that another portion of the inhabitants of the district retaining the house, might be detached to other adjoining districts, and leave the proportion of tax still heavier upon those who remained. It is my opinion, therefore, that in forming a new district from two or more districts, the valuation of the school-house must be made by the commissioners at the time of forming the district, if there is a school-house to which the district has an undisputed title; and if the commissioners omit to make the necessary valuation, they cannot make the appraisement at a subsequent time without an order from the Superintendent of Common Schools, who will open the whole case by allowing an appeal from the proceedings of the commissioners, both in making such appraisement, and in forming the new district.

Decision accordingly.

The Trustees of school district No. 3 in the town of

Wilmington against the Inspectors of Common Schools of said town.

If an inspector of common schools is employed as a teacher, he must be examined like all other teachers. An intemperate man ought not to be employed as a teacher of common schools.

The trustees of school district No. 3 in the town of Wilmington employed as a teacher an individual who had been six years engaged in giving instruction, who had received at different times certificates of qualification, and who was, at the time he was so employed, an inspector of common schools of the town. At a meeting of the commissioners and the two other inspectors, called for the purpose of examining him, they refused to grant him a certificate upon the ground that he was intemperate. From this decision the trustees of district No. 3 appealed.

By A. C. FLAGG, March 23, 1829. By section 46 of the statute, it is made the duty of the inspectors to ascertain the qualifications of the teacher "in respect to moral character" as well as learning and ability. The fact that the teacher is an inspector himself, and that he has had certificates before, does not vary his case; he, as well as all other teachers, must be tested by his qualifications and his moral character. He may have become intemperate since he was examined, or former inspectors may not have known the fact. The only question on this point should be, is he now addicted to intemperance? If so, he is not a proper person to be continued as a teacher of your children. And in my opinion, the inspectors cannot be too rigid on this point.

(ANONYMOUS.)

When fuel is furnished in kind, it must be apportioned according to the time each scholar has attended school.

The question submitted to the Superintendent in this case, was whether each scholar should furnish an equal quantity of wood, without regard to the time he had attended school, or whether it should be apportioned according to the time of attendance: the district not having voted a tax to purchase fuel.

By A. C. FLAGG, March 24, 1829. By the 84th and 85th sections, the fuel is to be graduated according to the number of children sent to school. They are to pay in the same ratio that they pay for tuition, and this has been established as a just measure of apportionment. If the district requires an assessment according to property, they can then vote to provide the fuel by a tax upon the district. The apportionment by the scholar may in some cases operate severely; but if a poor man is unable to pay tuition, and sends his child but half the term, ought he to be taxed as much for fuel as the person who is able to send three or four scholars for the same period, or for the whole time? It is undeniable that in hundreds of cases a person with a large number of children is unable to send them all to school, and he sends one or two out of four or five who ought to attend, and is thus compelled by his poverty, to make them take turns in getting a common school education. Would it be just for such a person to be charged as much for fuel as his more wealthy neighbor, who is abundantly able to keep all his children constantly in school? Certainly not.

The Trustees of school district No. in the town of Chester, ex parte.

When a new district is formed, and a sum of money is received as its proportion of the value of the school-house of the district from which it is taken, this sum must be applied to the erection of a school-house in the new district, and in reduction of the taxes of the persons on account of whose property it was received.

A new school district was formed in the town of Chester by a division of districts No. 1 and 2. A Mr. Mead was set off from No. 2, and the sum of $5 was adjudged by the commissioners of common schools to be due from that district to the new, on account of the property of Mr. Mead, and as his proportion of the value of the school-house. The question submitted, was whether this sum was to be applied to his exclusive benefit.

By A. C. FLAGG, March 30, 1829. By section 69, when a new district is formed from an old district having a schoolhouse, a proportional part of the value of the house is to be paid

to the trustees of the new district, and by them applied to the erection of a new school-house. But if a tax is to be raised in addition for the school-house, the moneys received from the old district "shall be allowed to the credit of the inhabitants who were taken from the former district in reduction of any tax that may be imposed for the erection of a school-house." The proportion ascertained by the commissioners, according to sec. 68, as coming to the new district as the proportion of Mr. Mead's property, is $5. Therefore in making your assessment of the tax to build a school-house, you must credit Mr. Mead with this $5, and the same course must be taken with all those who were set off from the other district. If the amount credited exceeds the assessment of Mr. Mead, or any other individual, that excess goes for the benefit of the whole district; the trustees being required to apply it for the procurement of a school-house, and as there is no provision to apply any of it to the use of individuals except in reduction of taxes for the school-house, it cannot be paid to the individual.

The Trustees of school district No.

of Martinsburgh, ex parte.

in the town

Unless some person claims a reduction of his valuation, trustees are not required to give notice of the assessment of a tax.

