The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1913-06-21

that It Is the duty OF such other departments,
including the County High School Board, to
comply with such demand.
Question 4. Whether the Board of Com.
mis-ioners may reduce the amount called for
by the said County High School Boa d.!
Sec 34l9 Of the Rev. Laws Of New 1912,
Sec. l79 Act concerning schools reads as fol-
lows: 1t shall be the duty Of the County
Board of Education to furnish annually an es.
innate Of the amount Of money needed to pay
all the necessary expenses of running said
school thgh school Sec. 1920
Rev. Laws of New. 1919, reads as follows:
1t shall be the duty of the Board of County
Commissioners to include In their annual tax
levy, the amount estimated by the County
Board of Education needed to pay the ex.
penses of conducting the County High School;
and such amount when collected and paid into
the county treasury, shall be known as the
County High School Fund.- and may be
drawn therefrom for the purpose Of defraying
the expenses Of conducting said County High
School in the manner now provided by law
for drawing money from the county treasury
by school trustees
The above sections Of the law do not state
that the estimate shall be furnished to the
Board of County Commissioners. and, do not
place any limit upon the amount to be esti-
mated for high school purposes.
II taken literally and alone, the above Sec
tions might be construed to confer upon the
County Board of Education the power to fix
arbitrarily the amount to be added to the an
nual tax levy, subject to the qualification that
such amount shall be needed to pay all of the
necessary expenses of running the high school,
and, to reduce the Board OF County Commits
sioners, the legislative body Of the county, to
a more ministerial body. which, in the matter
Of levying taxes for high school purposes in
the annual levy of taxes, must obey the call
of the County Board of Education. This
construction has support in some States.
People VS.. Lake Co. 10 Pac. s92 (Colo).
But, it seems to me that such literal con-
struction of the above section is untenable in
this State, and. that the Legislature did not
intend to and did not repeal either directly or
by implication the power and duty of the
Board of County Commissioners to make the
annual levy of taxes and the right to its dis
cretion to determine within the limits pre-
scribed by law the amount of such
levy, an l. that the above section should be
construed with the sections of the law named
in the reply to question one, herein, and that
when so construed, the above sections are
directory and not mandatory upon the Board
Of County Commissioner
This position is not extreme, but is amply
sustained by the rules of construction adopted
by this and other states.
State VS.. Rogers 10 New. 32l.
Maynard vs. johnson New. q.
State vs.. Ross 90 New. 63 ct Seq.
Odd Fellows Bank vs.. Quillen IL New ia.
State VS.. County Commissioners Washoe
County. % New 2l0 and others.
State vs.. Manhattan s. NJ. Co. 4 New. 31S.
State VS.. Commissioners Story Co. l New.
265.
McCabe vs.. Carpenter, sc Pac S36-7-S.
Board of Education VS.. Board of trustees
62 Pac. 173 ct Seq.
Board of Education VS.. City of Sacramento,
80 Pac. 1888.
Il
Of the State Of California, under a statement
of fact corresponding to the one under consid-
Grafton, uses the following language: The
appellants lthe Board of Education) contend
that under the provisions of these sections,
the Board of trustees lin this case in the same
position as the Board of County Commits
sioners) has no discretion in the matter OF
/ n e. L. 4 L.
is required to levy such tax, not exceeding 35
cents on the 500, as will raise the amount of
money that the Board of Education shall es-
innate will be required during the current
year. We are of the opinion that it was not
intended by this Act to take from the board
of trustees the power or right of determining
the amount of money that should be raised by
taxation for school purposes in any one year,
but, merely to fix a limit upon such power,
and to furnish the Board in the exercise
thereof, with such information as will
enable it to set intelligently, and with view
of the city considered relatively to
the ether departments. The trustees having
general charge of the welfare of the city are
entrusted with the discretion of determining
the amount of money that shall be raised by
taxation for the various municipal purposes
and must be deemed to have better knowl-
edge Of the public needs, as well as of the f.
nancial condition and prosperity of the in
habitants, than any other department of the
city government. As the legislative depart
ment of the city government, this Board
would be deemed to have the exclusive right
of determining this question, unless such right
has been qualified by the Legislature in some
express and unequivocal language. The
clause in the second section of the above Act,
providing that upon receiving the statement
from the Board of Education, the trustees
"shall at the time of levying other city taxes,
levy a special tax which viii produce the
amount required by the Board of Education, ;"
does not. by reason of the words therein used,