The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1917-03-03
Trustees Fighting Opposition
for Good of District,
They Declare.
CAN BETTER SCHOOL
If No Change Is Made, AIDE
quate Opportunities Can
Be Given Pupils.

Arguing that incorporation of a part
of their district with district No. /
would handicap them In making plans
for improvements in their present edu-
cational facilities. the trustees OF the
Target Range school district yesterday
their opposition to the change. They
say that II the district Is left intact
they will be able to make improve
ments in short time which will give
their children educational advantages
equal 10. if not better than. those Of
enjoyed by a few of the children OF the
district at the present slime.
Want Consolidation.
The Target Range district lies Just
south of the Missoula district, which
comprises the city and several sub
urbs. People living in the north end
of the district want to be included in
the Missonla district. For some time
they have been sending their children
to the Hawthorne school. which Is one
of the Missoula buildings
The controversy was started early
last fall and has gone through many
stages. At one time the case was dis
missed and thrown out Of court by
Judge Asa l.. duncan. The petitioners
renewed their request and the order
providing for the change was made by
Miss Mabel Tin1Stodt
tcndent of schools. last Monday. The
residents opposing the change have
stated that they will appeal to the
board of county commissioners.
Make Formal Statement.
The formal statement made by the
board OF trustees of the Target Range
school, A. ]. Loranger, f. A. Kinds and
George Macauley, is as follows:
I'VE have been censured for our
stand in opposing the proposed change
in school district No. 23 whereby a
part of our district will be set aside
and made part of district No l.
Those wishing the change have pub
lished far and wide their reasons for
doing so. saying that 1t is their desire
that their children shall have the ben
| efits OF city school education. Until
! the present time we have relied wholly
| upon the fact that we were on the
| right side of the question in fighting
the change. We still believe that our
! side needs no written justification
but the requests for an explanation OF
our attitude have Of late become SC
| insistent that we feel Obliged to ac-
quiese.
Cost Not Objected To.
ut has been said that we have OBJ
jected to sending our children to the
Hawthorne school for the reason that
| such action would cost us more than
| the present conditions arc doing. This
! is not so. We do not care for the cost
| What we want Is to have the same
| educational facilities near our homes
| that we would have at the Hawthorne
| school. II is our wish that school
| house be constructed in our district
! that will give us all those facilities,
| regardless Of the cost. It isn't the ex-
| penditure of money to which we oh.
ject: our opposition is based on our
unwillingness to send our children
through the cold and wet five miles in
order to gain the benefit of educa-
tional facilities which we might much
better give them at home.
I'VE can build n three or four-room
schoolhouse in district No. % which