The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-12-12
CONTRACTS WITH
TEACHERS VALID
----~-----@--------~-~---
Courts Decision Does Not
Effect Them,
SUPERlNTEN0ENTS HOLD
~----------------
AND CERTIFICATES ISSUED by
THEM ARE rlEGAL>
SUPERlNTEN0ENTS HOLD
DECISION EFFECTS COUNTY BOARDS ONLY
Old Boards Reinstated Can Not Turn Out Town,
ship Committees or Nullify Con-
tracts, Mr.. Mechanics Letter and
Attorney Generals Opinion.


yesterday to give out his letter relative
to the effect of the Supreme Court de-
cisions on school hoarlls. aud contracts
aud appointments made by them under
the law of 1899. He expects to have 1t
prepared to be given out today.
Yesterday he addressed request to
Attorney General Walser for an onin-
ion ON some additional points involved.
The request and opinion in reply are
given below Mr. Walser holds that in
all counties where the old boards retired
without contest and the new boards elect
ed county superintendent that the latter
are the legal officials. 1t follows from
this that all certificates issued by the
new superintendent are valid and also,
apparently, that the township commit
tees appointed by the new boards aa.e en-
titled to act and that all contracts -hey
may have made with teachers or others
are legal and binding. Under this con-
straction while the old boards are held
to have been the de jure boards the
new boards under the uniform decisions
in this State were capable rs de facto
officials Of making valid contracts, APP
pointments. etc.
This additional opinion would seem to
settle the extent of the effect of the
courts decision All county superintend-
ents where two boards were not claiming
to act at the same time are the legal
officials. The new township commit
tees can mot be turned ont. Certificates
of teachers and contracts made with
teachers are valid. In short the effect
of the decision does not carry beyond
the county boards.
MR.. aIEBANE'S LETTER.
Mr.. Mebane's letter to the Attorney
General is as follows:
December 18th. 1890.
Hon. z. " Walser. Attorney General
My Dear Sir: / wish Your opinion
upon the Following cases which have
come under my notice within the last
few days. The information | wish is in
regard to the abandonment of office. The
three following cases will cover prac-
tically all the cases in regard to the
county boards and / wish to have your
opinion today before / issue my circular
letter
First. Where the county boards enter
ed on their records protest before turn
ing the office over to the board appoint
ed by the last legislature, but entered no
suit in the courts to test their rights,
which is the legal board here?
Second. Where the county board did
not enter a protest on the record book.
but merely made a verbal protest and
withdrew, leaving the school affairs i'm
the hands of the board appointed by the
last legislature. which is the legal board?
Third. Where no protest at all was
made, and where the old board did not
even appear at the office, and the super
visor turned over the records, books, etc.
TO the board elected by the legislature,
which is the board here?
| also wish to ask a question i'm re-
gard to certificates issued in one or two
counties by two county superintendent;
where one of these superinterdents was
elected by the old board, and the other
was elected by the new board are the
certificates issued by both of these gem
tlemen legal if not which one mad all-
fhority to issue certificates?
c. lH. MEBANE,
Supt. Public Inst.
MR.. WALSEIRiS OPINION.
The opinion of ATTORNEY General Wal
ser on the points raised Is as follows:
Dec. II, 1899.
Mr.. q III. Mebane, Superintendent Pub
lie Instruction:
Sir: In reply to your communication
Of today requesting my opinion relative
to what acts upon the part of the old
board of education would amount to an
abandonment or forfeiture of office,
will say that / cannot undertake to say
just what the law would be in any given
case as the facts i'm each particular case
must be ascertained i'm order to enable
me to give an opinion thereon; and then,
unless the facts were agreed, it would
he matter for judicial determination.
But to aid YOU in making determination
as to what yoqIr official duty is i'm the
administration Of the delicate questions
You have to solve, | will state the gem
eral rule of law applicable to the subject
Of Abandonment OF office. The Am. and
Eng. Ency. Law lays down the rule as
follows: "A discontinllance of the ex-
ercise of official functions in obedience
to a statute which is afterward declared
unconstitutional during the continuance
of the term, viii not effect an abandon
ment." 10 Am. and Eng. Ency law,
5G2, d. Tsrlmipseed VS.. Hudson. 80 Miss,
429; Ioftin VS.. Sewers. 60 N. c.. pol;
Foley VS.. Comrs. Go n c.. 25fi: Williams
vs.. Somers, IS N. c., 81: Word VS.. Eliza
beth City, 121 n. G., 4.
Mechem ON Public Offices lays down
the rule in the following Language:
where, however, while desiring and
intending to hold the office If he has a
legal right to do 50. and with mo desire
or intention wilfnlly or puaposely to
abandon it, he vacafes it i'm Difference to
the requirements of public statute
which is afterward declared unconstitu-
tionaI, such surrender will not be deem-
ed an abandonment" (Mecheni on Pub
lie Officers, section 49,, page 279.l
When the acts Of the officer are at
tributable to an invalid act Of the legis-
lature, nothing that he says or does can
be looked upon as being voluntary on his
part. Foley vs.. Comrs. G5 N c.. 256.)
Nothing in Williams vs.. Sewers, supra,