The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-05-18

written an important letter in answer to
an inquiry addressed him by county su-
perintendent as to the power of school
boards TO supplement textbooks adopted
by the state board of education, and con-
tracted for by that body, with other books
in the same department. Superintendent
Worries holds that local boards have no au-
thority to tax 70 such action, and that in 80
doing they act not only without warrant
of law, but In direct conflict with it. In
his letter he quotes freely from the opin-
ion OF the supreme court, written by
Judge Elliott, sustaining the validity of
the school book law.
The school book ring, which it was sup
posed bad been driven from the state, has
recently been making desperate efforts to
secure the reintroducion of its publica-
tions into the schools of Indiana, although
tho state board had awarded contracts for
similar publications as required by the
law. lShould the ring succeed in its
schemes it would be the first step toward
the breaking down of law which has
relieved the people OF Indiana from the
most odIous monopoly which ever OPP
pressed them-a law which has saved the
people already more than million dol
lars and is saving them hundreds of thou
sands OF dollars every year. Superinten-
dent Worries declares that the law must be
upheld, and that school boards which
adopt any other book or books than those
adopted by the state are violating the
law.
His letter is as follows:
Ny DEAR SIR-In your favor of recent date
you say: "0ur county board decided to adopt
o grammar TO be used in the sixth year OF the
course of study, providing 1t would make no
difference with the Indiana school book CON-
pany. | cannot see how il will interfere in the
least. What IS your opinion? Should we do
il or try to get along with the two adopted
books?
In reply would say that the action which
your board decided to take is not only
warranted by the law, but directly in conflict
with the law. Moreover, it is directly in cou-
iict with the contracts which the state has
with present eontraec4Ts 70 furnish school
books.
So much Of see. 4,436 as relates to the
! adoption of books by the county board of edu-
cation is repealed by the school book law of
1889 and the supplemental act OF 1891. There
seems TO have been some doubt in the minds of
the Legislators of 1891 as to whether or not the
| act Of 1899 made the prohibition of the use of
other books than those adopted by The state
strong enough. and so tho legislature OF 1891
put in sec IL OF the supplemental act, which
| is as follows:
"Sec. IL. The books which have been or may
hereafter be adopted by the state OF Indiana
| for in its common schools by virtue of this
act or the act mentioned In sec. hereof, shall
be uniformly used in all the common schools
of the state, In teaching the branches OF learn
ing treated OF in such books and it shall be
the duty Of the proper school officers and au-
| thortles to use in such schools such books for
teaching the subjects treated in them"
The legislature had in mind two main pur-
poses in framing the school book law-uni-
foTmity as TO price and books aud eheapness.
To hold that there Is any power left In the
county boards of education or city and town
school boards, so far as the common school
books are concerned. to adopt any other book
| or books than those adopted by the state would
be to defeat the law entirely and TO expose the
people of the state to high prices, frequent
changes want of uniformity and ell the other
evils which caused the school book law TO be
enacted.
Below quote from supreme court opinion,
written by Judge Elliott in i22 Ind, 462:
Section constitutes the state board OF edu-
cation comm ssioners for the purpose of max
| ing selections of textbooks for use in the CON-
mon schools and designates the standard which
shall guide the board in the selection OF
books.
Every provision indicates an intention to
establish uniform system, and not a provision
indicates an intention to put IL in the power of
any officer to break the uniformity.
Nor Is there word from which II can be in
| ferred that the legislature intended that infe-
riO off mi eY diaQra
| power and thus break and deform the uniform
| ity and symmetry OF the system.
Two things are very clear: One, that the
legislature meant TO provide an exclusive privi-
lege In order TO secure books at the best prices;
| the other that the legislature meant 10 prevent
the possibility of any break in the uniformity
of the system framed by the statute.
I'VE accept as correct the assumption OF the
appellants counsel. that the statute does re-
lar books designated BY the proper officer, in
obedience TO the command Of the law, and
that, far the officers of the state.
| they must be bought from the firms to whom
| the state board OF education awards the con-
tract. We agree fully with the appellants
counsel upou this point, for we think that
everywhere throughout the statute is mani-
| tested the intention to create a uniform sys-
TEN, and to make body of rules which all
| school officers are bound to obey.
III was, too, the intention OF the legislature
| being compelled to pay much greater price
| for books than another; to put II beyond the
power of the local officers to mar the uni.
| formity of tho system; to prevent favoritism
| and to open the field 70 composition. To this
end the legislature constructed a
system which required competitive bid
ding, and, to make sure that the best
prices might be obtained provided that who
| ever secured the contract should have the ex.
| elusive privilege Of furnishing to the school
| officers all the books designated and required
| by the state board. To permit the local school
officers to treat the provisions OF the statute as
| the grant OF privilege would prevent the at
| tainment OF this end. 10 give effect 20
the intent OF the legislature and secure
| the accomplishment OF the principal object of
the statute, ID must bs held that It's provisions
creates legal duty which the trustees cannot
| put on or of at pleasure. To hold otherwise
would effeotualiy destroy the symmetry Of the
statute and so cripple its machinery 10 rem
der ID useless, and this We cannot do In the face
| of the historical facts which were laid before
the general assembly by the governor. consid-
| cred In the reports Of the committees Of that
body and debated By its members. We know,
as matter of history, impaired 70 us by the
mcst authentic records and in the
most publio method, that with lit