New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1917-10-03
Court Save No.

Chapman's article, which explains ITSELF.
is as follows:
Court Says No.
State school aid deficits growing out
OF debts incurred for the past two school
years can not be paid out Of current state
school funds for 1917.
This is the verdict of the Ramsey
county district court rendered this week
and sets at rest, for the present at least,
a controversy involving several thousands
OF graded and rural school districts
scattered over the state.
Unless the supreme court interferes
it will continue as the law Of the state
and IN the meantime the Little Red
School House and its more sffluent
neighbors, the high and graded schools,
will have to get along as best they can.
Inasmuch, however, as the latter schools
have already been taken care Of. thru
the medium ssof the state high school
] board their condition is not SO bad, but
in the case Of the rural schools the
situation is more or less critical.
The rural schools and the others for
that matter who are burdened with a
deficit will have to continue to pay
interest on school warrants issued to
cover past Indebtedness and wait until
the next legislature meets in order to
get relief. Accepting the statement of
Public Examiner Fritz the interest now
being paid on known deficits amounts
to nearly $100 day and this the schools
affected must pay. In round figures
the debts which the schools of the state
are confronted totals nearly $4,000, 600
and this must stand Until the next
Legislature gives relief.
Board Tries to Help.
At the close Of the legislature Of 1917,
Governor Burnquist vetoed an item Of
$1,070,193 in the appropriation act,
which was provided to meet the deficit
of 81, 070, 1913 in school aid that occurred
in the fiscal years ending in 1915 and
1916. In spite of this veto the State
High School Board, by vote of three
to two, attempted to pay this deficit
out of the current appro priation for 1917.
The legislature Of 1917 appropriated,
by the same act, $685. ,545 for school
aid and made it available for 1917. The
standards Of the schools were SO high
at the close of the fiscal year Of 1917
that they were entitled to 1886 ,O69.=
or S228,534 more than the legislature
appropriated for 1917. s.
The district court Of Ramsey county,
in suit brought by a taxpayer, Mr..
Nutshell Of Foley, enjoined the state
officers from paying the deficit of 81, O7O,-
1913 out of the money devoted to the
schools for 1917, holding that the 1917
money cannot be diverted by the state.
officers to other purposes. Consequently
the 81 ,O7O,193 due the schools for 1915.
and 1916 cannot be paid as Governor
Burnquist vetoed the item that the.
legislature appropriated for that pur-.
pose.
Was Permitted by Iverson.
The Attorney General, who repre-
sented the state officers in the case,
attempted to justify the diversion Of
money appropriated for one purpose
to another by claiming that when Mr..
Iverson was state auditor he permitted
it for several years. Harris Richardson,
attorney for Mr.. Mushe| claimed that
as the governors veto annulled the
preparation for the deficit, the con-
stitution and the statutes forbade the
diversion of the appropriation for 1917
from the specific purpose for which it
was appropriated, and Judge Brill so
held. Attorney General Smith has
stated that he will appeal to the supreme
court, as the question Of diverting funds
Continued on Page q.