Case Name: (1) Hill v. American Book Company; (2) American Book Company v. Chaney,
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1926-06-14
Citations: 171 Ark. 427
Docket Number: No. 9598; No. 9600
Parties: (1) Hill v. American Book Company, (2) American Book Company v. Chaney,
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 427–449

Head Matter:
(1) Hill v. American Book Company, (2) American Book Company v. Chaney,
No. 9598.
No. 9600.
Opinion delivered June 14, 1926.
H. W. Applegate, Attorney- General, Join L. Carter, Assistant, Ben B. Williamson, TJtley, Hammock & Clark, and Mehaffy & Melaffy, for appellant Hill.
J. W. House, Jr., Murray Seasongood and Emerson £ Donldm, for appellee ‘American Book Company.
Tom W. Campbell, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is first contended that the contract of the State Textbook Commission with the American Book Company is invalid, beeause it was not made by persons; legally constituting the State Textbook Commission.
The members of the commission were duly appointed pursuant to the provisions of act No. 153 of the Legislature of 1925. Acts of 19.25, p. 448. This act purports to amend act 379 of the Legislature of 1923. Acts of 1923, p. 347. Act 379 originated in the House, and it is contended that the bill was amended when it reached the Senate, and that the amendment proposed by the Senate was not stricken from the bill until after its final passage in the Senate. If this was the case, of course, the bill passed by the Senate would not be the bill passed by the House of Representatives, and the act would be invalid. The State journal shows that the bill was amended in the Senate. There is an entry on the Senate .journal showing the passage of the bill by the Senate, and immediately following this the same entry shows that the amendments were stricken from the bill. This entry appears on the journal containing a record of the same day's proceedings. The contention here is that, because the part of the entry showing that the amendments were stricken from the bill follows the part showing the passage of the bill, there is an affirmative showing on the journal that the Senate amendment was stricken from the bill after its passage. We do not think so. In Ewing v. McGehee, 169 Ark. 448, it was held that there is a conclusive presumption of the regularity of the enactment of an enrolled and signed statute, unless the validity is defeated by affirmative recitals in the journal. The entry showing the passage of the bill and that the Senate amendment was stricken from the bill was a part of the proceedings of the same day, and to hold that, because the recital showing that the amendment had been stricken from the bill follows that part of the entry showing the passage of the bill, constitutes an affirmative showing that the proceedings were had in the order in, which they appeared on the journal,'would be to put form above substance. We do not think that good reason or authority require that the inadvertence or mistake of the journal clerk in making his entries on the journal should control in the matter and thus avoid the proceedings of the Senate. This is especially true when the records show that the bill was duly enrolled and signed as required by law.
Again, it was sought to show by parol evidence that the amendment was stricken from the bill after it had passed the Senate. As we have already seen, this court has held that an act may be held to be invalid when the journal shows affirmatively that an essential constitutional requirement has not been complied with. That rule does not authorize resort to oral evidence to contradict the journal. A rule of that sort would render legislation uncertain and leave it to the courts to try its validity on questions of constitutional procedure which might vary in different cases according to the proof made. We think that the better view is to hold that act 379 is a valid act.
Moreover, if it should be held invalid, this would not change the result. While act 153 in express language purports to amend act 379, still it is a valid act and capable of enforcement in connection with the original act creating the 'State Textbook Commission and act 285 of the Acts of 1921 amendatory thereof. Of course, if the constitutional requirements in the passage of act 379 were not complied with, it would be invalid and no part of our laws, and no life could be breathed into it by an act purporting to amend it. Act 153, however, under which the members of the State Textbook Commission were appointed, fits into the original act creating the. State Textbook Commission and the act of 1921 amending it, and would amend those acts so far as it is repugnant to them.
