The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-11-21

their duties and may remove such super
intendents for cause and upon notice to
the incumbent; provided no such division
shal! comprise less than one county or
city nor shall any county or city be
divided in the formation of any such di-
vision.
WITHOUT DEBATE.
Subsection two. relating to management
and investment of school fund was then
adopted
Subsection three, relating to regulations
for management Of free schools was
adopted.
Subsection four. relating to text books
for free schools brought on discussion.
Mr.. Hamilton moved to strike out the
clause requiring City Boards to be sub
ject to rules and reSula tons of the State
Board in selecting text books. Chairman
AIcIlwaine accepted the amendment. 1t
was opposed by Messrs. Meredith and
Dunaway. Mr.. Meredith said the ques-
ton of school books was a most serious
one. 1t would not do at all to leave it to
the unchecked will of City councils or City
Boards. He thought the State Board
should certainly have supervisory con-
troll over this matter.
Mr.. Thornton related his experience
with book agents in the. county schools,
and said perhaps every member of this
convention had similar experiences, as put
cd being involved in the school-book
fight.
AS TO SCHOOL BOOKS.
The committee haG taken from the
counties the school-book fight, because 1t
kept The county stirred UP by representa-
tives Of big book publishers and was Of
ten the source of scandal. The cities
had appeared before the committee, ana
contended that their officials were more
N1n q
select the proper books. He earnestly
opposed the striking out of the proviso
that their city officials should select these
books, subject to rules and regulations
prescribed by the State Board.
Mr. keezell said uniformity OF school
books was most important. and he wished
to know why the committee had not en-
braced this in their report.
Mr. Thornton said the word uniformity
was not used because it was thought the
State Board would establish that suitab bic
to the different needs of graded schools
in the cities and the county free schools.
| Nh Glass said the recommends ton of
| the committee was in exact conformity
| to the statutes now in force on that sub
| iect Uniformity did not mean a single
! system of books.
| 1t would be ruinous to the schools TO
| have uniformity in this sense. DR.. huff-
| ner had demonstrat ted that. HeSopposed
! striking out the clause as suggested by
! Mr.. Hamilton and said the city officials
| having been given the selection of their
| own books should be subject to regula-
tons made by the State Board.
Mr.. Pollard said the cities paid four
/ fifths of the money for the public schools
ana they all desired this privilege, and it
! was accorded by the unanimous vote of
/ the committee.
ENLISTED IN CITIES.
Mr.. r. Walton Moore said he had seen
something and heard a. GOOD deal of the
evils Of hook competition in the counties.
He had no doubt this evil existed in the
cities He thought it a mistake not to In
Glide cities in the power of the Board to
say whether they should select their own
books.
He suggested that the language of the
section be changed SO that the State
Board should have full control of the Sc
lection Of all textbooks. with authority
to permit local boards TO select when IN
their judgment it was best. He thought
the big book companies should have their
electioneering confined TO the limits of the
State Board. 1t was TO be composed Of
men of the most distinguished ability snd
Of the highest integrity. and should have
full responsibility over the whole aues-
ton of city as we'll as county schools.
TOO MUCH POWER.
Mr.. Quarles opposed the State Board
having power to select books Book
publishers made profit of $4,000 out
OF the school CHI ldren of Virginia every
four years. No one board he sale; ought
to be given this power He advocated
the selection of books by local boards
He saw no objection to book agents go
ing through the country. 1t was a great
source OF education to receive the INTO ma
ton they Impaired, and they were OF
great benefit to a community.
He read from a communication OF DR..
Ruffner, in Sundays Times. ana said that
he contended that books should be select
ed under the guidance of educational ex-
pe-ts. Mr.. Quarles argued that this
meant the teachers of the schools who
above all others, were most capable OF
advising local boards as to the selection
of these books.
THE PROPER AUTHORITY.
Mr.. Brown claimed that DR.. Ruffnel
expressly stated that, if the State Board
was composed of educational experts il
was the proper board to select the text
books, and read from his report Of ISL
to substantiate the contention.
Judge Quarlcs insisted that DR.. Run
ner's words would bear no such construc.
ton Hc said forty-eght OF fifty-twc
. City School Superintendent had given tbs
opinion that local boards in city ant
county were the proper authority TO Sc
lect books. He haG responses from TWEEN
ty State Super!ntendents. and sixteen OF
the them favored selection OF books by
local boards. y committe of fifteen. ap-
pointed by the National Educational AS
ISOLATION had unanimously recommend
cd the selection of books by local boards
q He ASSERTED. that this was all of tho
Very highest OF expert testimony
I Judge HancocE arose to ask a cues
!. ton during Judge Quarles speech. ane
was making rtsR hot speech against To-