The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-05-17
Passed by the Recent Legisla-
ture is GOOdzLaW.
'Attorneys Representing the AtchisOn
Book Dealer and Indirectly
American Book Co. VIII
Take the Matter to
the Supreme
Court

sion from carrying out the pfONASAOIlS u
the act, and set aside the restraining or
der allowed when the injunction suit
was brought.
Overmyer & NIulvane, as attorneys
for w. [. Johnson, the AtchisOn book
dealer, Immediately gave notice that an
appeal would be taken from the opinion
of Judge Hazen to the supreme court.
The opinion as handed down by Judge
Hazen is as follows:
In the District Court of Shawnee coun-
ty, Kansas.
The State of Kansas. ex rel. A. P. Jet
more. County Attorney of Shawnee
county, Kansas, Plaintiff.
VIM. Stryker ct al, Defendants.
OPINION.
on the third day of this month plain
tiff commenced suit in this court to pre-
vent defendants from carrying into Ell
feet the provisions of a certain act OF
the legislature of 1897, relating to state
uniformity of school text books A re-
straining order was allowed and the ap-
plication for a. temporary injunction
was set for hearing at future day
! This application has been heard, and the
question now to be determined IS Wheth-
er a temporary injunction snail be
granted or denied.
This suit is brought to test the ques-
ton as to- whether chapter 17S OF the
laws of 1897, in relation to state uni
fOrmity of school text books, is a valid
ana SuDSlO1nS law L ne act - C1ctA-
lenged by plaintiff as being in violation
of various provisions of our consttu-
ton. The questions arising Will be dis
posed of in the order in which they
We're argued by counsel.
1t is claimed that this law is in viola
tion of section 16 of article two of the
constitution which provides that no bill
shall contain more than one subject
which shall be clearly expressed in its
title. The plaintiff contends that this
bill contains more than one subject and
r1er4fr rTf 10 hG
discussion of this question, we must not
confound the subject of the bill with it's
object 1t is claimed by plaintiff that
this act provides for the selection and
adoption of school text books, and also
for the production of school text books;
that the selection and adoption is one
subject and the production another sub
ject. With this contention we cannot
agree. The act simply presents two
methods for the school text book COM
mission to provide for the furnishing of
school text books one by selection and
adoption and thes other by production.
These two methods were doubtless pro-
Vided so that the object of the law
might be better carried out. They are
not two subjects, but two methods of
carrying out the object of the law. The
subject of this act is uniformity of
school text books; the object of the act
is the furnishing to the various schools
of the state of a uniform system of
school text books. This whole act re-
lates to uniformity of school text books;
that is the subject of the act. The act
provides for the appointment of school
text book commission and then imposes
certain duties upon that commission for
the purpose of carrying out the object
of the act.
It is next contended that this act vio-
lates section 16 of article 2 of the con-
StitutiOn in this: that the title of the
act is not broad enough to cover certain
provision of the act. The plaintiffs con-
tentiOn is that the title of the act pro-
VideS for the selection of school text
books by the school text book commits
sion, and that in the body of the bill it
provides for the selection and also for
the production of school text books;
that that portion of the act which pro-
vides for the production of school text
books by the commission is not covered
by the title.
This law provides two methods for
procuring school text books. 1t re-
QuireS that sealed proposals shall be
submitted to the school text book COM
mission and fixes the maximum amount
that may be paid for such school text
books. 1t further provides that if no
proposition submitted for the selection
of school text books shall be accepted
by the school book commission, then the
commission may inspect and adopt man.
uscript for the production of school
books to be used in the schools of the
state. In the one case the commission
adopts the books according to a sample
of the finished book presented to them,
While in the other case the commission
adopts the manuscript presented to
them to be afterwards placed in the
form of a school text book Where the
manuscript is selected and adopted
some publisher or other person under
takes to furnish the books according to
the manuscript Which has been selected
and adopted by the commission. In
each method provided in the act the
school book commission selects and
adopts the kind of book to be used 1t
would seem that there could be no sub
Stantial difference between the selection
by the commission of a sample book to
be furnished by a publisher and the Sc
lection of manuscript furnished by the
author thereafter to be placed in the
form of book. In either case it is a
selection of the kind of book to be used
in the schools. We cannot agree With
plaintiffs contention upon this point.
1t is further cOntended by the plaintiff
that this act is viOIatiVe of section II of
article two of the constitution, which
provides that all laws of a general ma
ture shall have a uniform operation
throughout the state; that the act in
question does not have a uniform oper-
alton throughout the state, because it is
provided in section Is of the act that it
ShalI not apply to counties or cities now
under contract for county uniformity of
text books until after such contracts
| have expired; that as there is now a
are under such contracts, to which this
act does not apply, therefore il has not
a uniform operation throughout the
state.
From an examination of the authori-
ties we think this question has been
settled by our own supreme court. In
I tAAS case u commissioners OF Miami
county VS.. Hiner, 54 Kan. 337 the court
| uses the following language: Acts are
frequently passed, in the body OF which
provision is made that they shall act
upon certain classes and communities
at different times and upon the happen
! ing Of certain contingencies: but there
| is clear distinction between such acts
and the one we are considering In
/ those cases the act goes into effect and
| becomes a law as an entirety, and if
| the act meet every contingency when it
| arises and operates alike upon all that