A state senator is not required to continuously reside in the district they represent. If eligible at the time of selection, they may not be expelled from office for geographic reasons.

SENATOR-REMOVAL OUT OF DISTRICT DOES NOT VACATE OFFICE. February 25, 1907. Hon. John W. Orndorf, Senator: Dear Sir-I have examined the question submitted by you as to whether a state senator vacates his office by removing out of the district for which elected to another district within the state of In- diana, and am of the opinion that such office does not become va- cant by reason of such removal. However, I have been unable to find a case exactly covering the question you submit. Section 156 Burns' Annotated Indiana Statutes 1901 (being section 6, article 6, of the state constitution), provides that "All county, township and town officers shall reside within their respect- ive counties, townships and towns, and shall keep their respective offices at such places therein, and perform such duties as may be directed by law." Section 103 Burns' Annotated Indiana Statutes 1901 (being section 7, article 4, of the state constitution), provides among other things that "No person shall be a senator or a representative who at the time of his election is not a citizen of the United States; nor any one who has not been for two years next preceding the election an inhabitant of this state, and for one year next preceding his election an inhabitant of the county. or district whence he may be chosen, ' etc. In the case of Smith v. State, 24 Ind. 101, it was held, relative to the right of a county commissioner who was elected from one district in the county to still hold the office after his removal from the district to another district in same county, that the statute which required a commissioner to be a resident of the district from which he was elected referred to the time of his election, and that there being no statute requiring him to continue to reside in the particular district, that he could legally hold the office even though not a resident of the particular district from which elected. The facts in that case, however, were that such a commissioner was elected by all the voters of the county and thereby became a county officer; whereas, in the case of a state senator, he is elected by the voters of his district, and not by the whole state. Section 106 of said statute (being section 10 of article 4 of the state constitution), provides that "Each house, when assembled, shall choose its own officers 1 * * judge the elections, qualifi- cations and returns of its own members, determine its rules of pro- ceeding," etc. I have found no statute or decision requiring a senator to con- tinuously reside in the district he represents. The statute requires that he should be a citizen of the United States at the time of his election; that he shall have been an inhabitant of Indiana for two years next preceding the time of his election, and that he shall have been an inhabitant of the county or district where chosen for one year next preceding the date of his election. It is my opinion if he is eligible at the time of his election and shall not be expelled by the senate that he is entitled to his seat as a senator for the full period of four years, even though he removes from his district to some other district in the state. Certainly the removal of a state senator from the district would not, of itself, vacate the office, even if such removal entitled any one to declare the office vacant. The senate alone, when assembled, would be entitled to judge for itself whether such a removal was ground for declaring the office vacant. The law providing for the incorporation of cities prior to 1905 required that the city shall be divided into wards, and that two councilmen shall be elected from each ward by the legal voters of the respective wards. It was also by law provided that "No per- son shall hold the office of councilman unless at the time of his election he is a resident of the ward from which he is elected; and in case of the removal of any councilman from the ward from which he was elected, the common council shall have power to declare his office vacant, and order a special election to fill the vacancy." Mr. Craig was elected by the voters of the Third ward in the city of Portland as councilman, duly qualified, but afterwards and during his term he removed from the Third ward into the Second ward, and a suit was brought to declare his office vacant, and Judge McBride of the supreme court, in deciding the case, said: "Members of the city council are elected by the votes alone of the voters of their respective wards. But when they are once elected and enter upon the discharge of their official duties, those duties are such as affect alike all por- tions of the city, and are in no sense local. As is said of the county commissioners, in Smith v. State, 24 Ind. 101, when he assumes the duties of his office: 'At that time he takes an oath of office and assumes duties and a 'jurisdiction co- extensive with the limits of the county.' So the member of the city council, when he takes his oath of office, assumes duties and a jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the city. He is not an officer of the ward, but an officer of the entire city." State ex rel. Hartford v. Craig, 132 Ind. 54. So it may be said that when a senator takes the oath of office he assumes duties and a jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the state. The state senate, when assembled, would be entitled under the constitution to pass on your right to hold your office if you should remove from your present district; but I assume that it would fol- low the law in deciding the question, and would not act arbi- trarily. SCHOOLS-SCHOOL CITY ENTITLED TO PROPORTION- ATE SHARE OF TAXES, ETC. March 4, 1907. Hon. Passett A. Cotton, Superintendent of Public Instruction: Dear Sir-In answer to your inquiry as to whether a school city is entitled to the proportionate share of the taxes levied and collected for the education of children of a township in territory annexed by such city March 19, 1906, in a case where, prior to such annexation a part of the children residing in such territory attend- ed a township school located therein, and a part has been trans- ferred to the city school; and the township trustee ceased to pay the transfer fees after the date of such annexation, but continued the township school in such territory nntil the close of the school term for 1906, and at the close of such school term the city took possession of the school building by paying all claims against the township on account of it; and since the opening of the schools in September, 1906, such city has maintained schools for all the pupils in such annexed territory, the city having received its quota of the January apportionment, 1907, of the state tuition revenue, but not having received any other revenues on account of the children enumerated in such territory, notwithstanding taxes were levied in the township where such territory was situated for the education of the children in such territory; and such township trustee has been receiving the taxes intended for use in maintaining school for the education of children in such annexed territory, and in answer to your further inquiry that if such city is entitled to such reve-