Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1908-04-10
DIVERS cF SCHOOL BOARDS
DETERMINED.
POWERS
Attorney General Clark COncurs
With States Attorney A. b.
Carlson in Overriding n
Former Decision OF
Ex-Attorney Cen
eral Pyle.

Former Decision OF
Ex-Attorney Cen
eral Pyle.
The school board Of the city of Can
ton and other districts were recently
in a quandry as to their right to em-
ploy teachers for the ensuing school
year. According to an opinion >of
former Attorney General Pyle the
outgoing school board had no power
to employ teachers for the ensuing
year. Since the enactment Of the
new school laws of 1907 and the linn
tied time thereafter until the open
ing of the schools of the county, 1t
became very material to know
whether the old board had the right
to employ teachers Or whether this
could be done only by the new board.
The question was referred by the
school board of the city Of Canton to
States Attorney A. B. Carlson, who
after consideration of the matter, was
unable to agree with Attorney Gen
eral Pyle and so advised the board to
the effect that the old board was
authorized to contract with teachers
for the ensuing year, notwithstand-
ing the opinion of Mr.. Pyle. While
%conceding that a respectable array OF
authorities supported that view, Mr..
Garrison %contended that the weight of
authority and of reason was with his
view. Recently it was reported thru
the state newspapers that Attorney
General Clark had also rendered an
opinion in accordance with that ex-
pressed by Mr.. Pyle and to ascertain
the situation Mr.. Carlson asked the
present Attorney General his views
upon the subject and reply to that
inquiry is as follows:
Redfeld, S. D., April 4, '0s.
A. b. Carlson,
States Attorney, Canton, S. d.
Dear Sir: I have your favor of the
Bird inst. You state that you have
noticed through the newspapers that
l have given an opinion in regard to
the power of outgoing school boards
to employ teachers for the ensuing
year. You inquire whether this re-
port is correct, and if so, that / fur
nish you with a copy Of my opinion.
Replying to this inquiry | would
state that 1 have given no opinion In
reference to this subject. Some time
ago | received an inquiry from an un-
official source, and referred this party
to an opinion of Attorney General
Pyle given in 1899 to the Superinten-
dent Of Public Instruction, and which
is found at page 124 Of his biennial re-
port for 1899 and 1900; at the, same time
stating that / had given my opinion
on this subject myself, and that
would hesitate to give a contrary
opinion to that expressed by Attorney
General Pyle. 1t is a necessary rule
of this office that official opinions be
limited to the States Attorneys, to
members of the legislature, and to
the state officials. ] could not under
take to give careful attention and
render official opinions to each and
every school or township officer Of the
state. However, the records Of my
office are public records, and when
ever an inquiry is received from any
source, if the matter inquired about
has received attention at my hands
or at the hands of my predecessors,
/ am always free to give a copy OF this
opinion. 1t was by reason of this
rule that / answered the former in
quiry as / did, and it has thus come
to be reported in the newspapers.
Since you have called the matter to
my attention ! have gone over the
subject thoroughly, and ! am forced
to give a contrary opinion to that ex-'
pressed by Attorney General Pyle.
l know that there are some authori-
ties, in fact quite a respectable array
of authorities, holding in favor of his
position. He cites Cullendon VS..
School District, Sc Vt. 551, and Loom
is VS.. Coleman, 81 Mo. 81. These au-
thorities sustain his contentious; and
in addition, it will be found that the
first edition of the Am. 81 Eng. Encyc.
of law, at page 726. of Vol. 81 seems
to support this view, and cites a case
from North Carolina. However, the
second edition. of the Am. & Eng.
Encyc. of Law, Vol. 25, seems to take
a little different position from that
expressed in the first edition. At
page IA of Vol. 25 Second edition) it
is stated, ssthe prevailing decisions
concede the power to the Board of
Directors or other proper officers to
enter into agreements for a period
commencing or extending beyond
their term of office, or at least the
term of office Of a part of the mem,
bers of the Board.' This text is sup
ported by many decisions of various
states, among them being decisions
from the supreme courts Of Indiana,
of Michigan, Washington and Arkan-
sas.
The federal courts have also sus-
tanned this doctrine.
caldwell VS.. School District 55 Fed.
372.)
The many decisions directly sup
port the view that a school board may
in good faith contract for the services
of a teacher for a term beginning