The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-01-05

The Corporation Counsel's Opinion on
 Hamden School Committee Certifi-
 cates.
 To the Board of Education, City of
 New Haven:
 Gentlemen-In reply to your commit
 nication of December 10th, 1S99 ad-
 dressed to the Hon c. T. Driscoll, May
 or of the City of New Haven, in which
 you say:
 "As the legality of the certificates is- sued by the school committee of Ham
 den to certain children, residents of
 Hamden, consenting to their attending
 the Boardman Manual Training High school have been called in question, we
 respectfully ask you to obtain from the
 corporation counsel an opinion on the following points:
 Does the fact that there were only four out of nine members at the meet ing of the Hamden school committee,
 held August 2d, 1899, when the secretary of said committee was authorized to
 Issue certificates invalidate these cer- tificates?
 What is the proper course for the Board of Education to take, provided the action of the meeting of August Ed, 1899, was illegal?
 We also ask for a form of certificate which will under the statute, Chapter CCXLIX, passed in 1897, and amended in 1899, protect the City of New Haven from loss in admitting nonresident children to its schools.
 The tuition as now fixed is $6000 per year for nonresident children attend ing the Boardman Manual Training High school.
 We submit herewith certain papers bearing on the case.
 Yours respectfully,
 ELI WHITNEY, President in behalf of the Board of Education" Which request of MT. Whitney has been approved by his Honor, the Mayor in accordance with the charter. l Under the common law, in all coun- | cils, and other collective bodies, ma jority of the members belonging to the bodies should meet and be present in | order to tranact business, or to con- stitute what is known as a quorum
 In the case of Damon against Gran by. 2 Pickering, page 342, where the question of what constituted quorum was under consideration, Parker chief | justice, in the course of the opinion, 4 says Tn these instances the usage has always been and the common law is so in relation to corporations. that they were to act by a majority
 The same principle was laid down also in the case of Jones vs. Andpver, Pickering, page 152, and in our state in the case of Lane vs. Brainerd, 30 Conn.,, page 565, the similar doctrine is held; so that we may take for granted the set tied law in the absence of any consti- tutional provision, statute, or bylaw to the contrary to be, that majority of any committee, legislative body, or cor poration is necessary to constitute quorum In Connecticut, section 2, of article Sd of the Constitution provides l for a quorum of our legislative body, and our supreme court have decided in numerous cases that a majority of the selectmen of the town are necessary to constitute a quorum.
 Therefore, unless we find some stat ute or bylaw authorizing the school | meeting with less than five members, | the whole number of the committee be- 1 ing, as I understand 1t, nine, then I am | of the opinion that a meeting held by a less number than five would not be a legal meeting, in fact would be no meet | ing at all, but simply a collection of in- dividuals without any power or author | ity to act in any manner. No bylaw L. elk @a D,yt J,,,rr hat less number than five should consti- ute a quorum; and although l am aware that sometimes a less number than q majority, by Tong immemorial usage" may, without any constitutional provision, statute or bylaw on the sub iect, in certain cases constitute a legal quorum, the most notable instance of which is that of the Parliament of Great Britain where by such usage a far less number than a majority of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons constitute legal quorum, I hardly think there has been any such "immemorial usage" in the school com mittee of the Town of Hamden as to change the common law that majority of the members are necessary to con- stitute legal quorum. Therefore I am of the opinion that the meeting of Au- gust 2d, 1899, at which only four out of nine members of the school committee | were present, was not a legal meeting l of the committee, and any action or | vote they might have taken was inope- | rative, void and of no effect. This | meeting, not being a legal meeting, no | action of the individual members after wards acquiescing in what was done at the illegal meeting would have any force or effect In any way. Nor could a meeting legally warned and held, at which majority of the members was present, pass any vote or resolution le- galizing any action that had been taken at the meeting held August Ed. 1S99 in which only four of the nine members were present, or, in other words, the meeting of August 2d, not being a meeting, but void in every respect, no meeting, although legal could ratify and confirm that which never had any existence, and never had any legal effect. It has been held in Connecticut that the acts of an illegal of a town could not be ratified and confirmed by a legal meeting of the town afterwards held, under the theory