The Portland daily press., 1870-02-22
Stale Uniformity Of Text Books,
o the Editors Of the Press:


State Uniformity of Text b oolks.
To the Editors of the Press:
Our attention was called last week to the
communication in your paper from Mr.. Stet-
son, and also to the six weary columns over
the signature of Mr.. johnson in the Kenne5ec
Journal, written in reply to our communica-
ton in your issue of Feb. 18th. We were
satisfied, however with the case which we had
presented and were disposed to leave the close
to our opponents.
But by to-day's mail we have received the
printed bill, drawn by Mr.. johnson and re
ported by the legislative committee on Edu-
cation, and, before briefly considering its pro-
visions, we propose to revert to one or two
points in the arguments of Mr.. johnson and
Mr.. Stetson.
We started in our last with the proposition,
that the evil of imperfect classification, on
which so much stress is laid, would be pre-
vented by enforcing school and town uniform
ity. Town uniformity may be considered the
necessary result of school uniformity, because
all the schools of a town are under the charge
of the same s. s. Committee who can have
but one preference in regard to text books.
Yet MIR. Stetson says Every argument that
holds tor the town holds for the State"
We said that it was easier to enforce town
uniformity than State unifOrmity-eaSier to
compel the uniform use by towns of books
which they like, than their uniform use of
books which they have no voice in selecting
and may dislike. What answer do we get to
this argument?
Mr.. Stetson expressly states that his argu-
ments do not apply to city schools. Why
then does Mr.. johnson include the cities in
his bill, against their most strenuous remon-
STRANGE?
THE books in every SERIES" Mr.. Stetson
says, "are too large and too numerous" He
evidently thinks none of the present text
books fit for use. Why not then appoint Mr..
johnson and his supervisors to manufacture
some better teXr books than the market affords,
and give them contract with the State for 5
years? In that way, we might have a gold
en- age for the Supervisors, if not for the
schools.
But according to Mr.. Stetson's view to in
troduce any of the books now published into
the schools on a long contract, is the last
thing the State ought to do. We ought first
get some books that are fit even for present
use if his idea is correct.
MIR. JOhnson's article is full statement of
his plan and his reasons, but there is nothing
new in it and we do not propose to follow him
through the six columns of the Journal.
He repeats the arguments drawn from the
wants OF the floating population, all of which
were considered in our last.
He says town uniformity is not a success,
but admits that he and his Supervisors have
done nothing to make it so. His only appolo.
gy tor not enforcing the present law is, that
successful litigation in such instances with
5. 5. Committees, would not compensate for
the loss of influence in educational efforts"
Why not, if successful litigation to en- 'orce
State uniformity would compensate for the
loss of such influence?
"There is hardly Northern State" he says,
(which has not at some time within the past
ten or fifteen years agitated the question of
State uniformity publicly and in the legisla-
tive halls"
All have agitated it, but how many have
adopted it? Perhaps, if we include Calior-
MA and Nebraska, we may be able to muster
six or seven, and two orthree have practical
ly abolished it.
The advocates of State uniformity having
gone as far as California for an argument and
failed, have lately been to Canada, and we are
gravely informed of the infeliority of the
common schools of New England to the pub
lie schools OF Canada!
Will the Legislature of Maine act upon as
sertions of this kind without asking for evil
dence to support them?
Mr.. johnson quotes largely from Mr.. North
rup, and if hecan find any satisfaction in do
ing SO after the citation from his Report in
our last, we are glad of it. Mr. Northrup
says he would never legislate for State uni
toImity, and that he does not think it advis-
able to insist upon the use of any one series
Of textbooks alone throughout the State.
Mr.. johnson thinks majority of the best
educators favor State uniformity In support
of this, he cites E. P. Weston, J. P. Craig,
Mark FL. Dunnell and DR.. Ryerson OF Canada,
as in its favor. Does he mean that these con-
stitute the majority?
The statement that the people of the State
demand it is equally incorrect. Will Mr..
Johnson inform us how many responses he
received to the circular which he issued last
spring, in which he called upon the people
to petition for State uniformity? We are in
formed that not single petition for it had
been presented to the legislature till the re-
began to pour in, and but one or
two since. Mr.. johnson says a majority of
tie School Committee of the city of Lewis
ton favor uniformity. Ten out of the four
and the City Superintendent
has written letter against it.
One thing more and we have done with
that effusion of the "major general of the ed
ucaticnal army" of Maine. CDR. Cheney" he
says, "desires his name to be erased from the
This statement is wholly
without foundation. DR.. Cheney has written
a letter, now in the possession of member
of the Legislature, in which he positively de-
MES it.
But let us return to the bill now before the
Legislature. We say that nearly all the objec-
tons to the general scheme of State uniformi-
tV anply will, f1ll fOroa tn tho nrOviciOpc Of
this bill. In our last we claimed that it
would be impossible to effect an even ex-
change of the old books for the new, and that
the aggregate expense of introducing the new
books would therefore be immense This
point is clearly conceded by the terms of
the bill itself. 1t provides that the "sched-
ules of rates of exchange" shall be determine
ed by the Commission appointed to select the
books. Ii there were to be an even exchange
there would of course be no need of sched-
ule OF rates OF exchange. Every one of the
books introduced by the State is to pay some
thing for the new in exchange for the old.
1t is not strange that Mr.. johnson and Mr..
Stetson both avoid allusion to this. They do
not mention it when they would have us be-
lieve that their monopoly is means of saw
ing money for the people.
But the bill proposes to divert attention
from this enormous outlay of hundreds of
thousands of dollars by making the change
gradual, allowing the towns, upon certain ar
btrary conditions, to retain the books now in
use till the expiration of five years from their
introduction, but compelling the change, when
made, to be to the books introduced by the
Commission. In this way, we shall have uni
iormity, if at all, not for nearly five years,
when it will be about time for revision of
the State list and another change throughout
the State. For several years we are to have
the cumbrouS machinery and other evils of
the monopoly without even what are claimed
to be its attendant advantages.
In our former communication we said, also,
that ii the State were to contract tor text
books for the schools for the next five years,
upon what seem to be favorable terms now,
the chances are against its being an advan-
tageous contract for the State-because we
anticipate falling market for few years to
come The fixed rates of the contract will
probably be above the market in year. Mel
Their Mr.. johnson nor Mr.. Stetson meet this
objection, nor does the bill provide any means
Of escaping the difficulty.
1t is evidently the design of the bill to take
the school-book trade away from the dealers
in the State, and have the books supplied Oh
rectly by the publishers to the State, and by
The State TO the pupils. The retail prices are
to be determined by the Commission, by
agreement with the publishers, a I'd are to be
stamped upon the book. The wholesale price
is to be fixed by the publishers as they will
What motive will there be Tor the publishers
to allow the dealers lair margin of profit. or
even to furnish books to them at a lower rate
than the retail price fixed by the Commission