The Corvallis times. (Corvallis, Or.) 1888-1909, 1903-02-11
AND TAKE THEIR MONEY
Children Residing in One District May
Attend School in Another.

Children Residing in One District May
Attend School in Another.
Though residing in one district
school chi1dren\may attend school
in another district and take their
school money with them. That is the
purport Of decision recently rem
dered by Attorney General Craw-
! ford. The decision settles ques-
| tion over which there has long
been contention, viz that if a child
residing in a district adjoining
Corvallis, Philomath, Monroe or
other places desires to attend school
in either of the latter. it may do so
under certain conditions and at the
same time have transferred from the
| district in which it resides to the
district where it attends school, the
amount of the school money to
which it is entitled.
The decision was rendered at the
request of Superintendent Acker-
man. Th e law affecting the case
is as follows: "The board of dir
ectors of any district may transfer
to another district any child, to-
gether with all school money due
by apportionment to such child,
whenever the parent or guardian
shall present written request, ac-
companied by a written permit
from the board of directors of,the
adjoining district.
Concerning the law, the attorney
general says: GAS to whether the
same is mandatory or only permis-
sive, would say it is diff
cult to determine what the
intention of the legislature was
in enacting said subdivision with
out being informed as to the facts
or conditions which existed to
prompt the framer of the law to
draft the same. However, I can
conceive of a state of facts or con-
ditions existing where man with
his family might live one or two
miles from the school house in his
district and near the line between
his district and the adjoining dis
trict and the school House in the
adjoining district be much nearer
his residence, for instance one
fourth of mile. It would be diff
cult and might be impossible for
small children to attend in their
own district and the law seems to
be intended to give parents and
guardians the right to send them
to the nearer school,"
The attorney general further
discusses the question, citing var
ious decisions to establish the fact
that the word may in the law
is to be construed to mean must
or ''shalr' and thereafter con-
cludes: Such child, by its par
ent or guardian, has an interest
and an interest of greatest import
ance,-its education, in the exer-
else of the power conferred upon
the directors, and there is no ques-
ton but that the board of directors
constitute a board of officers, court
or tribunal to act upon all mat
ters within their jurisdiction. There
fore, I am of the opinion, when a
parent or guardian shall present
written request, accompanied with
a written permit from the board of
directors of the adjoining district,
that it is the duty of the board of
directors of the district in which
the child resides to transfer it to
the district. .
''The opposite construction
would render the law imperative
unless the consent of the directors
of the district in which the child
resides was also obtained, and if
that were intended, it would have
been inserted in the law. The leg.
islature evidently never conferred
the power upon the directors to be
exercised or not at its discretion as
it has nothing left for it to decide,
except perhaps as to whether the
request and permit are properly
signed and sufficient in themselves
to be request and permit, and
when sufficient papers are present.
ed the power is called into exercise,
and the transfer must be made. In
my opinion the word may" should
De construed to mean tmust" or
'sha1p' in the statute under con-
sideration.'