Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-04-04
:, ,,,rer to Request by County
u commissioners Trustees Give
Their Sentiments
uAIORITy IN FAVOR OF MOVE.
h, s1venty.E Eight Districts Eighteen
'" ,,orove and Ten Oppose the
Merger.

,o,souiatlon Of the school dis
ln' :, tho county into either two or
un. Al.trlcts has been discussed at
e'. Sc the taxpayers Of the county
Fs ~, ,be county commissioners, the
'p1 =, =. superlntendent OF schools and
"', ",,rclpals and teachers IN his juris-
~ .,.," Many have opposed the scheme
' a.,,, me- start and are still opposing It,
. I.c. others opposed to II at first have
' ,-.n way to the Judgment of the sup
p .,.,. Of consolidation and now favor
..,,tv commissioner In order TO
. I Al the sentiment OF the various
i1n .,',s " AZ the school districts, have re-
un.'siS nom TO give their views on
gu'',U,b,s,t Replies have been received
ins sV ~ trustees Of 2S districts. Out
li ,s. Wv number the trustees of Is dis
o. V.' t, ,,o consolidation and those Of
g Y S,-rjets oppose 1t. A brief summary
J, 1 ,Ss rsplies received by the commits
soners follows
SCHOOL DISTRICT VIEWS.
-rmanu II. Richards, March 4
a.o,sd eight districts for the reason
,s s' interests Of people could be best
ertd, - c,,,. nd N
q pldsout Jr., March T. favored two
y,,,cis n tho board is determined to
So,.olIate regardless of the wishes OF
". ,strons OF the school and the tax
nyers Of the district,
's.Jobn A. BerTett, March 81, favors
,ro districts Il the whole county can
NJ, ba consolidated into one district.
sl-Errick Gillen, David Powell and
vpbae McMllen March Fl, are not
T. nyor of consolidation for the reason
XII me- taxpayers are opposed to II.
S--Iames Godfrey, Henry w. Brown.
r,,s,S g Cahoon. March q, are not
N syor Of consolidation for the reason
,s,t me- taxpayers OF the Twenty-fifth
district oppose. -
S-Rlchard Howe, John G, Thompson
MN W. Erickson. March q, are not
n favor Of consolidation, cannot see the
benefit
N-Benj. McCleery, John p. Perhson
and Nils Lind, March a. are not In ia
nor Of Consolidation for the reason that
M taxpayers oppose the proposition.
k-Iames Nelson. T. $. Newman and
" ]. sutherland, March Z. are In favor
Of asht districts. NO reason given)
AN. c. Morris, March 7. favors two
districts, providing the north district
usts In Murray. G. NJ Sorenson and
William Thompson March q, are en-
Radically opposed to either plan, the
gara sentiment Of the people In the
District is decidedly against any kind
4 Consolidation
s-E. n. Jacklin, Amos. A, Fuller and
R J. Bailey March u. are In favor of
WwoiatIon into two districts. mo
fAs0n gven.l
G-Rudolph Boss, Frederick w.
schosnied, Joseph F.Schoenfeld, March
r. are fayorng consolidation into two
districts. March u, James NJ. Fisher,
i, reports through written communl-
Ouon as favorng two districts for the
Na'0n that Il would more fully com.
Iott to The spirit Of the public school
system.
W W Weadon, Samuel Holt and
O $ Beckstead, March 81, favor con.
Slliaton into two districts. (No reason
gyen) J, w. Wheadon reports per.
S1ally as being In favor OF two dis.
t-cts for the reason that Il will more
teaTly eQuallze taxes. and bring about a
more perfect system OF graduation and
nlse The school standard generally.
w D, Jensen, March o. favors
chpltatlon into two districts; be.
Neyes Il will In time produce the best
results and carry out the free school
H.Tl' and system to the highest stan
Atd But II II Is found wisdom to
Consolidate only into eight that also
- VIZ This approval
e-John F Hamilton March T. favors
@,hSIldatlon into two districts, but the
ollsion into eight win be much better
gyen.)
,e-AmOs S, Gabbott. Thomas l..
Woodbury., Joseph S, Tlngey. March 81.
ue no' N favor Of consolidation for the
,sNn mat the people Of the district
'EOvusg protest against II.
Nv W. Wilson, Isaac Harrison ana
Vaahes II. Cushing, March q favor