This brings us to a consideration of the case on. its merits, and the validity or invalidity of the contract in question depends mainly upon the interpretation to be given to § 9077 and 9080 of Crawford & Moses' Digest as amended by act 285 of the Legislature of 1921. General Acts of 1921, p. 326. Section 4 of that act amends § 9077 of Crawford & Moses' Digest so as to read as follows:
"The books furnished under any contract shall at all times during the existence of this contract be equal in all respects to the specimen or sample copies furnished with bids; and it shall be the duty of the State Superin tendent of Public Instruction to preserve in Ms office, as the'standard of quality and excellence to 'be maintained in Such books during the continuance of said contract, saniple copies of all books which have been the basis of any contract, together with the original bid. The retail price and the exchange price of each book adopted shall be printed, labeled, or stamped on the back, or inside cover, of the book. And the commission shall not enter into contract with any person or publisher for any book or books to be used in the public schools of the State, at a retail price above or in excess of the price or prices at which said book or books are furnished by said person or publisher, under contract executed within one (1) year next preceding the making of the contract with the' commission, to any State, county, city or other school district in the United States, under similar conditions of distribution and cost of delivery. And it shall, be the duty of any contractor to stipulate in his contract that he is not furnishing under contract, executed within one (1) year next preceding, to any State, county, city, or other school district anywhere in the United States .at a less retail price than, he is furnishing same to the State of Arkansas, under similar conditions of distribution and cost of delivery, and the commission is hereby authorized and directed, at any time it may find any book is being furnished at a lower retail price under contract to any State,- county, city, or other school district, as aforesaid, to sue upon the bond of said contractor for the recovery of- the difference between the contract retail price and the lower retail price- at which they find the book or ¡books to have been sold, and should any contractor fail'to execute' the terms and provisions of this contract specifically, said commission is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to bring suit in the name of the State of Arkansas upon, the bond of such contractor for the recovery of all damages, for the benefit of the public school fund; but nothing herein provided shall be construed so as to prevent said commission and any contractor from agreeing in any manner to change, alter or-amend any contract; provided, a majority of the members of said commission.shall agree and think it advisable and for. the best interest of the public schools of. the. State to make, such change, alteration or amendment. ".
Section 5 amends § 9080 of Crawford & Moses' Digest to read as follows:
"The Textbook Commission shall select and appoint at least one responsible dealer in each county to act as agent or depository for the sale and distribution, of such textbooks contracted for by such Textbook Commission; provided that, in counties where, there are two county, sites, there shall be one such dealer at each county site. The said merchants' ór dealers shall' agree with said Textbook Commission to keep a sufficient supply of said books to supply the demands at all times, and agree.'to furnish each publisher holding a contract with the State of Arkansas under this 'act an acceptable personal or surety bond covering the estimated amount of sales fo be made by him in any one year, provided such publishers or contractors require such bond, whereupon'the said'contractors or publishers shall sell to said' dealer alt books ordered by him at a discount of 15 per cent, from' the retail price; provided, thiat said schoolbook dealer shall paycash to the contractor or publisher for all books received within sixty days of the shipment of said books; provided, that the contractor shall pay all transportation' charges on freight shipments of one hundred pounds or, more to the nearest' railroad or river station to said dealer, or merchant; except that, during the exchange period provided for- in this act, the publishers or con-, tractors shall pay all transportation charges to the nearest .railroad or river station to such dealers or .merchants*, also transportation, charges.on.old books-returned to the publishers, on freight shipments of one hundred pounds or more, which are received in exchange for the new books adopted by the commission, and the dealers shall receive ten per cent, of the cash proceeds for handling said books during .such exchange period; provided, thát the Textbook Commission shall require the publishers to whom contracts are awarded to establish a central depository at Little Rock, through • which the books adopted under the provision of this act shall be distributed to local dealers in the State. The Textbook Commission may delegate to such central depository the authority to select the local dealers, as provided for in this act, and said local dealers shall become responsible to such central depository in the manner provided for in this act, instead of individual publishers. All 'books adopted under the provisions of this act shall be sold to and delivered to the pupils of this State at the retail and exchange prices agreed upon; provided, that parents or pupils desiring to do so may order books direct from the publishers, or from the central depository,' same to be sent by mail or otherwise, transportation prepaid, at the retail contract price, proyided the cash accompanies .the order. .
' 'Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prohibit any responsible merchant or dealer, not designated by the Textbook Commission, from buying and selling the books on, the same terms and conditions as apply to the designated dealers. Any merchant or dealer who shall demand or receive more than the retail contract price for any such textbooks shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100), the same to be paid to the State Treasurer and credited to the common school fund."
In the early case of State v. Allis, 18 Ark. 269, it was held that where, by a public law, agents are appointed to enter into a contract on the part of the State, the law under which they act is as much a part of the contract, when made by the agents, as if it were transcribed in the contract.
