Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 March 1890 — POINTERS FOR OUR TRUSTEES. [ARTICLE]

POINTERS FOR OUR TRUSTEES.

The SuDieme Court in the opinion rendered on the School Book Law states thus What the Law Provides. An analysis of the provisions of the statutes submitted to the light of the principles we have stated, will make clear its meaning and obj set. Sec 1 constitutes th? state board of education commissioners for the purpose of makinn selections of text<. books for use in the common schools, and designates the standard which shall guide the board in the selection of books. Sec. 2 commands tbe board to advertise for proposals n two daih newspapers in this state, and one in the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago and Lt. Louis, and directs what the action of the board shall be.

82c. 3 requires the board to examine all proposals for furnishing “school books to the people of the state, for use in the common schools.” Sec. 4 provides that if books can be furnished to “the patrons for use in the common schools of ct this state” from manuscript, the board shall invite proposals for manuscript and not for books. Sec. 6 provides that as soon as the board shall have entered into a contract it shall be the duty of the governor t issue his proclamation “announcing such fact to the people of the state.” Sec. 7 provides that when the governor shall have issued his proclamation it “shall be the duty of each and every school corporation within this state, within thirty days thereafter, and at such other as books may be needed for use in their respective school corporations, to certify to the school superi .tendent of their respective counties the number of school text books provided for in such contract required by Hie children for use in their respective school corpciations. In this section it is made the duty es the school superintendent to make a requisition for such books upon the contractor, and it is luith. r made the duty of the superintendent, noon the receipt of the books, to immediately no« tify all of the towns Lip trustees of the receipt of sueh books.

This sec Jon also declares that “it shall be tl_e duty of such trustees to immediately procure and take charge of such books, and that upon tlie receipt of such books by said school trustees they shall furnish th< m on demand to the school p?trona or school children of the corporation at the Drice fix therefor by the contract entered into between said board ot commissioners and the contractor.” It is also said in the same section that books maybe purchased from the superintendent. Sec.. 8 makes it the duty of each trustee to make a rerort of the books rrceived, the number sold and the number on band, and sec. 9 provides a penalty for a breach of dutv.

From this synopsis three impo tant things are made manifest. I'he books are to be secured for all the schools of the state. Everywhere throughout the statute the terms employed refer to the entire state—never to localities. Every provision indicates an intention to establish a uniform system, and not a provision indicates an intention,to put it in the power of any office to break the uniformity. The duty is enjoined upon all of the trustees of the state; none are excepted. The books are a' 1 to be furnished under tn,e contract and furnished without exception for all the schools of the state. The only method for securing the books is through the contract. The conclusion that th«T law is obligatory upon every school true tee within the state, is therefore irresistible.

The opinion proceeds to declare that the Trustesa Must Do Their Duty. From beginning to end there is no hint o • suggestion that some of the trustees may, and some may not, obey the law, and procure, or ecline to procure, *he books under the contract made by the state board. There is not the rem< test suggestion from which it can be inferred that the system constructed shall be treated otherwise than as a unit. Nor is there a word from which ii can be inferred that the legislature intended that inferior school officers might exercise discretionary power and thus break and defoim the uniformity and symmetry of the system All we know of the histo/y of the enactment, all we can discover as to the object of the statute (words clear in themselves, but dearer still in the light shed upon them byextrin ic facts which it is our duty to know.) In support of the conclusr n that the statute creates a uniform system, it requires that all books be pro3ured under the contract, and that school trustees may not exercise discretionary powers, but shall perform the duty enjoined upon them by procuring and distributing tbe books selected by the stat * bonru of . education, as the law commands. Upon the petition of a citizen cour s have enforced a duty less clear and imperative than that which rests upon the appellee, but the length opinion (excusable, if excusable at all, because of the magnitude and importance of th questions, involved) forbi-’s that we do more than refer to the cases. (State ex rel. vs. the school directors of Springfield, 74 Mo. 21; state ex rel. vs bo -rd of educati J), 26 Md. 505; sc hookco tn mission er s vs. state board, 26 Md. 505; Maddox vs. Neal, 45 Ark. 121 —S. C. 55 Am B 540.) ior the eiror in holding that the duty imposed upon school trustees is not imperative, the judgment must be reversed. Judgment reversed, with in str actions to proceed in accordance with this opinion.