The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-11-25
THE NEW SCHOOL-BOOK LAW
JudgeWar ,Ofthe Thirtieth Judicial Cir
cult, Delivers an ImpOrtant0piniOn.
Township Trustees Cannot Be Compelled to Act
as Agents for the Sale of the Books Fur
nished by the Becktold Company.
Special to tho Indianapolis journal

Special to the Indianapolis Journal
FOWLER, Ind, Nov. 23.-An action was
commenced in the Benton Circuit Court by
BENJAMIN f. Spears on the relation of State
against Henry Taylor. trustee of Center
school township, in Benton county, in the
nature of a mandamus, to compel the
trustee to sell to the relator for the use of
his two boys. who were pupils in one of the
schools of said township, certain of the
books provided for III the act of 1889, and
furnished to the several counties by the
Indiana SchoOi-book Company under its
contract with the State Board Of School
book Commissioners. The relator alleged,
in his petition, that the defendant Taylor
refused to sell him the books required,
which had been furnished HIM on the
requisition of the county superintendent,
although they were demanded by the re-
lator aud the price rendered to the trustee.
The relator prayed that the trustee be
compelled to furnish the books as provided
by law. Upon his petition an alternative
writ of mandate was issued by the Hon.
Peter ii. Ward. presiding judge of the
Thirtieth judicial circuit. requiring the
trustee to either furnish to the relate, the
books or show cause of his refusal.
The trustee answered the writ by his re-
turn, alleging, first, that the school at
which the REALTORS children were attend
ing was supplied generally with other
books adopted by the board of education
of said county, and which were in general
use in the schools of said county prior to
the adoption of the act of 1889, and that the
REALTORS children were supplied with said
books; second. that had the defendant sold
relatOr said books his children would not
have been permitted. to use them in the
general course of study: third, that he was
Lot required to act as the agent of private
corporations, for the sale of their books,
who. under the act of the General AS
sembly; had acquired a monopoly of the
school-book business; fourth, that he could
not perform the duties Imposed upon
him by the sc~hool-book law of
1883 without greatly increasing
the labor and expenses of the
administration of his said Office. and no
provision had been made for the payment
of such extra services; fifth, that the act of
1889 provided for a series of school-bOoks,
eight III number. that the State Board of
School Commissioner had only selected
-four branches out of the series. and that
the law was imperative for the reason that
it could not be enforced in parts; sixth,
that the law was unconstitutional in re-
spect that it presumed to make certain
puDilc 0ff1cerS or the State-the township
trustees-agents of private corporations,
and created a monopoly in the school-book
business in the State, whsch was obnoxious
to the interest of the public schools and
against public policy.
h relator addressed his demurrer to the
defendants return TO the writ. and, after
hearing carefully. prepared arguments pro
and con, Judge Ward to-day overuled the
demurrer. The Judge held that the law inn
posing these burdens upon the townshiptrus-
tee was unconstitutional and void. and that
the trustee was not bound to act as agent
of such private corporation; that it could
not be said that uch service was in the
interest of the State, OF the common school.
He also held that the several reasons for
refusing to comply with the demand made
upon him by the relator were well taken.
and made a substantial and legal excuse
for such refusal.
This IS an important decision, inasmuch
as 1T holds the trustees may refuse TO as
sumo the unjust burdens imposed upon
them by the new school, book law, and that
the law is vicious in principle. unjust in
discrimination and unconstitutional and
void.
The case will. il is understood, be ap-
pealed TO the Supreme Court.