The weekly times-record. (Valley City, N.D.) 1912-1922, 1919-10-23
DOUBLE JOINTED
DECISION GIVEN

The state of North Dakota is uphel
in it's contention that the board of &C
ministration cannot wrest from Mis-
Minnie j. Nelson, state superinter
dent of public instruction, the right t
fix the course of study for the publ
schools Of the state, (subject to re
view and supervision by the board o
administrator but is denied wri
restraining the board of administra
ton from interfering with Miss Mel
son in her exercise of this privilege il
our-to-one decision handed down b,
| the supreme court late Monday eve
ming. The decision is concurred in b,
Associate Justice Birdzell, Bronson
Grace and Robinson. Chief Justice A
NJ Christianson dissents and is pre-
| pairing an opinion expressing his
views.
The supreme court holds that the
Legislature, pursuant to constitutional
authority and excepting as restricted
by constitutional limitations, possess
es the power to regulate the educa-
tional system and public schools of
this state and to prescribe the courses
of study in such schools.
The board of administration act, S.
B. 1874, enacted by the assembly of
1919 and referred to and approved by
the people of the state at special
election last June, so far as the same
grants the specific power to the board
of administration to supervise and
control the preparation of the courses
of study in the common schools of the
state is not unconstitutional upon the
ground that it interiors with and takes
from the superintendent Of public in
struction prerogatives possessed as
constitutional officer, holds the court.
The court rules that the superinten-
dent Of public instruction has no con-
power or inherent right to
prescribe and prepare the courses of
study for the common schools of the
state. This right, pursuant to direct
provision, says the
court, has been granted to the legisla-
ture. The case of ex parte Corliss,
cited by the state, is distinguished and
held not in point.
In applying legal rules Of statutory
the object intended to be
should be considered,
says the courts syllabus. In consider
ing conflicting statutatory provisions,
t continues, the main object to be kept
in view, the court continues, is the as
pertaining of the legislative intent.
This legislative intent may be deter
mined from general consideration of
the whole act, with the established
policy of the legislature, as disclosed
by the general course of legislation. 4,
''In connection with the application
If such rules of statutory construction,
specific power has been
granted, in a statute to board of ad-
with which a general res
arvation therein concerning the duties
and powers of the superintendent of
public instruction is inconsistent, the
specific power so granted will prevail
over the general reservation stated.
''In 1919, pursuant to S. B. 1874, the
legislative assembly enacted the board
of administration bill wherein there is
specifically granted to such board the
power to have charge and supervision
of the preparation of courses of study
for the several classes of public
school; however, in section 9 thereof,
it is provided that the powers and
duties of the superintendent of public
instruction shall be subject to the su-
pervision and control of such board
only in SO far as such powers and
duties were by law subject to the SUI
pervision and control of the state
board Of education and other boards
20 whose powers such board of admin
istration succeeded.
upon an original application by the
of public instruction to
compel such board to refrain from in
preparing and prescribing
courses of study for the common
schools of the state, the same being a
power and duty heretofore possessed
by such superintendent, it is held upon
legal construction of the intent and
purpose Of the act in regard to the
and prescription Of the
courses of study for the common
schools Of the state that the superin-
tendent of public instruction possesses
the power and duty to prepare and
prescribe courses Of study for the
common schools of the state, subject
to the power of supervision and con-
troll by such board of administration,
pursuant to the specific power there
fore granted in the act.
"Original application for prohibition
and injunction against state board of
administration by the attorney gen.
eral and the superintendent of public
instruction denied"
The opinion of the court is written
by Judge Bronson, George E. Wallace,
state tax commissioner, and Joseph
Coghlan, employed in the supreme
court library, were attorneys for the
board of administration. Attorney
General LANCER and Assistant Attor-
ney General E. B. Cox represented the
state.