The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-11-30
A SEGREGATION QUESTION.


tion. Those four were advertised pre-
cisely as passed by the legislature and
according to law. The submission was
made of each separately as the con
stitution (articlc %, section ~ re
quires where it says that "if two or
more amendments are proposed they
shall be so submitted as to enable the
electors to vote on them separately. -
So the constitution was clearly COM
piled with as to those four PROPOSE
tions put up to the people by the legis-
| lature. 80
But one, of those propositions pro-
posed to amend section of article 10.
II also included an amendment to sec
ton 3 of the same article The Secre-
tarv of State was Of the opinion that
this embodied two propositions, and he
separated the two. calling for a vote
upon the proposal to amend section
3 and separate vote"hpon the. proposal
10 amend section 3 This segregation,
however, was not made by the leglsla-
ture. nor was it made in the advertis-
| ing which the law requires IN giving
notice of the election on the amend
ments as proposed by the Legislature
The legislative form was followed up
to the formulating OF the ticket upon
which the people should vote. Then
at this point the Secretary of State seq
regated the proposition. and the people
were required to vote, and did vote. on
A. l. 10 Sopf "A
article 10, and in another column on
the. proposition to amend section j of
article 10. 80
The question is, under what au
thorify did the Secretary of State thus
separate these propositions which had
been passed by the legislature as but
one amendment?
= The legislature fully conformod IN
submitting its four amendments, to
the. constitutional requirement that
each should be submitted SO as to al
low the voters to vote upon any of
them separately Evidently the, legis
lature considered the proposition to
amend the Two sections of. article TO-,
which relates to schools, as but one
amendment The Secretary of State
considered. it was two, and segregated
the amendment accordingly. Strictly
| spea king! 1T would seem as though this
were an unwarranted interference with
the legislative power and act.
Section 2 apparently. adds high
schools. to the regular public school
system throughout the State, Hereto
| fore high schools were part of the
| school system "in all cities Of the first
and second class, now existing school
districts, and in such other cities
and school districts as may be desig-
mated by the legislature This is
done away with, and high schools are
made part of the public school system
everywhere in the State. The amend
ment also apparently allows of the
charging of tuition for high schools
wherever the legislature shall direct,
but "the common schools shall be
free. p" So that there is a clear dis
tincton made between high schools
and the common schools in this respect,
/ for high schools, under the amendment,
need moi be free.
Section 3 of article 10. which the
legislature included in this one amend
ment, but which the Secretary of State
separated from it, provides for the dis
tribution of the interest on tn" school
fund. The change made by the amend
ment is in proviso at the end of sec
ton. 3, as heretofore in the constitu'
tion, which reads, e.
That all funds derived from any state
tax for high schools shall be apportioned
among the several cities and school dis
| tricts according TO the attendance a The
| high schools therein but no city or dis
trict shall be entitled TO any part Of the
| fund derived from the State tax for high
schools unless the high school is main
| iained up to the standard and for the
period bf the year that may be fixed by
the State Board OF Education.
Herein also is segregation of the
high school from the common schools
of the State. 1t does not appear. as n
matter of fact, that there is any
good reason for segrcgating these two
propositions. 1t appears, in fact, that
the legislature fully complied with the
constitutional requirement that the
voters shall be allowed to vote sepa.
rately on amendments as proposed,
when it submitted the amendment in
the way that il did The amendments
TO article 10 relate to high schools
exclusively aud to the portions of sec.
, tions 9 and 3 that relate to high
schools, and to that subject alone.
!, But since the amendment carried in
the segregated form it may be that the
method of its submission will not
invalidate it. LIZ, however, tn, one of
the propositions as segregated by
, the Secretary of State had carried and
r the other had not. there would have
s bceen clear perversion of the legislu
Q tive purpose. We do not believe that
the Secretary of State was justified
@ in making this segregation. Yet. a.
G stated. as long as both propositions car
ried. it may be that no harm has beer
ftr