The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1914-09-10
THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS AND THE STATE
LAND BOARD.


SCHOOLS AND THE STATE
LAND BOARD.
One of the three proposed amend
ments to the state constitution to BIZ
voted upon by the people of Idaho a
the November election has to do witt
the removal of the state superintendent
of public instruction from membership
on the state land board. If the people
vote TO amend the constitution in thai
particular the legislature will later en-
act the amendment.
should be brought to the attention Of
every voter in Idaho, and every voter
should be carefully shown what a vic
ious move this would be on the part OF
the state of Idaho. This amendment
must be voted down. Emphatically the
state superintendent of public instruc-
Der of the state land board. One of the
most valuable and fundamentally
sound provisions in the entire state
constitution is that which makes the
state superintendent of instruction a
member of this most important of all
state boards.
There can be no argument what
ever against the state superintendent S
continuing to serve on this board.
There is every reason in the world
why the state superintendent should
continue to act as Il member of the
state land board.
Remove the state superintendent OF
public instruction from the state land
board and who will be left to pro-
tect the interests of the school children
of Idaho? All matters relating to the
disposition of school lands in Idaho are
handled by the state land board. Shall
there be no person on that board to
represent the school children? Shall
their heritage have no guardian whose
express business and responsibility it
is to protect the future as we'll as the
present school children of Idaho? Shall
there be no person on that board who
is officially connected with the schools
of the state, who knows their needs
who will plan for their future, guard
their property, and insist ON such
disposition of school lands as will ben
eft the coming school children?
What duty has a state superinten-
dent to perform more important than
this one of looking after the school
lands of the state? What other claim
upon the time of state superinten-
dent should take precedence over this
one of becoming familiar with state
land matters? We are of the opinion
that to remove the state superinten-
dent of public instruction from the
state land board is to strike direct
blow at the school children of Idaho
A state land board made up of persons
not connected with the schools, who
rave no official obligation towards the
school children of Idaho, and who
re unfamiliar with school needs and
school matters will be a very great
menace to Idaho children and their |
leritage. No citizen in Idaho has a |
light to rob the school children OF
IDAHO of paid guardian to protect |
heir interests and to insure their fu-
ure.
We do not think that any state SUI
of public instruction
would favor such an amendment or
e willing to be relieved of the great
privilege and responsibility of pro-
Getting the school children of Idaho
n the state land board. We do not
hink that any person qualified to act
S a state superintendent would be
n fitted to act on land matters. 1t
5 the business of the state superm-
endent to become acquainted with al
he intricate details of land board
1atters and no person worthy of be-
lg state superintendent would seek to
void the study and investigation ne
essary to becoming expert in this
latter. No work that the state SUI
does for the state of Ida !
o can compare in Importance with
le work that official does on the state
.nu board. No time spent by the Of
cial in the service of the state Is
etter or more proftably spent than
lat devoted to the sale, rental, loca-
on, and protection of the public and
.hool lands of the state of Idaho.
Commonly. voters at the polls are a