Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1899-11-01

ing within the school district, and
that:a legal residence is not abso-
lutely necessary. The rule is laid
in the case of State VS.. Thayer,
41st Northwest Reporter, lo14,
by the Supreme Court of Wiscon-
sin. The Court says: eft does not
appear to the State Superintendent
that the Constitution or laws of
this State contemplate that the
right to attend the public school is
to be determined by a%scertaining
the legal domicile of the child.
Tie Constitution is significantly
silent upon the matter Of limitations
upon attendance, except that Of
age. 1t does declare, however,
that tuition in these schools shall
be free"
Chapter 121, Laws 1879, enact
ed for the purpose of securing to
every child between certain ages
the bentit of elementary education,
seems to be conclusive upon this
point. This Statute makes it the
duty of every person having IL
charge a child of compulsory
school age to send such child to
school at least twelve weeks each
year, and impose a penalty for the
neglect Of such duty, not parents
and guardians alone but every
person having in cherge a child
between the ages Of seven and
fifteen years is amenaLIe to this
law. 1t is evident, therefore, that
the language used in these con-
nections is designcdly used to re-
cognize the mobility vf school
population, or persons Of school
age; that it is the true intent and
purpose of the law to throw open
the doors Of public schools to
such person wherever actually re-
siding. Such has been the con
slant and uniform Interpretation
of the law by this Department.
Effort has been made to guard
against the precipitancy of non-resi-
dents to points where superior
advantages exist, and schools OF
, high order are maintained by hold.
ing that such children only, arc
entitled to free tuition as are actual
ly residing in the district for other
as a main purpose, than to par
ticipatc in the advantages which
the school affords.
., "The contention of the learned
Counsel is that a minor child who
has a father or mother, or both.
living, can have no residence fol-
the purpose Of privileges of Z
public school, different from tho
residence Of the father, if living.
and Of the mother after the death
. of the father. While this may BIZ
, the general rule, we think it cleal
that the Statute above referred tx
clearly contemplated exceptions tt
the general rule, and We think thu
argument of the learned Superin
n tendent in this case is conclusive
against the contention Of the learn
: ed Counsel for the rclator. s'ss@% Il,
! establish the rule that a mino
:, child cannot have a residence 70
Il school purposes, other than that o
his parents, would in many case
. deprive such minor Of all benefit o
such schools. When the mino
has poor parents the poverty of tn
/ parents renders it absolutely necet
sary in many cases, that a HON
i for the minaf children should b
a found in places different from tina
!, of the parents; and under the cor
Il struetion insisted upon, by tn
learned Counsel for the relatol
q such unfortunate children, 70
% whose benefit our free school
were especially instituted, woulo
i be deprived of all benefit of then
! Such construction of the law woul
re be against its beneieent spirit, an
should not prevail, unless the lar
or guage is SO clear, that no other ca
O. be given to it.
4. We do not decide in this ease
a nor do we understand the learne
nd State Superintendent to decid'
la IL c,4Ia. -, n,athor n ~ 9th,