The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1880-05-05
DECISION OF PROFESSOR SMART
On the Question of What Branches Must be
Taught in Public Schools When Required

IL has been asked whether il is the duty of
School Trustees TO provide a course of study
adapted to the preparation of pupils for col
lege.
The question should be answered in the af-
firmative. The argument in support OF this
view is briefly as follows:
1. Trustees are required by section II
of the school law 10 make an
enumeration of all children within
ages of elk and twenty-one years, and chill
dren so enumerated are, by repeated decisions
of the Courts, held to be school children, and
have the undoubIed right to attend the public
schools established in the corpors lions to
which they belong.
BY section 10 of the school law Trustees are
further required TO establish schools and EN-
ploy teachers for the children entitled to
school privileges.
2. 1t is fair to assume that the
Trustees must provide suitable instruc
ton for all the children who have
q right 10 attend school; that is, they must
afford them such instruction as their attain
ments demand. II child has mastered all
the primary branches, and, being less than
twenty-one years OF age, still desires TO attend
school, the Trustees must provide suitable l.
struction for him. II Is not reasonable TO e.
pect him to spend further time on branches
which he has mastered. the fact that the
law permits children to attend school till they
are twenty-one years OF age Is presumptive
proof that the Trustees may be required TO fur
nish such instruction as is suitable to their at
3. II now the law hxed IN express terms the
branches that should be taught In the public
schools, and prohibited others, we could not
be governed by the presumption just stated;
but no such limitation is placed upon the
Trustees. On the contrary, they are expressly
enjoined by section l47 OF the school law to
provide TO have taught certain specified sub.
jects," and such other branches of learning
and languages as the advancement of the
pupils may require and the Trustee from time
TO time direct The term "as the Trustee may
from time to time direct" in my opinion,
merely gives the Trustee power to determine
what branches are required by the advance
In the case oil Grubbs and DUNCAN VS. Will
liams, u,tee, in the johnson Circuit Court,
compel the defendants 10 have their children
taught algebra and Latin in an ordinary dis
trlct school. The Court Issued The mandate in
Latin, solely on the ground that the plaintiffs
had not made suitable demand on the
Trustee in regard to that study, holding that
IL was his duty to cause Latin to be taught, If
the attachments of the pupils required IL, and
that he could be compelled 10 do 20 by suitable
The Court argued, in deciding the cause
that section 26 of the act OF March g. 1855, Ind.
Stat. AIS. confers on the patrons of schools the
power to elect that branches of learning in a6-
ditlon to those prescribed by the general law,
as in section 81 q Ind. stat, 450). shall be
taught in their schools, aud that section lH
TO cause such "other branches OF learning and
other languages as the advancement OF pupils
may REQUIRE" TO be taught therein.
These two provisions of the law are not in
consistent with each other. The intent the
Legislature was that "other branches of learn
ing and other languages" should be taught In
the pubic schools whenever the pupils therein
were sufficiently advanced in the elementary
branches provided for in sec
ton "a supra: and in order that
the legislative intent might be made effective
two modes OF acting were provided for:
/. The voters were empowered to act. But,
lest from any cause they failed In their duty
and left those entitled to the benefits OF the
public schools without a remedy, then
2. The school Trustees could act, and, they
being public officers. could be compelled by
the Courts to perform their duty in case they
neglected to do the same.
But If, as commended at the bar, sections 20
aud l47 were inconsistent with each other,
then section l47, being the last expression OF
the Legislature, will govern.
The statute provides that the Trustee "shall
provide 10 have taught In them orthogfaphy,
etc, etc.. and such other branches OF learning
and othe r languages" etc etc.
The Language is imperative. Sometimes
shall is construed to mean may, but never
where public or private right VIII DC Inn
paired by such construction. (Wheeler vs..
Chicago, "a ILL.,, los; Blake VS.. Portsmouth, 80
N. H., $3.50
The Language Is not only imperative, but it
is advantageous, unless We except the clause
land the trustee from time 10 time elect
But an ambiguous phrase concluding explicit
language of precedent matter can have no
weight. IL Ii can not be rec0nciled with such
pre- cedent matter IL must TALL (Dlckerson VS..
Nelson, Ind, $50; the state VS. Williams,S
Ind 1917
The action of the Trustee is conditioned
upon the fact that the advancement OF the
pupils require other studies 10 De introduced
In addition 10 the common branches.
think the argument here adducsd equauy
applicable to Trustees In cities as 70 those In
Townships. as the Language or the statute APP
plies TO both alike.