430 



ILLINOIS. 



present, or represented, when it is offered ; Ins 

 presence or request will generally deter bids, 

 but should there be persistent bidders the 

 worst that can happen to him is that he may 

 be forced to pay his tax. He can always make 

 a more favorable offer than any other bidder, 

 and thus he stands in no danger of a lona fide 

 sale of his property. Again, in the majority 

 of cases, these forfeitures do not represent the 

 inability of the owners of small amounts of 

 property to pay the taxes thereon; they repre- 

 sent valuable properties, the tax on which is 

 so large as to make the investment undesirable 

 for the average buyer. In such cases the diffi- 

 culty increases from year to year by the addi- 

 tion of the back tax, As the law now stands, 

 there is no limit beyond which these forfeit- 

 ures may not extend. In some counties there 

 are large properties which have paid no taxes 

 since 1872. The tax has been allowed to ac- 

 cumulate, and now represents such a formi- 

 dable sum as to effectually discourage any bid 

 at a sale for taxes. The owner has nothing at 

 stake. If in the end he is forced to pay the 

 tax, the penalty amounts to no more than or- 

 dinary interest upon a loan ; but he rests se- 

 cure in the belief that eventually some method 

 of wiping out this accumulation will be de- 

 vised through which he will escape the pay- 

 ment of the greater part thereof. 



The number of fire, marine, and inland in- 

 surance companies authorized to do business 

 in the State is 181, classified as follows: 8 

 joint-stock companies of Illinois, 2 mutual com- 

 panies of Illinois, 146 joint-stock companies of 

 other States, 8 mutual companies of other States, 

 and 17 foreign companies. The number of dis- 

 trict, county, and township mutual fire insur- 

 ance companies organized undar the law of the 

 State, and doing business, is 119. In the State, 

 for the year 1877, the risks written by all com- 

 panies, including those organizad under the 

 insurance law of the State, amounted to $474,- 

 531,241.39. The total amount of premiums 

 on insured property in the State during the 

 year was $4,908,295.16, and the losses paid 

 on property were only $1,929,84] .73, showing 

 an excess of $2,978,453.43 in premiums over 

 losses. 



The present military code of the State went 

 into operation on July 1, 1877. Since that date 

 18 companies of infantry, 4 of cavalry, and 3 

 of artillery have been organized and mustered 

 into the State service, and assigned to battal- 

 ions, regiments, brigades, and divisions, accord- 

 ing to geographical situation and convenience 

 of convening. The organized force of the State 

 on September 30, 1878, was 7,765 enlisted men 

 and 484 officers. 



The Supreme Court of the State rendered a 



decision relative to the admission of a pupil 



the High School in Chicago which is of in- 



t was on the application of a parent 



tor a mandamus to compel the trustees of 



ohooli to admit his son to the High School. 



Ine boy had passed the requisite examination 



in all branches ot study except grammar, 

 which his father had forbidden him to study, 

 and failing in this alone he was refused admis- 

 sion. The Court said that a father might have 

 satisfactory reasons for desiring his son per- 

 fected in certain branches of education to the 

 entire exclusion of others ; and so long as, in 

 doing so, none others were affected, it could 

 be of no concern to those having the public 

 schools in charge. Also, that under the cir- 

 cumstances shown, the requirement that a 

 knowledge of grammar should be indispensa- 

 ble to an admission into the High School was 

 unreasonable, and should be disregarded. At 

 the same time the State Superintendent has 

 given an official opinion as to the powers of 

 boards of education to exclude children from 

 the public schools. He says : 



School directors or boards of education very prop- 

 erly have large and discretionary powers in 'regard 

 to the management and control of schools, in order 

 that they may increase their usefulness and efficien- 

 cy ; but they have no power given them by law to 

 adopt rules and regulations that will deprive any of 

 the children of school age of any of the school priv- 

 ileges for any fault not their own or for any act of 

 others. In section 29, page 9 of your rules, the fol- 

 lowing is found: "Pupils of the High School who 

 vacate seats four successive weeks shall be redamit- 

 ted only on the recommendation of the principal," 

 etc. The 38th section, page 11, says every scholar 

 in the High School, or in the grammar, intermediate, 

 or primary schools, who shall be absent six half 

 days in four consecutive weeks, without an excuse 

 from the parent, etc., shall forfeit his seat. This 

 section also provides that the parent shall give as- 

 surance that the pupil will be punctual in the future. 

 In my opinion the rules quoted are arbitrary and can 

 not be enforced by law. According to the provisions 

 of the 38th section of the rules, pupils may be de- 

 prived of the privileges of the schools for no fault 

 of theirs, but for the fault of their parents, which is 

 clearly in violation of the provisions of the law. 

 The Supreme Court, in the case of Kulison vs. Post 

 (79th 111., p. 567), says a child can not be deprived of 

 the benefit of the school for trivial causes, and also 

 says, "School directors have no power to expel a 

 scholar for any reason except disobedience, refrac- 

 tory or incorrigibly bad conduct, and only for these 

 after all other means have failed." All rules and 

 regulations must be reasonable, and calculated to 

 promote the objects of the law. But for a board of 

 education to say that a child shall be deprived of the 

 privileges of the public schools because parents fail 

 or refuse to do their duty, is inconsistent and in vio- 

 lation of the spirit of the statute. Parents can not 

 be compelled to give any assurances to the board as 

 to the attendance or conduct of their children in the 

 future. If a pupil absents himself from the school 

 of his own accord, and he can not be induced to 

 change his course of action by any other means, 

 then I am of the opinion that he may legally be ex- 

 pelled; but this can not be done if the parent is at 

 fault and refuses to give the required excuse or as- 

 surances. To sum up the whole in a few words, I 

 am of opinion that the punishment of a pupil for 

 any act of the parent is a violation of law. The 

 public schools were established for the good of all 

 the children, and for the teaching especially of those 

 branches that are enumerated in the law : and to 

 accomplish this, every reasonable means should he 

 employed hy school authorities. To bar the doors 

 against children whose parents are unreasonable, or 

 those who are unable to attend regularly for any 

 cause, is not reasonable and can not be sustained. 

 There are children in every community who are 



