Evening star., 1939-07-18
Controller Rules
Adult NONRESIDENT
Students Must Paw
Congress Didn't Intend
To Give Free Tuition to
Them, Brown Holds


to enjoy free tuition in the public
schools here on the same basis as
juveniles, Controller General Brown
today told the District Commission
ers in an advisory opinion that runs
counter to rulings previously made
by the District Commissioners and
the corporation counsel. The opin-
ion-an unusual procedure-covered
five cases where nonresident stu
dents above the age of 81 claimed
exemption from the payment OF
tuition at Wilson Teachers College
on the theory that their parents
were continually employed in the
District of Columbia. In one case a
Wilson student-Charles M. Proctor
sought a refund of $107.72 for a
half-year's tuition he had paid be-
fore District officials held it was not
required
Controller General Brown rendered
the opinion solely as a guide to the
District authorities, explaining that
"the duties of charging and collect
ing tuition from nonresident pupils
for attendance in the public schools
OF the District of Columbia are i'm
posed by law on officials of the gov
ernment Of the District of Colum-
bla and their determination as te
whether a charge shall be made in q
particular case or as to the amount
that shall be charged. are matters
heretofore not regarded as subject
to review by this Office.
Debates Corporation Counsel.
He added that inasmuch, however
as the corporation counsel concludes
that the age of pupil has no bear
ing as to whether he is entitled to
free schooling here if his parents
are employed officially or otherwise
here and that the District Commits
sioners had agreed with this con-
tention, he believed that certain
phases Of the matter which NAV
not have been given due considera
ton" should be brought to their at.
tention.
While it is true there is no ex.
press limitation in the statute here
involved as to the age of pupils,
the controller general said, "it mus
be assumed the Congress enacted the
law with knowledge of the funda.
mental principles that a father i.
obligated to maintain and educat,
his minor children and that theil
legal domicile ordinarily follows his
1t would seem reasonable to assume
also that the purpose of Congress ir
enacting this legislation was to en-
able a resident parent or non-resi.
dent one who pays taxes in the Di.
trlct OF Columbia to discharge his
duty with respect to the education
OF his minor children by sending
them to the public schools of the
District of Columbia without charge
and that when an adult attends 8
teachers college or other public
school in the District of Columbia
the inquiry as to whether he should
be required to pay tuition charges is
to be answered by ascertainine
whether he Cthe said adult) paws
taxes or resides in the District OF
Columbia rather than whether nj.
father does.
Unreasonable Result.
The statute makes no distinction
between a tax-paying parent who
resides without the District of Co.
lumbia and parent who has his
residence therein, and to say thai
nonresident adult is entitled te
free tuition by reason of the fact
that his nonresident father pay.
taxes in the District would seem tc
lead to the somewhat unreasonable
result that an adult living in Mary.
land would be entitled to free tut
ton in the District of Columbis
merely because his father resides
in the District of Columbia. There
can be little or no question thai
the Congress did not intend the
statute to be so construed.
I'm view of the foregoing, it would
seem the primary administrative
duty to require the payment of tut
ton in cases such as herein in
volved, leaving to those against
whom the charge is made the right
to question it through appropriate
legal proceedings.