The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-05-17

come within the scope of its authority,
1t IS regarded as uniform in its
operation, and is not to be
does not become applicable to the class
es, communities or things at the same
moment of time, or which may be sub
sequently governed by it" This same
doctrine was again recognized by our
supreme court in the SAGE of the State
VS.. NewbOld, Sc Kan. H. in which the
court has apprOVingly quoted from the
above opinion.
In the case at bar the act goes into
effect and becomes a law as an entirety,
and it meets every contingency when it
arises municipalities under contract
are not controlled by this law until the
expiration OF their contracts, but as
such contracts expire the municipalities
are controlled by this law. 1t is of uni
form operation within the meaning of
the constitutional provision. 1t appears
from the evidence in this case that
there are some 27 counties in this state
under contract with various persons for
the furnishing of school text books to
such counties for different periods of
time. These are valid contracts. This
act could not in any event apply to
those contracts or to the municipalities
under such contracts; for, If it did, the
act would be in violation of the
which provides that no state
shall pass any law impairing the OBJ
legation of contracts. This proposition
IS fresh in the minds of bench and bar
by reason of the recent Kansas mort
gage decision of the United States SUI
preme court. If this act had made no
exception in its application to NUM-
c1paitieS now under cOntract,t the courts
would have held the law unconstitu-
tiOnal in so far as it attempted to inter-
fere with these contracts; and it was
doubtless for this reason that this eX-
ception was incorporated in the act.
Within the authorities of our own su-
preme court, we think the law under
consideration has uniform operation
throughout the state.
It is further commended by the plaintiff
that this law is in cOntraVentiOn of
section 1 of article of the constitution
which provides that the state Superin-
tendent Of public instruction shall have
the general supervision of the common
school funds and educational interests
of the state, and perform such other du-
ties as may be prescribed by law; that
this act depriVeS the state Superinten-
dent of public instruction Of the gen
eral supervision of the common school
fund and educational interests of the
state and places such supervision in q
school text book commission provided
for in this act. No authorities have been
cited upon this proposition; but if this
act violates the constitutional prOvis-
ion referred to- then there are a large
number of other laws on our statute
book bearing upon the same subject
which must be held to be uncOnStitu-
tiOnal. From the earliest history of the
state the Legislature has, from time to
time, conferred limited powers and i'm
posed duties in connection herewith
upon county superintendent, boards of
education, school district boards and
text book boards, all of which, in a linn
tied away. if plaintiffs contention be
true, deprive the state superintendent
of the power which this act takes from
him. If plaintiffs position upon this
proposition be correct, then it is with
in the power of the state Superinten-
dent to determine for the whole state
the kind of school text books to be used.
Originally each school district was sup
posed to have the power to determine
the kind of school text books to be used
in its schools This was afterwards
found to be impracticab1e on account
of the changing of boundaries of dis
tricts, the moving OF residents from one
district to another. etc, and provision
was then made by law for obtaining
county uniformity of school text books.
The power of such district county or
city school boards to determine such
uniformity of text books has not been
successfully asSailed in the courts of
this state so far as we know. And it
certainly could not be maintained that
if the legislature had power to confer
such authority upon school district,
county or city boards, 1t would not
have power to confer such authority
upon similar state boards of commits
sion. The legislature, by comforting
these powers upon the smaller boards,
did, to a limited extent. exactly what
it did, to a greater extent, in comforting
this authority upon the school text
book commission provided for in the act
under consideration
The only authority attempted to be
conferred by this act is the authority
to bring about uniformity of school
books for the state. And unless the
state superintendent had, under the
constitution, the authority to deter
mine the kind of school books to be
used throughout the state, then the
conference of such power upon a
school book commission is not in dero-
cation of this provision of the cOnStitu-
ton 1t certainly was not the intention
of the trainers of the constitution to