The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-03-23

ton of those in calling an institute 70
April in disregard of the proper au
thority, was wholly wrong, yet sucl
| an opinion had been rendered, and wa
in the hands Of those responsible 70
this action.
On the 23d of February. nit, th'
| county superintendent wrote asking M
| if it would be convenient to hold thu
| institute on April 10. No intimaton i:
| given in this, the first letter regarding
| this matter. that the date had beer
| decided upon or that Chicago instruc'
| tors had been engaged to instruct the
| institute. ! replied that | did not think
April the proper time for holding an
| institute, and gave my reasons for sc
| thinking, and requested an expression
I, of opinion from the county superintend-
| ent as to the comparative value of an
| institute held in April and one held in
| September, just before the opening Of
the schools.
On the 2Sth of February | received
an answer stating that unfortunately,
I cannot defer the county institute I'M
til fall"
The letter further stated that Chi
cago teacher had been engaged as an
instructor, and that the trustees We're
very anxious that the institute should
be held in April
From this letter it is apparent that
the date had been selected and a Chi
cago instructor engaged before any co.,
respondence had been had with this of
flee. This was not only improper. but
wholly unauthorized. Knowing that 70
person could properly instruct in any
institute of this state without first be-
ing licensed, as the law requires, by the
state board Of education, and knowing
also that the state board had not
licensed any teacher in Chicago for this
purpose, | asked the opinion of the at
torney general respecting these mat
tiers. A copy of this opinion I enclose
and request its publication as mart
of this statement, as I do not think it
has been published in any of your local
papers.
T answered this letter. giving more
fully my reasons for preferring an in
stitute in September, and informed the
county superintendent that the law
made it the duty of the state suporin-
tendent to decide upon the date, and
also informed her that only those
licensed by the state board could he
employed as instructors. I also cn-
closed a copy of the attorney generals
opinion.
Notwithstanding the foregoing GORE
spondence, on the 18th inst, I received
another letter from the county SUPER
intendent stating that the teachers had
been notified that an institute would be
held on April 10, and that the schools
of Butte would be dismissed one week
and that this action had been approved
by the school board OF Butte.
The letter further stated, among 9TH
er things, that the opinion of the attor-
ney general and my letter had heen
handed to the county attorney and that
he had sent word that the county 81
perintendent had the authority to fix
the date. This letter was answered
and attention was called to the fact
that the attorney general was the law
officer of the state, and as such, his
opinion should be respected, 1t is APP
parent. I think. from the foregoing,
that there was 2 fixed determination
from the first to hold the institute on
April 10th, regardless Of the interests
Of the schools or anything else.
l declined to approve of any institute
in April for the reasons / had given,
and instructed the county super,nten J.
emit to notify her teachers that it had
been postponed until September. I a.
so wrote her that since there was no
reason given why an April institute
should be held, must adhere to my de-
cision. This closed the core spondence.
The failure of the county superintend-
ent to consider with me the question of