El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1897-12-10

u
) 1886, which, as we say. must with tn
other articles, have remained il
force, Art. 1891 is referred to by mum
Der as beng in force and it is declared
that within i s limits as provided for il
Art. 1881, the council or board of alder
men shall also submit the question t.
the property taxpayers as to whether OF
not the additional amount provided
J for in the preceding article shall be
raise1 by taxation"
Every legislature which has dealt ir
any way since 1879 with this mat
ter of the organization of an indepen
dent school district in an incorporated
city or town, has recognized the cor
rectuess of the position we take. Art
1888 of the Revised Statutes of 1879 is
as follows:
''The council or board of aldermen Of
such city or town are invested with ex-
elusive power to maintain, regulate
control and govern all the public free
schools now ests blished, or hereafter
to be established, within the city limits
of said city or town, etc ," In Sayles'
ately after Art. 3782g. What is the
meaning of the expression ''such city
or town" as used in Art 1888? 1t can
not refer hack to the city or town Or
| ganiZed as an Independent school dis
'rict under Art. 3782a, ct seq. because,
by the very terms of those articles. the
exclusive power to maintaiu, regu-
lac and control the schools may be vest
ed in board of trustees, and if the
power were so vested it would be sb-
surd for the legislator. to say that the
council or board of aldermen should
have the exclusive power to maintain,
requisite and control the public.school-.
By referring to the revision of 1879
it will be seen that the ex-
preston ''such city or town" connects
itself directly with the provisions of
Art 1881 referring to the org anization
of q city as an Independent school dis
trict, upon vote of the property tax
| payers.
Again, by Art. 1905. of the revision
of 1895, it is declared, that any city or
Town in this state may acquire the
exclusive control of the public free
schools within it's limits; and by Art.
40O6 (which is the same rs the act of
April 3, 1879 it Is declared, that the
mayor of said city or town shall upon
the application of not less than SO of
the qualified electors, ETC., call an
election, etc., to decide by majority
of the votes cast by the qualified elect
ors, etc whether such city or town
shall acquire the exclusive control of
any or all of the public free schools,
&c, and, whether the same shall be
ees mentioned.
By Art 4OO7 provision is made for
the mayors ordering an election, and
by Art. 401O, and the other articles
connecting themselves directly with
Arts. 4O05 and 1905, it is declared, that
in case the vote carries in favor of the
board of trustees they shall have ex
eminent of the public fres schools.
Suppose that city of one thousand
Inhabitants, or more, incorporated un-
der the general law, should have an
election under the provisions of Art.
1905. ct seq. and vote in favor of the
proposition to make it an independent
school district and in favor of the
proposition to have it's schools in the
hands of the board of trustees men
tioped. Would the city council of such
city have the power to appoint six
persons of good moral character aud
qualifie vo' ers of such city or town as
q board OF justices for such schools?
legislature declare in Arta. 1905 to 4O12
of the revision of 1895 that, if board
of trustees is voted for, they shall have
the public schools, and then afterward
declare, in Art. 4O1S, referring to the
same n after as the appellant claims,
that the city council may have author
ity to appoint six persons of good
moral character as board
of trustees. Art. 4O1S of the revision of
1915, is simply incomprehensible uo-
less, as wa maintain, the legislature of
1895 had in mind an independent school
revision of 1879 in city organized
under the general law. If, as this
court claims. Art. 1881 o. the revision
of 1879, was repealed by implication,
and Arts. 1904 and 1905 of the revision
of 1895 are utterly irreconcil liable and
moons istent, then Art. 4O1a of the re-
vision of 1895 is directly in cons
fiict with Art. 4O06 of the revision of
1895.
But, starting with the proposition
that an Independent school district
may be organized without a board of
trustees, upon q vote of tax payers
under the provisions of Art. 1904
which is the same Art. 1881 of the
acts of 1879 and that such q district
with board OF trustees may be organ
ICED under the provisions of Art. 4OO6
of the Revised Statutes of 1895 (which
is the same as the second section of the
act of Apri! 3, 1879 every article COM
prised in Chap. l6 of Tt SO, of the re-
vision Of 1895, is iutellieible; and the
only difficulty that could possibly pres
emit itself would be that which would
present Itself In case city with
special char er, already organized as
an Independent chool district underline
provisions of Art. 1881, should desire
to place its affairs in the hands of a
board of trustees. Butwe thick that
this difficulty could be easily over
come BY such city's simply passing
upon the double question called for by
Art 4006 of the Revised Statutes of
1895. Unless our position is the cor
rect one, as we have remarked, there
are portions of the revision of 1895
which have No meaning. Art. 1924, of
the same, provides that ''after city or
town has assumed control of the public
free schools within it's limits as pro-
vided for in the act of May7, 1875. the
council or board of aldermen shall also
submit the question to the property tax
i r amount 90 nrovideS o for sn IN a Hrt
40a5 shall be raised by taxation"
Now, if as the court has held,
the law prior to April 8, 1879,
1, Ia 1.