Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-242

Opinion No. 242 Schools-High Schools-Budgets- Students-Tuition. HELD: Under Section 8, Chapter 178. Laws of 193.3. an aggregate amount ('qual to $65 for each student who at- tends high scbool outside his county may be budgeted and the entire aggre- gate amount may be used e\'en though some of the students might drop out during the course of the year. June 19, 1933. You request an opinion from this of- fice on the following matter: "In the northern part of McConp County are a numher of ~'OllIlg people of high school age who attend high school at 'Volf Point in Roosevelt County. The county commissioners of this county are willing to pa~'. and ·the school authori- ties at Wolf Point are willing to accept Seventy-fin> ($75J)0) Dollars per year for Ruch students as may attend their hig-h "choo\' The commi"Rioners do not feel that they can pay more and the "chool authorities do not feel that they ('an takp less. "Under Section 82 of Chapter 148 of the ]931 Ses!'ion Laws it is made thp duty of the C'ommis"ioners to pay Fift~' Cents (50c) for each day of attendance of such students. In an ordinary ;;;chool year of 180 day" thi!' would amollnt to Xinety Dollars ($00.00) per year. However nlthoug-h R('ction 80 of Chap- ter 148 of the Session Laws of 19R1 pro- "ides tha t the count~' superintendent of schools shall prepare and submit a hud- get to the hoard of county commiR- sioners equal to Ninety l)()llars ($90.- (0) for each student whose attendanC'c outside of his county has been autho- rized. ~'ou will note tha t this section was changed by 'Section 3 of Chapter 178 of the Hl3R La\"s so that the count~' superintendent iR authorized to prepar{' a hudg-et equal to only Sixty-five Dol- lars ($65.00) for each student who at- tends high school outside his county. Xothing is done about repealing Sec- tion 82. Laws of 1931. reducing or oth- erwise affecting the payment of Fift~' Cents (5Oc) per day for such stUdents. "That effect has Section 8 of Chapter 178, Laws of 1933, upon that section?" Assuming that both section 82, Chap- ter 148. Laws of 1931. and Section S. Chaptei' 178, Laws of 1933, are consti- tutional we believe that the board is limited to a sum equal to $65.00 per ~'ear per student and that a greater amount cannot be paid. If the two acts be' deemed in irrecon- cilahle conflict then the later act mURt control. Since the later act does not eXI}ressly repeal the earlier, and since repeals by implication are not favored and since the acts may not necessarily be irreconcilable, it is our duty to try to give some effect to both of them. It is not unreasonable to assume that the 1933 law is only intended for guid- ance in making the hudget and was not OPIXIOXS OF THE ATTORKEY GENERAL 169 intended to repeal our laws except where the two could 1I0t he harmonized. "re do not think it means that any more than $65.00 may be allowed for any student but that it means that an a~gregate amount pqual to $65.00 for ('ach stmlent could be hudgeter\ and that the entire a~~regate amount could be used even though some of the stu- dents might drop out durin~ the ("our;;p of the year. Possibly, also, the board might pay fifty cents per student -per da~' for ('ach day in attendance but after it had reached the aggregate sum equal to $65.00 per. student it could not pay more without violating the budget act.