The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1868-06-27
Qhe lnt Q1llet.
The OdIous school Rule.

/ the OdIous school Rule. =
Editors LntelEigsNeef n le
In Justice to the subject In contro
versV, and the orphan children de
| barred from the public schools,3I ash
your Indulgence to reply to the eva
I sions of the points in dispute.
In my previous articleEIL made two
points, first, the matter of veracity be-
tween the Superintendent, Mr.. Vii
liams, DIR. Baird, and Mr.. Glohan. AZ
the meeting of the Board of Education
| 1t was stated by DR.. Baird and Mr.
Clohan that children were debarred
from the public schools for not having
\ the word necessary in their excuses
This statement the Superintendent de-
MED. I left the matter of veracity t.
the parties. As the advocate of Mr.. vii
llams has eyaded this, I am COMPEL ed
to refer to it again. 1t is evident to al
! that a, lie Is ont. The question the adj
| vocate should have discussed Isl who
is guilty of the falsehood. r,
1 risk nothing in saying that DR.
l'Raird or Mr.. Clohan will outweigh the
/ superintendent on the scale of veracity,
separately; this added to the fact, be-
ling VIGOROUSLY known to parents and
pupils. that they are 5debarred except
the excuse contains the word necessary,
is sufficient to enable the youngest
child in the school to point its finger al
the guilty party.
Is this teaching the pupils to lie by
example, or what the advocate would
lcalI implied acts? Is this the reason
children educated in public schools are
better experts in falsehood than those
educated In private schools2 In The
second place, / claimed this odioua
rule was defeating the object the foun-
ders ofpublic schools had in contem-
platIon; that poor children are no bet
I TtnaVNl q dc
rule ia enforced than without them-in
some cases much worse. refer to such
cases as when the parent has paid his
last dollar to prevent the Sheriff from
taking his premises for school tax, has
nothing left TO educate his children at
private schools, that the rule has a
strong temptation to induce the parents
to lie and say the absence was neces-
sary. These and various other reasons
relating to the improprlety Of this rule
| was evaded in a manner acknowledged
by all gentlemen to be dishonorable,
unjust and unfair in discussion. Honor
and common honesty should dictate to
the advocato that his duty was first to
acknowledge the guilt of the Superin-
tendant or endeavor to the best of his
limited abilities to present his inno-
cence.
In the second place, 10 explain what
benefit the school or pupils derive by
inserting the word necessary in the ex-
cuse or the evil of emitting the same.
These two points contain the whole
controversy. The advocates of this
rule have been appealed to again and
again to state the reason or utility OF
the word necessary.
They answer by saying the rule Is
Indispensable. Mr.. Williams states SO.
If you ask why you are told the school
would become demoralized. Mr.. Will
lIams is certain it would. The ques-
ton has been put in this way. State
the word and the benefit by inserting
the same? The answer Is the best educA-
tors in the land have adopted this rule.
Mr.. Williams has ascertained this by
inquiry. They have recently censed
quoting Mr.. Williams aa authority.
Here, Mr.. Editor, 1 would stop did I
not believe the vanity of tho advocate
would prompt him to call his subter-
fuge arguments unanswerable. He asks
why should the question be opened
again2 It was opened by his declaring
an orphan child from the school with
out just cause. The Board of Educa-
ton took action in the case, and the
been debarred from the school owing
to the omission of the word necessary.
The advocate for the two-fold object OF
obtaining notoriety and directing pub
lie attention from the matter of veraci-
ty, spread himself in half column OF
the INTELL1aENcER, with the title OF
Mr., ], @. futile, Principal of Fourth
Ward Public Schools, &c. This brought
out Taxpayer. The advocate then dis
covered he had made a leapin the dark,
and to cover his tracks appeared again
and exclaimed, why is this question
opened again, teigntng Ignorance ofthe
cause of the controversy. His next
dodge is the Superintendent is not re-
sponsible for his last article.
The Superintendent is the original
embrio the primo print. and conse-
quently responsible for all the contro-
versy.
Third dodge.-No man has contribu-
ted more to the successful operation,
DO, of tho public schools than Mr..
me for doubling his Yeracily. Twill
refer to figures, they will not lie. lfll
SUPERINTENDENT PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN Ac-
COUNT WITH THE SAME, DR.
Tocash paid annual salary per youeh-, -. :.
s oied, annual value Of once fur
cash paid BY parents 10 private tn.
tors to avoid the difficulties of the
odious rule, as per receip nled..... ~
To value of lost time spent by me-
chRnics. 1aborers, and Others, hunt
ing the Superintendent ano plead
ing for permission for their child.
rem TO re-enter the school, said III
parents too conscientious to lie by ~
representing the absence necessary.
Sec employers booRs,.........,.,.....,. 1S-- q
To value OF education TO children
who are deprived Of the same by s. $50
the odious rule and poverty OF pa
To amount or Injury. morally. by bad
example. See DR.. Baird and Clo-
nan ....'"......,.......'..........,'...
..G sl,eO4 %
CONTRA, ...,-.,--,g. CR.
teacher
CondenEIng the same fu four quar-
torly reports, and forwarding the
same to the State superintendent.
AS per the most reliable Information
10 be obtained. Sdays for an ordi-
nary 4B OO
f
$50 90
IlI.nnt,lred. flinpa mada at the taanh.