The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-09-04
THE COMBINES LATEST
ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE NEW LAW.
One Branch of the School Book Trust Asks
Injunction Against the New School
Books-Palpable FaIsehoods
In It's Statements.

piled by the Indiana school book company.
While the suit is directed against the Indian
apolis school board and not against the Indiana
school book company, it will be Immediately
recognized an attack upon the latter, or,
more precisely, upon the law which brought it
into existence, and which (although not by
force) drove from the state the school book
companies that had been feeding on the public
purse.
In other words, this is the latest coup d'stat
OF the school-book trust. II indicates merely
that Ivison, Brakeman & Co. are co-labonng
with Van Antwerp Bragg e. Co., A. 5. Barnes
Co.. ct al, in the effort to break dow n the bars
which the new law has put up between them
and the rich and hitherto highly productive
fields OF Indiana.
The attorney for Ivison, Brakeman & Co. is
Mr.. A. c. Harris of this city, and he has COM
pressed his petition into twenty-five pages of
typewriter manuscript
The petition rectes that on the attn of May,
1888, the school board solicited proposition
embodying the terms upon which plaintiffs
would furnish TO the pupils of the Indianapolis
schools Swinton's system of biographies for the
term of six years. beginning with the Opening
Of the school year in September, 1855" and
! that on the meeting on that date Mr.. Baker
made motion, which prevailed, that Swim
toms Biographies be adopted, if satisfactory
terms could be made with the publishers-yiz.
the plaintiffs in the present suit. In q confer
ence that followed, the petition AYERS that it
was agreed that said books should be intro
! duced and used eroluSiUey in said schools for
/ said period" AT meeting on May Is the
| proposition was adopted by the school board.
In view OF the fact, therefore that the school
I'd hos n q
/ ing of the approaching school year to put out
/ the petitioners books the present action has
! been brought.
The petition further declares that there is no
| law OF Indiana, made subsequent to the date Of
| said contract requiring the board TO take such
action. aud claims that under the law OF lndi-
/ ana the board was competent to make the
agreement aforesaid. IL also cites the fact that
! by the constitution OF the United States no
state shall pass any law impairing the obliga-
i ton of contracts.
After these general Introductory statements
/ the petition comes down 10 It's original intent
an attack upon the new school book law, which
/ il does under several heads as follows:
81. Said act does not apply 10 the board OF
school commissioners Of indianapolis.
] 80. IL does not command the use OF any GER
tain text book in the public schools Of Indian
apolis.
"3. It's in contravention of good govern
ment and against public policy, and void for
! that II seeks 10 ana it's purpose Is to establish
n monopoly giving the manufacture, furnish
ing and sale OF the school books In use in the
| public schools Of Indiana 20 one person ouly,
! liking the price and preventing any and all
competition in making, publishing. selling and
! furnishing school books TO the patrons, pupils,
/ teachers and other persons within the state
| having use for the same In the public schools.
"a. IL is void. in that IL seeks 20 compel the
school trustees 20 become agents and bailees
and statesmen OF the person having said mon
opoly; and this, too without providing any
compensation for such service; whereas, the
constitution Of the state declares that no
mans particular service shall be demanded
without Just compensation
rs. Ii Is void, because neither said books
| when made, nor the proceeds thereof when
sold. nor any part thereof, 90 any time, can ever
become the property OF the state; for i pro-
! vides that the state shall not become liable 20
any contractor hereunder for any sum what
ever
20. II assumes 10 require that the board
OF education for the state shall select and es-
tablish series Of textbooks IN certain
| branches OF study; but said board has never
selected and established any textbooks or
| other books 90 bo used IN the common schools
upon the subjects proyided and Il 10 not the
purpose OF the net 70 authorize the state board
TO adopt certain textbooks on some OF the
! branches aud leave the selection OF textbooks
in other branches % the local authorities hav.
| ing said schools In charge.
~. The act - not IN force In that the
state board has only assumed 70 select text.
books on four subjects; that at the time Of the
passage OF said act the existing statutes OF the
state provided that the textbooks TO be used In
the public schools should be selected by tho
| local authorities having the supervision OF said
schools, and Ia the city OF indianapolis by the
board OF school commissioners that these pro-
! visions OF the law then existing were not
repealed by this act and therefore the same
remained In full force and effect
IS The act IL void, because the people
| OF Indiana have never delegated 10 the legis.
lature the absolute power, TO select and de-
termine for them what books shall be used IN
their common schools or that persons shall
have the education and control OF their child
rem in said schools"
Even the superficial observer will see that
there is nothing OF force in the above criticism
| OF the law.
II is notalleged that the contract between the
school board and petitioners was signed by
both parties. lyison, Brakeman a Co. signed
| the proposition which they submitted 10 the
| board and the latter accepted Ia, which accept
ance Is spread on record in the school board
| office. That, the petition thinks, constitutes
| contract Probably so; but II does not oonstl.
| tute the main question which the trust will
! have 10 confront in this its latest departure.
Recently Supt. LaFolette, who is not an ad.
mrer Of the new school book law, submitted
the following question to the encouragement:
evil an unexpired contract between the
| county board OF education and any other pub
! lhnlnE company Alldu tAtcN NNAAiANthh WIN
the state, be bidding upon the county repre-
sented by such board? Is a written contract
made or adopted by the county board OF
education binding upon the corporations COM
posing such school county,
To which Mr.. Kitchener replied;
81 do not know OF any law which has author
| lied such a contract II there is none, such n
contract has no validity ns against the new
| law. | presume you refer TO the adoption OF
! school books by the county board OF education
under sec. 1896, r. s, 1881. such an adoption
is not n contract in legal sense. The
object of that law is 10 prevent the frequent
changes OF school books"
If county boards Of education have no such
! authority il is presumable that the indianapolis
/ school board has none, and IL therefore now re-
mains TO be seen whether the attorney-generaPs
investigation upon the subject has been COM
| plete.
! An investigation of the records OF the meet
/ ings Of the school boards Sustains some Of the
allegations In the petition, but reiuies others.
| There was nothing done at the meetings OF
| May and May IS 20 show that the contract
! with Ivisou, Brakeman q Co. was for the eretti-
/ sire introduction OF their Biographies The
petition states that il has been led 10 believe
! "that many OF the members OF said board are
! opposed 20 the introduction Of the Indiana
! school.book company's Biographies. The best
contradiction to this statement is the fact that
the action making the change in textbooks
/ was unanimous.
The number of Biographies ordered by the
school board OF indianapolis under the recent
requisition was 2.lO0.
1
n