New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-11-05

In accordance with the official notice of
Superintendent Brown, there was meet
ing Of the State Board of Education yester-
day at the rooms of the State Superinten-
dent in the State House. The object was
to hear any charges that might be brought
! against any member of the board of di-
rectors of the sixth district (Orleans) as
limited at or alleged in various communica-
tiOns to that board and to the State Super
iAtendent. In accordance with this pur-
pose each member had received the follow
ing notification:
| STATE OF LOUISIANA
Office of the State Board Of Education.
| New Orleans, October l6, lsT5.j
To whom it may concern
By order of the president special meet
ing of the State Board of Education is
hereby called at the Capitol On Thursday,
November d. 1875, at twelve o'clock NJ, for
the purpose of hearing the charges made
against the members OF the city Board of
School Directors, parish of Orleans, sub
mitted by the committee appointed by the
mass meeting in Lafayette square, assem-
bled September 30, 1875
M. C. COLE, Secretary.
The call for the meeting was read by Sec
retary Cole.
Present-Superintende w. G. Brown
and District Superintendent E. s. Stod-
dard, George B. Loud, c. w. Boothby and
T. NJ. Chester.
All the members of the city directory
were present.
Superintendent Brown stated the object
of the meeting, namely, to hear any evi-
dence the committee Of citizens who had
made charges against the city board had to
offer. He had notified the committee and
received the following reply:
| NEW ORLEANS, November 4, 1875.
William G. Brown, State Superintendent. of Educa.
| ti0n:
| SIR-1Our communication of the thirtieth
| ultimO has been received and considered. l
am instructed to say to you, that evidence
| of the charge of nom visitation of schools is
within your own reach, and the charges of
incapacity and OF holding two offices are
too notorious to need proof Very respect
fully, etc.
P. NJ. BAKER,
| Chairman Committee of Citizens.
Mr.. Brown then said that he repudiated
the assertion that such evidence was within
his reach. He knew Of none. The directors
present are prepared to answer the charges
1
letter. The board will determine whether
any action is to be taken, no accuser ap-
pearing.
Mr.. Chester considered that the board
could not properly ask these gentlemen to
make defense where there was no accusa-
ton. The mere publicity in newspaper or
by written charges to the Superintendent
were not sufficient, when the board was as
sembled to hear definitely what was com
plaiued of. The board had done all it could
do thus far. 1t had notified both parties
and the accusers refused to appear. Either
they must substantiate or abandon their
charges in the investigation, or whatever it
might be called.
The board went into executive session
after agreeing to adjourn to Friday at
twelve o'clock NJ,
| The following are some Of the answers
filed:
| New ORLEANS November 4, 1875.
| To the Honorable the State Board of Education:
| GENTLEMEN-I have received notice to
appear before your body this day to an.
swer certain charges made against me as q
member of the School Board of New Or
| L
stand that l am charged with dereliction of
duty under section eight of act No. l23 of
| 1874, and my removal is further asked upon
the ground that hold two offices, in viola
tion of section III of the constitution.
| With reference to the first charge, have
| the honor to reply:
l have been president of the board since
its organization in April, 1871. l have con-
stantly discharged my duties as such officer
| and have been called upon almost daily
| during the several intervening school terms
| to perform some duty belonging to the
office. have given much of my time and
| my best efforts to this work without com
| pensatiOp, and wishing for no other reward
| than the consciousness of having assisted
| in maintaining the free public schools As
president of the board l was not called
upon to perform committee duty in visiting
| the schools; nevertheless deny that have
violated section eight of act No. 1913 of 1874.
answer now specifically to the charge of
neglect of duty, that it is frivolous and
without foundation.
In regard TO the demand for my removal
because hold another office, reply: In
| nv judgment, TO use the language of the
supreme Court in the case of Dorsey We.
Vaughan, Fifth Annual Reports, page 156,
''the incompatibility contemplated by the
constitution is the holding of two State Of
fees.
But it is further and sufficient answer
to this demand to say that the State Board
of Education has no jurisdiction to deter
mine the question. 1t should be referred to
the courts. School directors are appointed
for term of three years. They may be re.
moved by the State board for Ger ain speci-
fed causes after due trial. But this tribu-
nal is not vested with jurisdiction to try
constitutional questions. 1t might be good
ground tor refusing to appoint person as a
director because he holds another office;
but having appointed him he has vested
right to his office, and may hold it for the
whole term, subject to three contingencies:
The Legislature may abolish the office or
shorten his term; he may be ousted by the
courts under the intrusion in Office act If he
has been improperly appointed or holds in
the State Board for dereliction of duty after
due trial.
The premises considered, therefore re-
spectfully submit that the charges preferred
against me should be dismissed.
HENRY c. DIBBLE.
New ORLEANS, November 2, 1875.
of Education:
GENrLEMEN-Ont the etwenty-eighth ultimo
! received the following communication
In reply 1 have to say: Under ordinary
circumstances I should feel it my duty to
appear before your honorable body and
make answer to any charges that might be
preferred against me, however trivial, in
significant or malicious the accusations; but
in this instance-being satisfied that my ao-
cuser6 are a6tuated by no desire to advance