Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1900-06-06
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
OF Interest TO School trustees - State
Superintendent ONerruled.

superintendent ONctiuicu-
The decision OF the supreme court in the
case OF Jay against the district of Great
Falls, appealed from the district court oil
Cascade county. will be received by many
boards OF trustees throughout the state
with feelings akin to dismay. Some Of the
boards believed their troubles had reached
q climax when the court decided last DC.
tebsr that the Law on which they depended
TO raise school funds BY special taxation
was unconstitutional. Perhaps as a rule,
however. the boards OF trustees through.
cut the state will feel grateful that the
statute has been interpreted by the court,
Tor the particular secti N decided in that
case has long perpleIed boards and their
legal advisers.
Not long ago Attorney General Nolan re,
ceived an inquiry from A. N. Wilmington
OF Red Lodge, a trustee OF District No. 8 Of
that county, asking for an opinion on the
same question covered by the court in its
decision this week. In this letter Trustee
Wilmington enclosed the opinion OF State
Superintendent OF Public Instruction L. A.
Carleton, who told the board that "the
district 10 liable for the teachers salary
whether il has any funds or not. Trust.
ees, however, should not employ a teacher
where there is nc money to pay one"
The attorney general, in reply to Mr..
Wilmington, yesterday said that the su.
preme court and the state superintendent
did not sgree, and briefly outlined the de.
cision In the Cascade county case.
John York, chairman OF the board oil
trustees. writing from Great Falls district,
more than a month ago, asked the attor'
ney general for information On the points
discussed by the supreme court. In reply
ing to Chairman York, the attorney gen.
eral gave the following outline OF the de-
cision:
"The supreme court has handed down a
decision in the case OF Jay VS.. a school dis.
trict Of Cascade county, which sets at rest
the contention Of the county attorney as
to the power that may be exercised by the
school trustees in binding the school dis.
trict regardless OF the revenues OF the dis.
trict, or the funds available for the current
year. The supreme court holds that in no
instance can any obligation be incurred by
the school district to bear interest. OF
course, interest bearing bonds are not in
cluded in the exception. The trustees, so
the court holds, are not authorized to levy
taxes, and the expenditures OF the district
must be controlled entirely by the revenues
available for the current year. From the
Tact that the money expended in the dis
trict comes from multifarious sources il is
held that sometimes when an obligation is
incurred by the trustees there is no money
in the school fund to meet the obligation,
and to provide against contingencies OF
that kind the court holds that the trustees
may anticipate the revenues for the year
and contract obligations to be discharged
by the money when received, but in no in
stance must the obligations thus incurred
exceed the revenue for that year, and in no
instance must the obligations thus out
standing bear interest. The court likewise
holds hat no contract as the law now
stands can be entered into with a school
teacher to exceed three months in dura-
ton. The position taken by your county
attorney ne to the authority 81 the trust
ees to contract indebtedness is r~epudiated
by the supreme court in the decision rend-
ersd.n