In E. O. Barnett Bros. v. Western Assur. Co., 143 Ark. 358, this was recognized as the established rule in this State, and our earlier cases on the subject are cited. The reason is that officers as well as all other interested persons are bound to take notice of the public laws of the State.
In the instant case, the State Textbook Commission had to look to the act under consideration for its authority to make the contract. It was the power under which they were to act, and the book publishers were given notice in the public advertisement for bids of that fact. The act must be construed in the light of the purpose of the General Assembly in enacting it. Giboney v. Rogers, 32 Ark. 462; Empire Carbon Works v. Barker & Co., 132 Ark. 1; and Logan v. State, 150 Ark. 486.
In Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495, the Supreme Court of the United States had under consideration the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, seeking to regulate the business of the packers done in interstate commerce and forbidding them to do a number of acts to control the prices or establish a monopoly in the business. Mr. Chief Justice Taft, in recognition of the duty of the court to consider the act whose validity was in question in the light of the environment in which Congress passed it, said: "It was for Congress to decide, from its general information and from such special evidence as was brought before it, the nature of the evils actually present or threatening, and to take such' steps by legislation within, its power as it deemed proper to remedy them. It is helpful for us, in interpreting its validity, to know the conditions under which Congress acted. ' '
In Bowman v. Hamlett, 166 S. W. 1008, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky had under consideration a suit the purpose of which was to test the constitutionality and to obtain an interpretation of an act commonly known as the School Textbook Commission Law. In considering the rules for the guidance of. the court in interpreting the act, it was said:
"The one demand for this legislation, the one purpose sought to be accomplished, the one intent of those favoring the act, was to protect the consumer, to procure for the users of school textbooks the lowest prices for which such books could be sold anywhere. The object of the Legislature was to benefit the last purchasers— the people. The law was enacted in the interest of this class, and of this class alone. The Legislature fully understood that the publishers and the retail dealers could take care of themselves without any assistance from the lawmaking .power, if it should be conceded that the lawmaking power could legally assist them, and that no provision of the act was intended to advance. the interests of either."
Bearing in mind that the object of the law creating the State Textbook Commission and authorizing it to prpvide for the selection of a uniform series of textbooks for the public schools, and to make contracts with book publishers to furnish the same for a term of years, was for the benefit and protection of the people and not of the book publishers, we are. of the opinion that it was the intention of the Legislature that the book publishers should establish a central depository at their own cost, and that the cost of its establishment should not be passed on to the people, by an estimate that the cost of the pentral depository should be added to the cost of the books. It will be noted that the act is specific in its terms. It provides that the retail price of every book should be printed or stamped on the back or inside cover thereof, together with the exchange price between the old and new books of the same grade. It also provides that the exchange price of such, books exchanged shall be fixed in the contract, and that such exchange price shall not bé above or in excess of the exchange price charged in the contract within a year next preceding upon the same book or books in' any other State. The act provides that the Textbook Commission shall select and appoint at least one responsible dealer in each county to act as agent or depository for the sale and distribution of the textbooks contracted for by the Textbook Commission. The publishers or contractors are required to enter into bonds to sell all books ordered by them at a discount of 15 per cent. The act further provides that the Textbook Commission shall require the publishers to whom contracts are awarded to establish- a central depository at Little Rock, through which the books adopted under the provisions of this act shall be distributed to local dealers in the 'State.
In the interpretation of this clause lies the whole nub of this case. The American Book Company claims that it had a right to estimate the cost of establishing such central depository and add same to its bid in fixing the retail price which should be printed or stamped on the back of the books. The American Book Company estimated that 10 per cent, of the wholesale price of the book would cover this cost, and introduced evidence to show that such estimate was reasonable. In addition, the 15 per cent, allowed by the statute as profit to the county depositories was added. Thus it will be seen that the American Book Company, in making its bid and fixing the retail or contract price which was to be printed or stamped on the back or inside cover of every book sold, took into consideration the wholesale price of the book, the 15 per cent, allowed by the statute to the retailer, and the 10 per cent, which it claims the statute allows for the cost of establishing the central depository. As we have already seen, the 'statute was passed for the benefit of the people, and its main object was to furnish textbooks at the lowest cost.
