Nebraska Case Cited.
Gen. Stewart—Yes, sir.
The opinion in the Nebraska case says, "nor has challenge been made of the state's power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports." Here in Rhea county is a high school erected, supported and maintained by the public treasury, by the school fund that is taken from that treasury—by the money that is paid into the court from the pockets of the taxpapers of Rhea county and of the state of Tennessee. Isn't that a school that is supported by the state? And the supreme court of the United States says, "Nor has challenge been made of the state's power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports."
How much stronger could they make the language? How much more, Your Honor, would we have them say than to recognize the right of the state of Tennessee to direct and control the curriculum in the Rhea County High School. That is the question. I think that is settled; that is the highest tribunal of our nation speaking.
I want to cite 7 Mellory, 240, the Indiana case which holds, in substance, that the regulation of public schools is a set matter exclusively within the dominion of the legislature.
There are a great many authorities along this line shedding light over different angles. But, your honor, I think it is sufficient here for the state, insofar as anything else I might have to say here is concerned, to rightly, wholly and entirely in accord with what I have already said upon the case of the state of Tennessee vs. Leeper, that one from Blount county.
The Court—Have you the book?
Gen. Stewart—Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, the case in Oregon, recently decided, in which Justice McReynolds also rendered the opinion, is at one with the Nebraska case.
The Court—Have you the opinion?
Gen. Stewart—Yes, sir.
The Court—I wish you would preserve that.
Gen. Stewart—It holds the same as the Indiana case which I just referred to, Your Honor.
Now, if Your Honor please, I prefere to read this Leeper case to the court.
The Court—I wish you would read the entire case if it is not too long.
Mr. Darrow—I guess he can state it in a minute. Take as long as you want, though.
Mr. Stewart—This is 103 Tennessee, 504. The defendant was convicted of violating the uniform textbook law and sentenced to pay a cost of $10. I will not read the indictment.
Mr. Darrow—Is that what you want to go into?
Gen. Stewart—You may read it if you care to. On this same question. (Reading from the State of Tennessee, 103, 504, Edward Leeper vs. State of Tennessee, the defendant, a public school teacher, beginning with the words, "did unlawfully use and permit to be used," etc., to "prescribed the terms upon which it may be done in the interest of the citizen.")
Gen. Stewart—Then they discuss the question of monopoly, and whether they have a right to make this restriction upon the publishers of these books. Then, going further into the question, the question of police power, they say: (Reading beginning with "It is said that the schools do not belong to the state," and ending with words "best interest of the citizens will be conserved.")
They come back upon that question, I thought I had gotten beyond that question.
(Reading beginning with words "We are of the opinion" and ending with words "prevent benefit from book dealers.")
Now, if Your Honor please, they wind up here with further remarks along that line, but they adopt the opinion there, as I just finished reading, and they say in State vs. Hawer, that the control of the public school system must be lodged
