Year: 1870

NEW ORLEANS, September q, 1870.
EDITOR REPUBLlCAN:


As the legsl opinion expressed by me,
relative to the apportionment OF the public
school fund, teaches matter of serious
importance to the people OF New Orleans,
| will not refrain from noticing the review
of that opinion by the State Superintend-
ent of Public Education, contained in your
issue of to-day.


/. draw a distraction between general
school property in the city OF New Orleans
and property which may be acquired and
held bv q ward or district; and it il in
reference to such general property, as con-
tradistinguished from the private property
of the Ward Boards. that assert that alb
solute control is given to the City School
Boards, That board it is admitted, con-
trolls the school books, furniture, apparatus.
and appendages of the public schools in the
city Of New Orleans; it manages and pro-
vides for the use Of the public school
houses, the title of which is in the
the administration of property appertaining
at large to the public schools in New Or
leans, ! am not wrong, then, in asserting
that to the City Board Of the city Of New
Orleans is given an absolute control over
all public school property in this city. But
if am, what then! TO the City Board is
granted the control of public schools in the
CITY: and the exercise of that power i'm
peratively requires the city to have the
funds so absolutely needed to carry the
conveyed power into effect. This latter
view has entirely escaped the attention Of
the State Superintendent.


Section fifty -four expressly bestows upon
the City Board, in reference to the schools
of the city, the distribution Of the city
school money scithOut reference to ang par
ticular fund; and an Interpretation Of the
law which denies to the City Board the
right to a distributive share Of the school
fund in the hand of the State Treasurer,
would have the effect of ignoring this
clearly expressed provision of law.


1t is cOntended by the State Superinten-
dent of Education that the City Board has
no greater right to receive and distribute
than the Parish Boards; that the latter can
only receive and distribute the local or pa
rochial tax, and, as a consequence, that the
Cit. Board has no legal claim to the State
fund. He has referred to section fifty-fOur.


The error of the State Superintendent
lies in supposing the expression " Parish
Board" /" as used in section fifty-four, to refer
to the legal entity, which is often desig-
mated by that name; whereas it refers, and
with a view to give harmony to the entire
statute must be made to refer, to the sew
eral boards in a parish, outside Of the City
Board, thus bestowing upon the City Board
of School Directors, all the power relating
to the school fund possessed by parish and
ward boards.


Should it be said that this argument
proves too much, inasmuch as it establishes
right on the part of the City Board of
New Orleans to take not only State, but
local or ward taxes, for school purposes,
then l answer, that such is fair and legal
Interpretation of section fifty flour, stand
ing by itself; but, as other provisions of the
school law tsections fifty seven and fifty
eight give to Ward Boards in this city q
control of local taxes, these provisions
should be admitted to tone down the mean
ing which section fifty-four would possess
per Sc. and to Ward Boards must be con-
ceded the authority to control local taxes.
The right, however, on the part Of the City
Board to receive and distribute the State
fund, under a true Interpretation Of section
fifty-four, nevertheless, remains intact.


! have no time to devote to a further
notice of this matter.


Yours truly.


GEORGE s. LACEY.


ATTORNEY at Law.