Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1899-04-29
IMPORTANT DECISION.
H. D. Ryder Interprets the New
School Law-DeciSiOnS IN Two

matter or an appeal OF the school directors
of Putney against the decision of the school
directors of Westminster, refusing to allow
the children of f. nj. Pierce OF Westmin-
ster to attend school in Putney as de-
manded by Mr.. Pierce under the pro-
visions of act No, 25 of the legislature Of
1898, was heard in the office OF III. d.
Ryder, county examiner, last week We'd
nesday and Thursday. Mr.. Ryder's
decision is of considerable Importance as it
shows what his policy will be in similar
cases throughout the county. His state
ment of the law in the case is as follows:
Section of said act No, rs read, as
follows: IA child residing in the vicinity
of school in an adjoining town, who can
evidently be better accommodated in such
school, may demand the privileges of said
school and the tuition charged shall be q
sum not greater than the cost per pupil for
the maintenance Of said school, which tut
ton shall be paid from the school moneys
of the town in which said pupil is resident.
And it is further provided that such tuition
shall not exceed 81 per week for such
pupil"
Section extends the authority of the
truant officer of the town when the scholar
has been appointed to attend, over such
pupil.
| Section 3 reads as follows:
"In case of disagreement between local
authorities concerning the particular school
any child shall attend a written appeal may
be made by the school directors of any
town intrusted to the examiner of teachers
in and for the county of which said child j,
a resident and his decision shall be final.
| Section 4 repeats section 689 OF Yer
mont statutes. Said section $50 reads q,
follows:
"The board of school directors may pro.
vide for the instruction Of legal pupils o.
the town in the public schools of an ad
joining town, and pay for such instruction
from the school money"
1t is evident that this statute was passet
with the intention Of providing for the in
struction OF pupils at such schools as the.
can most conveniently attend without re
gard to town lines and with the idea tina
by this means the scholars so located tina
they can better attend the schools of
town other tn an the one in which they re
side would thereby receive better schoo
advantages. Section $50 Vermont statute
which was repealed permitted school direc
tors of one town to provide tor the instruc
ton of their pupils in another town, Will
Act No. 25 of 1898 makes such provisio
obligatory in case pupil can evidently b
better accommodated.
The plain intent Of the legislature was t
change the permissive power ofthe old Law
to an obligation established by the new Law
with provision for a decision upon appea
by any town interested.
| School directors had, under Vernon
statutes, section 673, the power to desig
nate the schools which pupils should at
tend aud that portion of said section 81;
relating to this power as amended by Ac
No. 90, 1898, is retained in precisely tn
same words except the word pupils is use'
in one place instead of scholars so that tn
/ law in that respect is the same as it ha
been since 1894.
1t ha, been suggested that the fact tina
Act No. 20 was signed December 1, 1898
and Act No. % on November %, 1898
gives directors authority to designate tn
schools where pupils shall attend regard
less of the provisions of Act No. rs on th,
general principle that where Acts Of legis
latlve bodie, are conflicting the law o
later date shall take precedence as show
ing the later or final intent of the legisla
T ture. While this is not a matter for any
decision by county examiner, but is one
for the supreme court, it may not be amis.
for me to suggest that Act No. 25 is in
tended to meet special condition and i.
therefore to be construed as modifying by
its provisions the general authority of d.
rectors to designate arbitrarily where
pupils shall attend school. 1t is in reality
a modification Of the lew as it has existed
for several years and the mere re-enact-
ment of an old law cannot be properly said
to give it any new force or to give it any
precedence over the provisions OF a special
statute which are in terms restriction Of
the general law. Now is the mere fact
that the date of such re-enactment is later
than that of the new law valid reason fol
claiming that there was an intent to repeal
the provisions of the special statute.