When a territory was annexed, the township would be no longer liable for transfer fees.

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- nues or taxes, as to what steps should be taken in order to secure the same, I beg leave to advise that it is a fundamental principle of the law of our state that the common school system of our state shall be uniform, and that the tuition shall be without charge and equally open to all; and that the schools of our state shall be equal- ly open to all the children of our state; and to secure that equality an annual enumeration is taken, and distribution of the school funds is made pro rata upon such enumeration, and the funds are distributed to the several township, town and city school corpora- tions of the state on the basis of such enumeration. The entire system of school laws of the state of Indiana, begin- ning with the constitution of the state, is constructed upon this theory. In the case of Johnson et al., School Trustees v. Smith, School Trustee, 64 Ind. 275, where the town of Monroe City, situate in Harrison township, Knox county, Indiana, was incorporated some time in the summer of 1877, and did not elect its board of school trustees until June, 1-878, and during such time the township trustee of said Harrison township continued to manage and control the schools and school funds for the territory included within such incorporated town, until such town elected a board of school trus- tees for such town on the 7th day of June, 1878, when the members of such board so elected qualified as such trustees, elected a treas- urer and demanded of such township trustee the tuition funds, local and general, for the territory included in such incorporated town; which demand said trustee refused, notwithstanding he had re- ceived from the auditor of the county the tuition funds, both gen- eral and local, for such incorporated territory. The court, in considering the rights of the school town and the school township, beginning on page 280, used this language: "In the 8th article of the constitution of this state it was made the duty of the general assembly 'to provide by law for a general and uniform system of common schools, where- in tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.' It was further provided that 'The principal of the common school fund shall remain a perpetual fund, which may be increased, but shall never be diminished; and the income thereof shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of common schools, and to no other purpose whatever'; and further. that the general assembly 'shall make provision by law for the distribution, among several counties, of the inter- est' of the common school fund. These are some of the pro- visions of the fundamental law adopted by the people of this state in 1851. Since the adoption of the constitution of 1851 the gen- eral assemblies, which have from time to time been elected, have not been unmindful of the provisions of the 8th article thereof. The law of this state in relation to our 'system of com- mon schools,' in force when this suit was commenced and fi ually disposed of in the circuit court, was 'An act to pro- vide for a general system of common schools,' approved March 6th, 1865, and the several acts since passed, amenda- tory of, or supplemental to, the provisions of said act. The theory of these statutory provisions is that each and every child of the proper age, without regard to race or color, within the limits of this state, is entitled of right, and with- out charge for tuition, to the benefits of such an education as may be obtained in and by our common schools. To this end the entire state is divided into three classes of distinct municipal corporations for school purposes, towit, 'Each civil township and each incorporated town or city in the several counties of the state.' 1 R. S. 1876, p. 780, sec. 4. Within the territorial limits of each of these school cor- porations each corporation has or ought to have, under the law, exclusive management and control of its school reve- nue, from whatsoever source derived, and the application and disbursement of such revenue to the purposes for which it was intended. In its details the law provides that in each one of these school corporations there shall be made, between the ist of March and the 1st of May, in each year, Can enumeration of the children, white and colored, * * * between the ages of six and twenty-one years, exclusive of married persons.' 1 R. S. 1876, p. 784, sec. 14. The enumeration of children thus annually made forms the basis for the semi-annual distributions of the school reve- nues for tuition to the several school corporations through- out the state, and the amount of such revenues, thus dis- tributed to each of such corporations, is made to depend upon the number of children between the ages of six and twenty- one years, except married persons, residing within the cor- poration, or transferred thereto for educational purposes " Again, on page 283 of the opinion, the court said: "We are clearly of the opinion that the court erred in sustaining the appellee's demurrer to the appellants' veri- fied complaint. Whatever sums of money the appellee had received, by reason or on account of the school children, re- siding within the territorial limits of the school town of Mon- roe City, or transferred thereto for school purposes, the ap- pellants, as soon as they had qualified and organized, as by law required, as the trustees of said school town, had the right to demand and receive front the appellee, and he could not lawfully withhold it upon any ground." And in that case the court announced the further principle, universally supported by the decisions of our supreme court, that a trustee of a school corporation holds the school fund only for the school children who are the cestuis que trustents, and that the right of such trustee to hold such trust funds may be divested by the legislature at any time. The case of Hahn v. The State, ex rel. Hottell et al., 89 Ind. 249, is to the same effect, but the facts upon which the decision rests are not fully stated therein. In the case of Taggart, Auditor, et al. v. State, ex rel. Williams, 142 Ind. 668, in a case relating to the distribution of dog funds, the court, in discussing the requirements of the constitution that the law shall be general and uniform as to our common school system, beginning on page 672 of the opinion, quotes from a number of cases which have a bearing upon this question, and on page 674 of the opinion the court uses this language: "And that that uniformity of apportionment in the state and in each county, township, city and town, according to the enumeration of children in each, which appears to be a central idea, as well as the constitutional requirement in the common schools." See: §5958 Burns' Annotated Indiana Statutes, Revision of 1901, for statute requiring enumeration; Also: §§5959, 5959a and 5959b, same statutes, with reference to transfer of children, payment of tuition, etc. Thus it will be seen from the foregoing authorities that so long as the child lives in the territory in which he is numerated, he is entitled to have expended upon him his pro rata share of the school funds for educational purposes, and wherever the child goes, the money or funds for his education goes also, so long as he does not remove from the territory in which he was enumerated, and, under these authorities, it is perfectly plain that the city annexing the territory would be entitled to its pro rata of all tuition funds based on the enumeration of the children in the annexed territory. When the territory was annexed the township would be no longer liable, in my opinion, to pay the transfer fees, but, if there remained in the hands of the trustees any funds unexpended for school purposes for the annexed territory at the time when such territory was annexed, then such school city would be entitled to its proportionate share of such unexpended fund, based upon the pu- pils who had been transferred and were not accommodated in the township school in the annexed territory; and that such city is entitled to its pro rata share of the tnition funds, both local and general, for school purposes, beginning with the beginning of the school year in September, 1906, based upon the last preceding enumeration for such annexed territory, and if these funds have been received by the township trustee the city school board should first demand of such trustee such funds, and, upon his refusal to pay same over to such school board, or the treasurer thereof, pro- ceedings in mandamus should be instituted and the board of trus- tees of such city are the proper relators in such mandamus pro- ceedings. I cite the cases of Johnson et al., School Trustee, v. Smith, School Trustee, supra, and Hlalm v. State ex rel. Hottel et al., supra, for mode of procedure in securing such funds. SWAMP LANDS-ST. JOSEPH AND STARKE COUNTIES. March 4, 1907. Hon. J. Frank Ianly, Governor of the State of Indiana: Dear Sir-You have submitted to me Senate Enrolled Act No. 273 relating to swamp lands in St. Joseph and Starke counties, and have asked whether the same is correct in its recitals respecting the title and claim of the state to said land. Upon investigation I find that on the 29th day of June, 1906, Attorney-General Charles W. Miller rendered an opinion to Hon. Warren Bigler, auditor of state, in which he held that the state has no claim to lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in section 36, township 37 north, range 1 west, but that the present holders have a right to hold the same,