The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1880-08-20

on the 9th day of August, 1879, the school
directors met, and according to the answer Of
the defendants and the aGhdayits of five persons,
by the vote of five of their number uhe com.
pIa'nant being one) passed resolution to re-
consider the resolution Of the 18th of June be
fore mentioned. The record kept by the Sec.
relary contains no such resolution; on the con.
trary 1t set forth that an adjournment was had
to the 2Srd day Of August "to see whether they
wonld recon.ider.' Now it is not at all prob
able that resolution TO reconsider was passed
and that at the same meeting, another day was
liked to decide whether n reconsideration
should be had lfno entry of the action of the
board had been made, parol evidence wonld
have been admissible for the purpose of show.
ing what did take place. % St Rep 2l5.
But rarol evidence in collateral proct &c ing
cannot be received to contradict the records of
a town or any public corporation required by
law to be kept in writing, or to show mistake
in the matters therein recorded. / Dillon,
Nlnnp. Cor. $40. See 23G 2 Wharf. Ev. sec.
9S7. If the record was not correct, the direc'
tors by resolution might have corrected it by
amendment of the minutes to correspond with
| the facts
| 1t app,ars, that, from the time of the meet
ing in August to the present lime the resolu-
ton of the 18th June has not been regarded in
the district as of binding authority. During
the entire school year since that time other
books than those designated by the resolution
| have been in general use in the schools of the
district with the appreciation and consent of
| the directors; and it is now proposed by the d.
| rectors to adopt such other text books AZ a
meeting to be called fer that purpose. Against
| such action the complainant seeks to enon
| them by further continuance of the preliminary
Injunction granted er parte at the filing of his
| bill.
The jurisdiction of school directors over the
| subject of text books for the schools Of their
district, is derived from, and is regulated BY
Acts of Assembly, passed on the sth day OF
May, 1854, and the 25th day of May, 1871.
Purd. Dig 244 pl So, and 2GO pl. 1859 By
the 25h section of the Act of 1854, it is enacted
| as follows: Immediately after the annual
election of teachers in each school district Of
| the State, and before the opening of the schools
| for the ensuing term, there shall be meeting
of the directors or controllers and teachers of
| each district; at which meeting the directors
or controllers shalt select and decide upon a :
ries of school books in the different branches
| to be taught during the ensuing school year.
| which books and no other sEall be used IN the
| schools of the district during said period"
R,, tba A ot &c 4; f..i.:l
den to make any change in The series of text
books more than once in three years Any vi
| olation of this provision is made misdemean-
or and subjects offending director on con
| vcton, to fine not exceeding two hundred
dollars and to removal from Office
School directors may be enioined from adopt.
ing new series of text books except at the
time prescribed by law. McNutt vs. School d.
re ctors of Charters % Pitts L. J. AZ. That
is, if they at meeting constituted as required
by the Act of Assembly have adopted a series
of text books, no change shall be made until
three years thereafter.
Whether the meeting of the 18th June, before
the election of teachers was a leg meeting for
the purpose of adopting text books for the
schools or not, depends upon the proper con
struction of the statute. If that portion of the
Act which relates to the presence of school
teachers is merely directory the directors might
legally act in their absence, but, if it is mandatory
the action in their absence was invalid, and
does not preclude the directors from proceeding
according to law in the discharge of their duty.
| is not nlwavs easy IN determine IN which
class the provisions ofa statute belong. ltis
impossible to reconcile all the decisions of the
Courts upon the subject, but, by reference TO a
few OF them which appear to be proper aids to
the construction OF the statute IN question: We
may arrive at the intent OF the legislature in re-
garu 10 the suoJecI under Consideration
Words in a statute which relate merely to the
time, or manner Of doing an act may be con-
sidered ulrectoryi but whefe lhey relate 10 the
power 10 De exercised they are IN general I'M
PeratNe' biaueh Vs. fhilaae'phia ~ T. r.
Smi'h foo' "hefe Inc 'hlng directed to be
done Is oil the essence OF the 'hlng required,
the statute Is mandolory' Norwegian Street
81 ST. hep' "49'
Where the directions ofa statute are given
with view to the proper, orderly and prompt
condnci OF business merely the provision may
De regarded as olrec'ory' But where ialr in'
tefpre'at'oh OF lhe statute |hlch directs acts or
proceedings IN Il certain way, shows mat the
legislature intended compliance with such pro-
vision 10 De essential 10 Inc Valdlty OF the act or
pfooeculhgi or whefe some ah'ecedeht ana pre-
requisite coma ui'ioh must exist prior to the ex'
erciSe OF the power, The statute must be regard
60 as mandatory Homer Clly VS. Omaha, cited
T. p Htgest ~ > SUI pl' III And, al
though the language OF statute Is simply ena
bling yet, If it coniers apower which concerns
the pudfer as well as individual, it is not mere
ly permisslVe but Is md"datorg, People vs. Su'
pervsors II Abb n, Y. 80. Mason vs.. Fear
son . Hon. 2io. IL L, 5, D., 1852.