The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-02-11

hSAu VI GQlQk Une
case of sufficient Importance to give the
reasons to the public that Influenced my
vote, as member of the board of educa-
ton. Among other studies prescribed by
the board of trustees of said free schools
the pupils were required to study Leeds
history of the United States. The board
of trustees, it is presumed, justifies its
action under section So of the school law,
which reads as follows:
"All the public schools in this state shall
be required to have taught in them orthog-
raphy, reading in English, penmanshir,
arithmetic, English grammer, modern
geography and composition, and other
branches, as may be agreed on by the
trustees or directed by the state superin-
tendent."
This section very clearly gives the trus-
tees the authority to prescribe the course
of study, but it was not the intention of
the lawmakers to confer an uncomfortable
authority on the board. 1t could not har g
been intended to allow appeals to the
board of education in all minor matters,
and at the same time make the decision
of the trustees absolute and final on so
vital and important question as the cur
riculum. Let us look at the consequence
for moment. In the common schools
will be found attendants of every age with
in the scholastic rale, and attendants of
the same age and sects, with minds of
every conceivable cast and mental vigor.
1t is true that schools must have
systems and classes, but does
the law intend that the board
shall have the right to require each scholar
to study the whole course. Take the case
under review. The parent here did not
insist that his son should take up any
other study in the place of the history.
He did not insist on course that would
necessitate new class or the employment
of additional teachers. He insisted on
nothing that had tendancy to dlsor-
ganize the school, he only insisted that
this particular study should be dropped,
and that his son should devote his whole
time to other studies deemed of more i'm
portance. What reason can be given why
this request should not be granted? 1t
may be questionable whether the time of
child should be taken up at school with
the study of history at all.
History is something to be studied and
learned by the adult who may have taste
for it. It's utility will not be questioned,
because everything that the human mind
can learn may be said to be beneficial to
the person, but does it require teacher
in order for him to learn history? Can
the child while at school not have its time
more profitably employed on other sub
jects? Because the history in question
may be Objectionable, because not a
f,,l chonna tho
law. But suppose it is untrue, and so
much so that no lover of truth would
want his child to read it, it
would show at least that a
Procrustrian rule should not be adopted.
Let us take one passage from this history
and 1 do not hesitate to say that there are
many in it that should exclude it from
every mans library. Here is one: '"Fort
Pillow Massacre Fort Pillow, on the
Mississippi, above Memphis, was taken
from the unionists by large body of
confederate cavalry under Gen. Forrest.
Its capture was marked signal by atrocity,
as no quarter was given to the garrison,
half of whom were colored troops. Men,
women and children were butchered in
discriminatory"
1t is known to all persons who have
sought for the truth, that this is a gross
libel on the gallant and honorable men
who captured Fort Pillow. The truth of
the assertion in the book would brand
the whole confederate government and its
people as a lot of barbarians and savages,
because Gen. Forrest was continued in
command. AS said, the character of the
history cannot be looked to as the sole
guide for a correct decision on this i'm
portant question; nor can the supposed
reasons that each party is charged with
as the governing cause of their course.
Suppose the parent or guardian,
unable to pay anything towards
giving the child word in an
education, and it had to rely wholly on
the free schools, and the board of trustees
should prescribe a course of Greek and
Hebrew in the languages, would patr on
have to submit to it?
"ShOuld child's time be taken up with
the studies, when from its mental struc-
ture and chances in life, they would prove
but of little value to the pupil? 1 hold
that the refusal of the young man to
continue to study Leeds history offered
no lawful cause for suspending young
MdrUlI, ana UD0 dCUlOu VI JH6 UOuIu VI
trustees in that respect, and the decision
of the superintendent of education are
reversed and the pupil restored to his
rights in the school" JOHN IRELAND.
We concur to the foregoing decision,
and all of the board agree that Leeds
history is partisan and untrue in many
places and ought not to be used in the
schools of the state. w. j. SWAIN,
S. w. BAINEs.
In the case of Usserry VS.. the city of
Laredo, decided by the supreme court,
Tuesday, the record in the Office of super
intendent of public instruction is vastly
different from the one that appears to
have been sent to the supreme court.
The record in the superlntendent's Office
shows that Ussury had taught the school
in Laredo before the city assumed con-
troll of schools, and that the pro rata of
money for that year was turned over to
the city by the county judge when the city
took charge of schools; while 9the opin-
ion of the supreme court shows that the
record there discloses the fact that Usserry
taught the school after the city had as
sumed control of the schools and with
out a Contract with the city.
Mr.. Holland, one of the gentlemanly
clerks in this departm. mt, is again back
at his post of duty.