The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-12-12
SUPERINTENDENT
CONTEST IS
Papers Were Served in the
Case This Morning on Miss
Prindeville.
THE BASIS OF ACTION
George Bangs Tells What the
Action Really Means to
the Voters.
THE BASIS OF ACTION

AuS CouuIy superintendent uSut IN
this county took on new life this
morning when a notice of contest was
served upon Miss Helen Prindeville,
the democratic candidate at the recent
election, contesting the validity Of the
same. The case will take the regular
course as provided by sections 563-
$50. Within ten days after the ser.
vice of the notice Of contest, the per-
son whose election is contested shall
answer the same, either admitting or
denying the facts which are set forth
as the grounds of the contest. The
judge of the district court, If there
is no term of the court within twenty
days after the service of the answer,
may appoint term of the court for
the hearing and determination of the
contest. The issues are made up and
the evidence heard by the court in the
same manner that civil cases in such
court are heard and determined. The
right of appeal to the supreme court
lies as matter of right. The contest
is based on the grounds heretofore
specified, that the residents of the
several voting precincts in the city
Of Grand Forks have no right to vote
for the election of county superin-
tendent, because they are residents of
an Independent school district Great
ed by special act of the legislature.
The provision of the law upon which
this contention is based is section 63S
of the 1899 code, which reads as fol-
lows: "Any voter residing in an in
dependent school district, organized
under special act, having board
of education and city superintendent
of schools, shall not be qualified to
vote for county superintendent Of
schools"
At the same time the notice of con-
test was filed this morning, applica-
ton was made to the district court of
this county by the contestant, through
his attorney, for writ of mandamus,
requiring the board of canvassers to
reconvene and recount the votes cast
at the recent election for county sup
erintendent of schools, excluding from
such count the votes cast in the sew
eral voting precincts of the city of
Grand Forks. The same grounds are
alleged for the granting of the writ
as are set forth in the notice of con-
test, and which are familiar to all
readers of The Evening Times. The
difference between the present conten-
ton on this matter and the former
writ which was asked upon the same
state of facts, is the in the formel
case the writ was asked before the
board had, in the contention of the
applicant, enormously performed it's
duties. So that the court could not
determine whether or not it would
enormously do so. The latter case is
based on the distinction that the board
having completed it's work, and ac-
cording to the contention of the appli-
cant, done so enormously, the court
is asked to require them to perform
them in a proper manner.
Geo. A. Bangs, attorney for the con-
testant, when asked this morning by
The Evening Times for a statement
The issue involved in the contest
and mandamus proceedings is primar-
lily between the voters of the common
schools of the county over which the
superintendent has power, and the
voters of the Independent school dis
tricts over the schools of which the
superintendent has absolutely no
jurisdiction.
The majority of the voters residing
in the school districts over which the
superintendent has authority cast
their ballots and expressed their
choice for Mr.. Calder and the aues-
ton is, primarily, not whether Mr..
Calder or Miss Prindeville shall hold
the office but shall the will of the
voters of the school districts with
respect to which the superintendent
has jurisdiction, be defeated, con-
trolled and over-ridden by the will of
the voters residing in districts over
which not only the superintendent has
no power but in the fixing of whose
salary they are not considered.
The code expressly provides that
the superintendent snail have no pow
er, jurisdiction or control over the
schools of the independent and spec.
ial school districts and the salary of
the superintendent Is fixed by the
humber Of common schools of the
county, eliminating the schools of the
special and independent school dis
tricts.
To make the matter more plain let
me state the precise conditions.
The county superintendent has no
power, jurisdiction or control over the
schools of the independent school dis
trict of the city of Grand Forks AM
such schools are not taken into con-
sideration in fixing the salary of the
superintendent; the schools of the in
dependent school district of the city
of Grand Forks are as separate and
Independent from those over which
the county superintendent has juris-
diction as though situated in Mime
sofa.
The city of Reynolds is special
school district and the school is sit
uated in Trail county; If there Is any
authority vested in the county super
intendent over the schools OF the
special districts, then such authority
over the schools of Reynolds Is vested
in the superintendent OF Trail
county.
In the city of Grand Forks Miss