1897-03-05
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MONEY


Mr. stoddard and the Selectmen in the
Matter.
The statement in published opinion of
learned counsel that "upon an inspection
of the records in the town clerks office"
he finds there is due to the village school
district "the total sum of S13lj, on &C
count of errors in the distribution of the
public school moneys since August 1873"
when the Vermont Statutes took effect,
might be very misleading if left to stand
alone. He specifies S304,29 in September,
1895, SG33 80 in April, 1896, and S377.36 in
September, 1896, as making up that total
AS to that said to be of September, 1879,
there was none at that time. The state school
tax referred to was raised and divided as
required by the prior law, and the share OF
the village district paid over July 10, 1898.
When the division of April, 1896, came to
be made the late Mr.. Stoddard was chair
man of the prudential committee of the
village district, two of the present com
mittee were his associates, and was chair
man of the directors of the town district
Mr.. Stoddard assumed to act for that com
mittee, and was not a man to assume any
thing that did not belong to him. The
Vermont Statutes had provided:
"Sec 8ii No person shall teach public school
without having certificate or permit as herein.
after provided. and a contract for teaching shall
be void if the teacher does not OBTAIN said certlh-
cate or permit before opening school; but this
provision shall not apply to the principal teacher
of the highest department of graded school
No certificate permit shall be granted to per
son not seventeen years of age
The certificates could only come from
the county examiner, and many of the vii
lage teachers did not have any such; and
permits did not apply. They had proceeded
under No. 1870, Laws of 1890. The law
required as to division of money:
sec. So Before making such division the ST.
| lectmen shall carefully examine the entries in
each register and ascertain the aggregate attend
ance during the school year, and whether it ap-
| Dental committee that the schools were kept by
| duly licensed teachers and that the clerk has
| made the entries required by law, and no public
| money snail be PAID unless the stlectlneh luu'
| upon such examination, that the law has been
| fully complied with
The entries in the registers would show
only part of the aggregate attendance of
the village district to be in compliance
with this law. The act of 1890 by section
l provided that the prudential committee
might grant certificates to teachers which
should "have the same validity within said
district as if granted under the provisions
of the present school law, and no general
and public law shall be construed so as to
conflict with the provisions of this sec
tion;" and by section that, "said district
shall be entitled to the same rights, privil-
eyes and benefits in the distribution OF the
public moneys, OF school fund, and shall re-
ceive the same share thereof as before the
passage of this act Why the good chill
dren of this village school district should
not have the same guaranty OF competent
teachers as all the other children OF the
state is not apparent The provisions OF the
then 'present school law required certit
Gates from county supervisors, of whom
Capt. Hall was the one from this county
These provisions were repealed by No. > o
the acts OF 1890 passed six days after, Il
take effect on the first Tuesday of March
1891, and certificates from county eXamn
ers were substituted. No certificate granted
after that date according to the prior Law
could nave any validity. some stress MAJ
have been lalu upon the provision that II,
puhlic law should be construed to confic
nil Not soo,ion. INT II uo,ld No, toLo
WIN 'ii'N o'O.' "'' - "CuiN NO. .''NN
lawyer 10 know mat no act OF the Legislature
can prescribe how future act shall be con
strued but if it could that act by its term
oava No GREATER validity IN a committae'
e. . ..-.,;-- :, = -; q -. - - -.
apparently neither could lawfully he Grant
ed after the first Tuesday in March. 1891
The Vermont statutes however specif,
what nrior laws were expressly repeaied h,
their enactment and do not so snecifv mi
act of1SoO whether because il was sunpose,
to have been impliedlv repealed before q
for other reason was not known 10 ms /,
Anril 1S0G We considered the Who'll
matter. asked two or three LAWYERS abou
il and all agreed that if a mart of the ac
!, of 1890 was in force the whole was. an,
that if the committees certificates we're +,
he treated as valid the division of none,
would have to he made ACCORDING to tb
law in forca On that subiact before vbicI
: was the law of 1855 10 treat the com
mittee's certificate as invalid would indi
cato that the teachers had been unlawfnlI,
+, Maid and that the committee wonld he lia
HE for the money for the Vermont Stat
utes proyide.
- 80.
orders mon the tieaSnrer for ali sums dn,i fror
the district, but shall not authorize the paymen
OF the moneys OF the district TO teacher EN-
t@ teacher whose certiticate has been EVOKED
uSao ,o- TO nr,,don,iai ,o,,,,,,i,,o. o,,,hor,,.
a payment prohibited by the preceding sector
he shall be liable to the district for the moneys
palu' 10 DC recovered Ill an action On thiS statute
= We were unwilling to make so great
disturbance as to discredit the committed
T. certificates would do; the law did not IT
= quire us to object; the village district had
I as Mr.. Stoddard said and thought, acte
4 in good faith as to this; and we agree
= not to object, but to let the division
made according to the act of 1883; we S
informed the town clerk who makes tn
| combinations for the splectmpn and il wa