In arriving at this result several elements of value would be considered. In the first place would be the initial cost of the book, and its quality as a textbook. In the next place, the contract being for a number of years, frequent changes could not be made in textbooks, and people removing from one part of the .State to another part of it would not have to go to the expense of buying additional books. Then, too, the Legislature doubtless had in mind the cost of distributing the books. It recognized that this might vary greatly in different States or even in different sections of the same State. It evidently had in mind to standardize or to make this cost as uniform as possible. In doing this the cost of transportation and the cost of handling the books would be important factors. The framers of the act had in mind that the publishers of the textbooks on the same subject might, and doubtless would, vary greatly in their estimates of the cost of transportation and of distribution. Hence it was intended to put this matter at rest, so far as the Textbook Commission and the people were concerned, by inserting in the statute the provision requiring the publisher or contractor to establish a central depository at Little Bock through which the books adopted under the provisions of the act should be distributed to the local dealers in the State, and that the cost of the central depository should be paid by the publisher or contractor, and should not be passed on to the users of the books in the public schools.
The-decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Duncan v. Heyward, 54 S. E. 760, by inference supports this construction of the statute. In that case the court had under consideration an act conferring on the State Board of Education the power to prescribe and enforce the use of a uniform series of textbooks and require the publishers, in the discretion of the board, to establish in each county in the State one or more depositories of their books. The court held that, under the general powers conferred upon the State Board of Education to secure uniformity in the use of textbooks, the State Board of Education might provide by contract with publishers of school textbooks that they should maintain at the State Capital a central wholesale depository from which its agents and county depositories might be supplied at a discount of not less than 10 per cent. In discussing the question the court said: ground for the board to reach the conclusion that, by the use of a central depository, the convenience of patrons might be greatly promoted, with such advantages and savings to the publishers as would enable them to pay 10 per cent, for maintaining it without increasing the price of the books in the hands of the pupil, or 'the first cost' referred to in the act of 1905 (25 St. at Large, p. 877)."
"Unquestionably it is still the duty of the Board of Education to use all reasonable means to secure the lowest possible prices consistent with the successful conduct of the schools; but, as we have seen, there was some
In the case at bar a similar provision was enacted in the law by the Legislature and became a part of the contract. But it is claimed that such a construction would make it impossible for some publishers to comply with our law without forfeiting their bonds in other States, because if the 10 per cent, for the cost of the central depository at Little Bock should be charged to the book publishers or contractors,, this would necessarily cause their books to be sold in this State lower'than in other States, and thereby cause it to violate its contracts in other States with school textbook commissions. Such considerations can have no place in the courts. They might have been properly addressed to the Legislature as a reason why it would be bad policy to enact a law like the one under consideration, because book publishers would decline to bid with such a provision in force.
In this connection it may be stated that the book publishers were advised of the provisions of the law bef ore they made their bids. Three other book publishers bid on textbooks on the same subjects as those embraced in the contract under consideration in this case, and in. making their bids they interpreted the statute just as we have construed it, and made their bids accordingly. The act was the power under which the textbook commissioners were to act. They could make no contract contrary to its provisions, and, having made a contract in violation of the provisions of the statute, it is void and no action can be maintained on it. Arkansas Foundry Co. v. Stanley, 150 Ark. 127; Lewelling v. St. Francis County Road Improvement District No. 1, 158 Ark. 91.
If the contract is void, it follows as a necessary consequence that no action can be maintained on the bond given by the American Book Company. The bond was given to secure the faithful performance of the contract, and if the contract is void and of no effect, the bond must fall with it. If the contract was void, mandamus would not lie to compel A. B. Hill, as Superintendent of Public Instruction, to execute it. ' As said by Mr. Chief Justice Puller in Brownsville v. Loague, 129 U. S. 493, "mandamus lies to compel a party to do that which it is his duty to do without it. It confers no new authority, and the party to be coerced must have the power to perform the act."
The result of our views is that the circuit court erred in awarding a writ of mandamus to compel A. B. Hill, as Superintendent of Public Instruction and ex-officio secretary of the State Textbook Commission, to execute the contract in question, and for that error the judgment is reversed, and the cause of action is dismissed here.
The decree- of the chancellor was correct, and it will therefore be affirmed.