Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-07-27
TEXT BOOK ADOPTION
OF 1872 OR none
TINS - 1HE llIIM NTIM on
STATE SUPERINTENDENT
WILSON.

OKLAHOMA cry, July 2G-
CspcralJ As thr time for ho open
inr of tine schools approaches inter
est u thr DcNt book controversy I'M
rrrIsrs. Many conflicting reports oi
! the status ui the contracts made lat
summer have hcru circulated boy dii-
fTnt people The following inter
N.DN lrum Supt Wilson gives COM
plrlr history ot the controversy u
/ is his opinion that we either have
/ thr 1912 adoption or none.
"Cuuluuts were made by he OLD
state board of education un saturday
/ July 2I 1912 for spelling books and
/ teachers registers and on Monday.
/ July 90, 1872 contracts were mad"
with various publishers for the Other
| tcAt books, Ou Saturday July %,
/ 1917. the governor demanded thu
| rcsiguutlous uf four board members.
ON Monday July 29. 1912, Supt
| Brudcuhurp resigned ns requested,
the other three members did not ana
about the time the contracts We're
made the governor claimed 10 have
summarlly removed the three mem
bcrs. The governor announced prior
10 the time the contracts were made
that he thought II bad politics To
make a book adoption during a poll
teal campaign and unless We post
poncd the adoption that he would
not approve any contracts. when
the contracts were presented To him
he refused To approve them.
"On or about May %, 1913, the
governor approved the contract
made on Saturday. July p, 1912 for
the spelling books and register
MAY ~, 1919, the board advertis-
"a for new adoption OF text books.
Immediately after, seven publishers
filed petitions in the district court To
cuioiu the board from making an
other adoption and the injunction
as granted 10y Judge Carney The
attorney general appealed 10 the SUI
prcme court one case Of the seven
filed ana asked the court to dissolve
the injunctons. This was denied and
the case was set for hearing on Sep
tcmbcr 9th. The attorney general
ANA the attorney OF the publishc'
whose case was appealed that Of W.
n. wheeler q CO., signed an az ie'-
mcnt that the books they had IN use
in the state adopted in 1908, primer,
first, second and third readers, Dee
continued I'm usr ana that they be
not liable ON their bond If they fail
ed to furnish the additional books se-
cured i'm the 1912 adoption should
that adoption be held to bee valid.
The attorneys for the other six pub
fishers announced to the court that
they were not a party to this agree
ment as their ease had not been APP
pcalcd
THE time has passed I'm which an
appeal can be taken in these other
eases and the injunction they secur-
ed from the district court stands
which makes their contracts for the
| present valid under the law These
companies announce that they intend
to furnish their books for the use Of
the schools beginning September 1st
and that they would be liable on
their bond if not furnished. They
also claim that the use Of any other
book will be a violation OF the law.
81 have always contended that the
contracts made last summer were
regular ana valid. In this position I
have been sustained by both Judges
Carney and clark in cases that came
before them Involving "A judicial con
struction Of the law bearing on this
controversy.
THE law makes II the duty of the
state superintendent to enforce the
law providing FOR uniform text books
Unless the adoption of 1912 is good
there Is no adoption of text books,
for the 1908 adoption expires August
!, 1913 and cannot be renewed ex-
cept by act Of the legislature and the
house refused twice to continu. the
1908 adoption and the senate refused
once 10 do so, I'm the session just
closed
1T is presumed that all of the
publishers who secured contracts in
1912 will have their books on sale in
the state by September 1st II their
contracts are not legal. there is no
adoption and the use Of these or any
other books will be lawful II the
adoption of 1912 Is legal, then II will
be unlawful to use any of the 1903
books not rcadopted In 1912 or any
other book not adopted I'm 1912 SO
IL appears 10 be the same thing for
the publishers who secured contracts
in 1912 to avoid liability on their
bonds: and for teachers, school off
GERS and patrons to escape penalties
for violating the uniform text book
law by complying with the terms of
the 1912 contracts"