This was an application from the trustees of school district No. in the town of Martinsburgh, for the opinion of the Superintendent as to the necessity of giving notice of their intention to assess a tax, in order that those who intended to claim a reduction in the valuation of their property, might come in and avail themselves of the provisions of the statute in such

cases.

By A. C. FLAGG, April 20, 1829. A taxable inhabitant can claim a reduction before the trustees make out the assessment; because by sec. 79, the valuation is to be taken from the assessment roll of the town. It is therefore from the assessment of the town that he claims a reduction. When such claim is made, the trustees are to proceed in the same manner as the assessors are required to proceed, as you will see by vol. 1 R. S. page 392. You are to make out the assessment roll, leave it with one of the trustees for 20 days, giving notice thereof in 3 or more places in the district; and then the trustees must meet agreeably to sec. 22, same page, and adjust the assessment.

If no person claims a reduction, then the trustees can make out the assessment at once, conforming to the town assessment. In such case the notices are not required; the inhabitants "know how & nd for what they pay their money," because they vote the

tax for the specific object, before the trustees are authorized to make the assessment..

The Trustees of school district No.-in the town of Portage, ex parte.

If the trustees of a school district expend money for repairing the school-house without being authorized by the inhabitants, a tax to cover the expenditure may be collected, if voted at a subsequent time.

The trustees of school district No. in the town of Portage, finding the school-house out of repair, expended the sum of fifteen dollars for the purpose of putting it in order, without any authority from the inhabitants, and paid the amount out of their own pockets. At the next annual meeting of the district, the facts were submitted to the inhabitants, who voted a tax equal to the amount expended by the trustees, for the purpose of reimbursing them. By mistake the tax was not collected within the time prescribed by law, and a special meeting having been called, the same amount was again voted for the same purpose. Some of the inhabitants threatened to resist the collection of the tax upon the ground that there was no authority under the circumstances to vote it; and the opinion of the Superintendent was solicited with a view to an amicable adjustment of the difficulty.

By A. C. FLAGG, May 4, 1829. The tax voted under the circumstances set forth in the application is legal, and the collection of it is evidently just and equitable, and cannot be evaded. The district might have refused to vote the tax on the ground that the expediency of repairing the house should have been submitted to the meeting before it was done; but having voted the tax, the district meeting has sanctioned the necessity of the repairs, and the propriety of the conduct of the trustees: the meeting had a perfect right to vote the tax, and it is the duty of the trustees to collect and pay it to those who have made the repairs for the benefit of the district.

Amasa B. Gibson and others, of the town of Crownpoint, ex parte.

If school moneys apportioned to school districts cannot be recovered of the commissioner who received them, the loss falls on the districts.

In the year 1828, one of the commissioners of common schools of the town of Crownpoint received the school moneys set apart for that town; but no part of the amount so received was paid over to the school districts. This was an application to the Superintendent from some of the inhabitants of the town, to ascertain what remedy they had against the commissioner.

By A. C. FLAGG, May 4, 1829. If the old commissioners made an apportionment of the money, then the trustees can prosecute the commissioners, or the one who has the money, under the 90th section of the school law. This proceeding does not change the risk at all, for the districts lose the money if it is not recovered from the individual commissioner. If the money was not apportioned, it ought to have been paid over to the new commissioners; and if withheld, the person so offending is liable to forfeit one hundred dollars, under section 38 of the school law.

The Inspectors of Common Schools of the town of Ripley, ex parte.

Inspectors of common schools must determine the degree of learning and ability necessary for a teacher.

This was an application from the inspectors of common schools of the town of Ripley, for the direction of the Superintendent with regard to the following question, viz: Whether any thing short of a knowledge of reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar, and geography, should be deemed by them a sufficient qualification for a teacher, in order to entitle him to receive a certificate.

By A. C. FLAGG, May 6, 1829. The qualifications of teachers are left to the discrimination and judgment of inspectors. They give the certificate, and they ought to be satisfied that it is given to those only whose learning and ability fit them in all respects to instruct common schools. In revising the school law, the revisers inserted a provision that no candidate for teaching should be deemed qualified unless upon examination he should appear to be well instructed in "reading, orthography, penmanship, English grammar, geography, and arithmetic, including vulgar and decimal fractions." This provision however was stricken out by the legislature, and the whole matter is left to the discretion of the inspectors. It is certainly very desirable that teachers should be able to instruct in all the branches above enumerated.

The Trustees of school district No.- in the town of Martinsburgh, ex parte.

Trustees of school districts must give notice of the assessment of a tax in all cases where a reduction is claimed, or where the valuations of property cannot be ascertained from the last assessment roll of the town.

This was a case in which a reduction had been claimed by one of the inhabitants of school district No. in the town of