The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-03
FAVOR OF TRUSTEES
The Supreme Court Rsverses Judge
McHattOn's Decision.
ABOUT THE SCHOOL BOOKS
In the Absence of Legislation the
School Board Is Required to
Act as II Deems Best
Other Opinions.
ABOUT THE SCHOOL BOOKS

to-day returned five opinions. two of
them being of decided general import
ance. The court reverses Judge Nc
Hatton's decision in the text book case.
deciding that the school trustees may
adopt whatever text books for their
schools as they deem best. The other
extremely important case was that
brought to test the constitutionality of
the arid land grant law, passed by the
last legislature. The cases decided
were:
r. Campana, respondent, VS.. Calder
head ct al, appellants. The plaintiff
is a resident and taxpayer of school
district No l of Silver Bow county.
The defendants constitute a board of
trustees of said district. On July 20.
1895. the defendants. as trustees. made
an order adopting for use in the public
schools of said district certain text
books, and entered into a covenant
with a book firm to furnish the books
at stated price for a term of years.
The plaintiff brought this action to en-
join the defendants from adopting said
text books and from carrying out the
contract with said publishing firm.
The defendants demurred to the COM
plant, and the court overruled the de-
murrer, and judgment was entered for
the plaintiff in accordance with his
complaint From this judgment the
defendants appealed. The opinion is
by Judge Pemberton.
The principal question presented by
the appeal is as to whether or not the
trustees had the right to make the or
der adopting the text books for use in
the common schools of their district.
The court holds that the law of the
5th of March, 1889, establishing series
of text books in the state expired by
it's own limit on July /, 1895. and If 1t
did not, was repealed by the adoption
of the codes on that day, so that there
was no law in force in this state on the
Goth of July. 1895. prescribing a series
of text books for use in the common
schools. The supreme court holds that
section l, article IL, of the constitution.
which provides that il shall be the
duty of the legislative assembly to es-
tablish and maintain a general uni
form and thorough system of the pub
lie free common schools, does not re-
quire that the Legislature shall establish
a uniform system of text books
for use in the common schools. The
legislature may do this. but IL has not
done so, and II is conceded that II has
not by special act delegated the right
to do so to any officer or board in this
state. So that the question arises, in
establishing or giving the right to any
officer or board to establish a uniform
system of text books may the trustees
of the school district do so? The su-
preme court holds that under the gen.
eral power conferred upon school trus-
tees, they may establish a system Of
text books for use in the schools of
their district when the legislature has
so failed to do and when the legisla-
ture failed to confer the right upon
any officer or board to do So
The supreme court says, shall the
whole uniform system of free common
schools, established by the legislature
in accordance with constitutional in
junction, fail and go to pieces under
such conditions rather than have the
trustees act in such emergency by pre-
the school under their control and for
whose welfare ii is the duty of the
trustees to make provision? 1t holds
that under the conditions of this case.
the legislature, having failed to pro-
vide uniform series of text books for
use in the common schools of the state,
and having failed to give special au-
thority to any officer or board to do
so, the trustees of the school districts
OF the state have. the right under the
general power vested in them by law,
TO prescribe a rule designating text
books for use in the common schools
in their districts. Judgment of the
lower court is reversed, and the case
remanded with instructions to sustain
the demurrer of the defendants.
State ex rel, ]. T. Armstrong VS..
Fred w. Wright, treasurer. The court
holds first that members of the arid
land commission are officers of the
state and decides that in creating a fed
eral grant reclamation fund, the law
made a special fund to enable the state
to accept the beneficial offer of the
United States, by act of congress of
1894. II is, however expressly decided
that no holder of any warrant can
make the state liable for it's payment.
He must look at the fund alone for the
satisfaction of his claim. The state Is
merely an agent in the transactions.
The supreme court declares the law 10
be constitutional The opinion. which
is by Associate Justice Hunt, reads in
part: I'VE know of no constitutional
limitation forbidding the legislature of
the state from receiving benefits of
congress by way of this offer, where II
is especially provided in the law of ac-
ceptance that no debts and no liabili-
ties. other than for incidental expenses
of the commission. can ever accrue 10
the state under it's provisions. We be-
lieve the acceptance was valid. The
legislature having accepted the offer.
it's next right in the premises was 10
provide a detailed method whereby
the state could execute that acceptance
and make IL operative. This they have
done. The attitude of the state thereby
became that of an agent of the United
States to make effective the offer of the
latter TO part with it's desert lands 20
the state or its assigns. provided the
state can reclaim such lands and in
duce actual settlement and cultivation
thereof. which this state has under
| taken TO make possible by legislation.
II the state fails. the United States will
not issue its patents; II the state sue
ceeds. the United States has agreed 10
pass title TO the state or its assigns
upon satisfactory proofs Of the fulfill
ments OF the requirements OF the acts
| OF congress. The very conditions pre-
| cedent TO the right Of the state 10 OBJ
tain patents. reclamation, settlement
| cultivation. include those which will
| heraaf ter diveSt the state of its title