the duty of the city clerk to forthwith certify to the *400president of the board "of education such modification; the board of education-Shall have power -by the vote of two-thirds of all Members thereof, at any regular or Special meeting called for that purpose, within-one week from the date of :the receipt-of "the certification of the city clerk by the president of the board-of education, do declare by resolution '-that 'the -estimated amount so submitted 'to the "council, or a less ¡sum, in -either case is necessary .for the 'conduct of the "schools for -the ensuing year which -amounts -so finally determined by the board of education shall not -exceed the 'sum of forty-two-dollars for the-school year •commencing September -first, nineteen "hundred and twenty-three, and each school year -thereafter for each -pupil -enrolled in -the -public schools during the 'preceding year Or Such further amount per enrolled pupil as the ' council" may fix - by resolution or - ordinance. ' '
I conclude that the tax in question-is legal. That-conclusion fis based -both upon " an "analysis of the letter of The - statute - the phrasing-and content of'.the sentences employed by" the Legislature, and an interpretation of the Legislature's "intent considered -from '-the 'viewpoint of - practical 'results to be-obtained.
It will "be noted "that the statute "in question in one sentence states: " In case the council shall ratify the estimates of expenditures "so "'submitted, "the amount of -¡such "-estimate shall ¡constitute 'the sum-to be ¡raised for the'board of education'"by'taxation for-the 1 ensuing year." "No language .could be '.clearer. Tf the council 'ratifies the "board's estimate, •" as "was ¡ done an this case, the amount to be raised by tax levy is ¡legally fixed.
The limitation of forty-two 'dollars per enrolled pupil which the plaintiff's argument-invokes'does not '-apply "where - the - council in the first instance ratifies the estimate submitted by the board' "of •¡education. That limitation,¡appears in -the '-sueeeeding clause- which defines the' .council''s power in the event fit ''modifies " any'item of "the estimate for expenditures so 'submitted." In ¡that event and 'upon -the resolution of ."the'board of ¡education declaring "¡ that ¡the ¡"estimated amount so submitted totthe.council-or a -less-sum '* * * ¡is necessary for .the conduct'of the .schools ¡for -.the'.ensuing -year," ".the "council, -Upon a - resubmission "of the estimate, is authorized ¡to ratify the "same¡ provided 'its total - does' not' exceed forty-two dollars per pupil enrolled during the.preceding year " or such further ¡amount vper enrolled'pupil as the council may fix by resolution or ordinance."
Construed on the basis "of' sentence- structure .-and -content alone, •"the statute supports the'action taken by ¡the ¡board of education and the ,city"council. The estimate submitted by "the board was '"'-ratified " by the-council without modification, -thereby excluding '"the .application-of that " clause-of the statute which employs-.the limiting figure of forty-two dollars per enrolled pupil.
*401To adopt the interpretation for which the plaintiff contends would not only disregard the language of the