The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-10-15

.vh'iact as above stated and thlt the ~.
pialhants had FUZZY compiled wilo r.
WI MS OIL Inc contract on their mar, ~
nat the school commas .uners were .ho,,
10 ADOPT and introduce, 10 the excius,o,, =,
tne eompAilnants' books. books TO rs mn
pHeu py contractors uzier cer,a,n a,t
VI me legislature OF Indiana: thar SAID acs
s.ues Delng IN violation OF the consti,u
.ioh OF The State for reasons stated IA
inyslic In respect to the contract Of mo
noH'pialhants and the board OF commiss o..
eis, aforesaid, and in violation OF the can.
s'i.utioh OF the United States, because h
Upheld Ii would impair the Obligation ~
contract. The question in th,t cas-
turned on whether or not the school com.
miss.oEers had authority under the In " "a
make contract whereby they bound them
s s 10 use certain book FOR certain
period or time. That clause of law reio,
upon corferring such authority was as fo, !.
.Vws: To establish and enforce rexusa
ions Tor the grading and course of iustfuc-
tions in the schools OF the city,"
Inc court says: Considering the rrjn
cipie chat grants OF power 20 municiual
corporations are to be construed strictly
IL IS not clear that the board had power to
pind itself by stipulation tina. the books
adoptec should continue in use for state
period of years.
given mainly, 1t least. for the heueat OF
the public to be used as occasion should
require and II is no. consistent with III s
design that in a single exercise OF 4, the
board abrogate or exhaust Il by stipulat ny
that 1t should not for a term Of wears stated
exercise it again. II this could be doae
Tor six years il could be done for sixty
years.
The case OF Honey Creek School VS..
l.
he school trustees entered into the con-
tract for the purchase of school books TO
he used in The district schools. The villdt,;-
OF This contract was questioned ana de-
ternlned by the court. which held II 10 be
invalid. The court recognized he coctrine
That the acts of the trustees IN order TO Sc
valid must be authorized by law. 1t was
| contended that the trustee was au horl1 ID
to make the contract under the following
provisions of the Indiana law: 'The trus-
tees shall take charge of the educational
aiia.rs of their respective townships, cities
ma towns ami shall employ telchers. es-
tablish and locate conveniently suhi-
| c.snt number of schools for the education
OF white children therein aud build, or
otherwise provide suitable houses furni-
| tui@. apparatus and other articles and
| educational appliances necessary for ihe
thorough organization and efficient man
agement of said schools
The court hollis that this provision does
not confer upon the trus ees the author ty
to purchase text books for the use OF the
schools and says: 1.-THE authorities Of
| trustees being limited and having the right
to make only such contracts and purchases
as they are empowered by law 20 make the
complaint should affirmatively show the
purchase and The contract to have besn one
which the trustees. by law, were author
lied to make"
There is not much difference between
the power of the trustees TO make 4 con-
tract to use cert1in books for a certain
period OF time and the power OF the trus-
tees to buy books for the use of the schools,
If from the phrase found in our law author
iziI.g the trustees to control. regulate ami
manage the schools can be deduced the
power TO make contract for he use Of
certain books to the exclusion OF others
for certain period of time, may not the
other proposition follow, with equal rea-
son. that under said provision the said
trustees may also contract for the purchase
of school books for the use Of the schools
| therefore conclude that the contract
submitted is not valid and binding ohli-
gitiop upon the district and that the books
adopted by the text book board should be
( Introduced in said district. | herewith re
! turn you the contract submitted. Yours
| truly, John NJ. king'
Office Assistant Attorney General.