The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-03-05

lHfmHu, lUInf W M WIfl Hf u IHHif
lHinf 10 III rnHnfnlfH1 pie Hn solve
unnh0r, mud nIf Vnff un tho Judiciary
committees iuouiiff aud ln me hnusn
thnes hin ip ho Une ul ii0 Nlsi 10y
trfs iu the. NU1V Kaufman 'iuIl|
l,U iruid uf l0r yuung sln
Another question Uf Interest, and n 2.
4 measure Hri rppus ~ ihN school land
question, ~ tlirt ufthp establishment NJ II
UsITuHHEu sEIttns
1T text books Tor thH public Tree sChOl In.
There " Il bill from tha oOminllira on
educational affairs for the Adoption hy he
state of iuiufn tuclnt 0i teNl'houks
Tor the FREQ schools, Which viii ore a
great while come up far disrusslOn, 10
has already been party considered ana
some amendments 10 10 nave been
adopted. take 10 that u N now prema'
lure Tor tina passage of any such bill.
Tho state 10 IN true has u magnificent
tree school uud when 10 IN fully and
properly developed and made available,
hut IN that ilnd II principally still In
land, aud taxation h necessary To
augment II, that tho free schools
may still he kept going Is
II not better TO await unti! the
enchoate fund il fully developed?
nient, aud the voice of the people rules
IN all things, IL II not better, not more
In consistence with the genius and
spirit OF our government, federal ana
state, that the counties snOuld indiyid-
ually select their textbooks than tor u
state board TODD II Tor than?
MoNoPo lEs
are RntagOnlStic u our TORN OF govern
ment, 10 our Democratic ideas and
would not the placing at the selection of
taNt-hooks for tho free sCunulS In the
hands of board tend 10 monop
olNp say let the pep
plU choose for themselves, the
people, tho patrons of the free schools In
each county, or at most, In each school
district or community choose for thom-
selves.
TAKE THE HISTORY
of states adopting the text books for
their free schools and 10 will be seen IL
has proven . failure, Nn absolute failure,
d deiuSion and II snare. 1t has breeded
contentious, chickering's, ordinations
and rG-criminatiunS, IL has built up
aud iostered monOpolies, and every
state and territory In the union tia; has
tried H., and ncarly all Of them have, has
been {, reed TO abandon II. 1t is costly
to the state, costly to the patrons OF the
schools. Why? Because 3ssao but nnrns one on.
publishing houses have, or
can enter into competition. The pub.
fishing houses continue pool issues, and
the ate has to make contracts that
make immense inroads upon the puck-
cts of the people. The state can not
BECOME \ PUBLISHER,
because IL would take at least five years
for tho state to get up "A uniformity of
text books. The outlay for machinery,
material and manuscripts OF books
would be Immense and cost so much for
first outlay, and Tor yearly apprOpria'
tons to keep the machinery IN motion
the books could not be sold at a price to
patrons, that book publishing concerns
could not successfully compete with
without great cost TO tho state. Fur
thermure, experience has taught that
STATE UNIFORMITY
is detrimental to the best interests of
the free schools. In proof of these as
sertions, not assertions, but truths, go
to kentucky, Minnesota, and number
of the eastern states, and learn from
them their experience, their sad, costly
experience.
These are few reasons / have TO Of
fer now why the legislature should not
pass this bill, why the state should not
adopt text books. When the time
comics for action in this direction, let
each county adopt its own series.
There will then DO in the market
100 or 200 seeker for school
text book, not one, as in the
case of the state doing it, and
book publishers with so many COMPETE
tors will have no show for a monopoly,
10 show for fancy prices.