The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1941-10-30
Hutton School
Plans Must Be
Okeyed by Cook
Continued from Page One)

must be first approved by the State
Superintendent in accordance with
the provisions of Section 80 of Article
II of the Annotated Code of Mary
land.
Mr.. Matthews contended in his
opening remarks that the law was I'M
constitutional because it conficted
with sections Of the general school
law which gives the County Board Of
Education the right to use discretion
airy powers in consolidating schools.
He declared that should the Board be
compelled to build the school that by
implication it would repeal the right
of the Board of Education to CONSOLE
date any one or more schools with
another. The county board, it was
stated, has already consolidated from
80 to 100 schools since the State con-
solidation program has gone into eff
feet, and that the Board had already
consolidated the Hutton school with
the four-room school at Crellin.
Judge Sloan told the petitioners,
Brydon Hardesty, Edegel Serene, Paul
Marley, Frank Hardesty, Clayton
Slabach and j. William Lewis, that the
Hutton residents must send their
children to school or face arrest, and
that they must send them now.
1t is understood that about half Of
the forty students are attending school
at Crellin and the other half attend
ing school at Corinth, in West Vir-
ginia, short distance over the State
line.
The suit of the Hutton residents
was filed by Charles G. Watson, at
torney of Frostburg, and named as de-
PENDANTS Walter w. Dawson, Stuart
F. Hamill and Earl Guard, members
of the County Board of Education, and
Franklin E. Rathbun, County Superin-
tendent of Schools.
The decision of the Court puts the
Hutton school question in the lap of
DR., Albert S. Cook, State Superinten-
dent. Should the plans be disapproved
more plans must be devised by the
local board and submitted Mr.. Rath-
bun testified that the plans already in
the hands of the State Superintendent
would come under $4,000, as provided
by the Legislative act and that the
building erected according to the ar
chitect's plans would take care of the
situation.
1t was pointed out at the hearing
that should the plans be approved and
the building consequently constructed,
that the Board of Education still had
the power to consolidate, and there
fore, would never have to use the
building as a school, should they de-
eide not to do so.
The Courts order in the matter is
set forth in full, as follows:
Brydon Hardesty, ct al. VS.. w. W.
Dawson ct al.
No. 1880 Miscellaneous. In the Circuit
Court for Garrett County, Maryland
ORDER
1t appearing from the evidence in
this case that the Board of County
School Commissioners filed with the
State Superintendent of Schools plans
for the erection of a 1-story, 1-room
school with a vestibule at Hutton,
Garrett county, and that, therefore, to
date, the School Commissioners of
Garrett county have complied with the
provisions of Chapeter 139 of the
Acts of 1871, in so far as the same APP
plies to the building of a school at this
place. The Act is made subject to
the provisions of Section 30, of Article
II, by which section it is provided
that in case the construction is to be
done by the County Board itself, it
shall be illegal for the County Board to
proceed until the plans and specifca-
lions shall have been approved in writ
ing by the State Superintendent of
Schools; in case the construction is to
be done by contract, the contract shall
be invalid without the written APP
proval Of the State Superintendent of
Schools. The next step, therefore, in
this case is approval or disapproval
OF the State Superintendent Of Schools.
He cannot pigeon-hole these plans and
refuse to act at all merely because the
County Board of Education has the
power under Section so, Article II,
Act of 1916, Chapter 506, to CONSOLE
date schools, whenever in their judg-
ment it is practicable and arrange for
the transportation of the pupils to a
consolidated school. This is matter of
policy that has not been affected
by the Act of 1871, Chapter 1879, but it
IS still incumbent upon the State Su-
perintendent of Schools to act on
this application and plan, regardless of
the question of policy involved in
Section so of Article II. 1t simply
means that after the school is built
that at any time so long as Section 50
is in force, that the Board of School
Commissioners will have the same
power after the school is built as they
have before;
1t is, therefore,
ORDERED, By the Circuit Court
for Garrett County, that the Writ of
Mandamus be refused and the petit
ton for the same dismissed;
1t is further ordered, That each
side pay their own costs.