New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-10-01
THE SCHOOL MEETING.

result OF the much heralded mass meetlnS
in Lafayette square. 1t was a trlflng
| affair from beginning to end. A great oc-
| casion presented itself in which we ez-
! pected to see men come forward and speak
specifically, intelligently and pointedly OF
| matters in which we are all interested.
Nothing Of the kind was witnessed. Not
charge in the bill of Indictment was
proved; net one of the alleged violations
of law was sustained, or can be, for no
law has been violated. The general ar
raignment ofthe character for intelligence,
morality and competency of majority OF
the members of the School Board raised
simply question of opinion, and one
which the speakers at the meeting show ed
| their inability to grapple with.
The principal speaker, if not the only
one who essayed serious argument, was
Judge J. H. kennard, who is known to
the members Of the bar as lawyer OF
average ability, and to his friends as a
gentleman WHO can make fair plea when
sufficiently fortified with the facts in the
case under discussion. Bat on this &C.
casion he came into court utterly unpre-
pared. He is sadly wanting both in Lis
law and evidence, and his speech, or
harangue, stands before the public sad
failure. We shall notice a few Of his
more glazing inaccuracies;
We agree with the speaker in his esti-
mate of the Importance of the school
question in all its bearings. There is but
little to divide an honest Democrat and a
Republican upon the main issue. But
when he accuses the present School
Board Of arrogating to themselves au-
thority which no law, human or divine,
sanctions, We beg to inquire what this
usurped authority is. 1t is true he
charges the board with a violation
Of the constitution of the United
States, forgetting to point out the
disregarded section, and of the civil rights
bill, which is silent on the subject of
schools. 1t seems to one not a lawyer
that it is impossible to violate law
which is destitute of even a mention CT
the matter involved. We cheerfully grant
that the constitution of the United States
and the civil rights bill are the paramount
law of the land; but as neither anywhere
addresses the boards of school directors
of the several States in any terms either
of mandate or prohibition, we find it i'm
possible to understand how the New Or
leans board has in any respect violated
either. The national laws being silent,
the board is compelled to take the law of
Louisiana for its guide. Mr.. Kennard
may raise doubts as to the binding force
of a State law when speaking to lay
audience on Lafayette square, but he
would never expose himself to the ridicule
which would follow such plea before
legal tribunal. He, therefore, did
not speak to the people as lawyer. We
hardly think he would urge in an argu-
ment before the Supreme Court that
party was liable to be punished for violat-
ing the civil rights bill, and in almost the
next sentence declare the same act to be
unconstitutional from beginning to end,
and that with the school clause excluded.
If the national law, which Judge Kennard
says the School Board has violated, be un.
constitutional, as he tells the people it
has been declared to be, what else have
the directors to fall u Ek upon except the
State law They stand On that law, and
are doubtless willing TO stand or fall with
it. Each member has sworn to support
it, and we have yet to hear of specific
case of violation by single member Of
the board, by the Superintendent or by
any teacher. The directors have nothing
to do with the question whether the law
is proper, is popular, is the best that could
be framed, or not. 1t is their guide, as it
would be Mr.. Kennard's were he a mem
Der of the board. As private citizen he
may criticize any law, and demand its re-
peal. So may every citizen. But officers
must yield implicit obedience to the acts
of the Legislature or violate their oaths Of
office.
There is no force in the argument of
the learned counselor, that because the
members of the board have not heretofore
carried out the provisions of the law re-
quiring the schools to be mixed, they have
forfeited their salaries, because:
l. The schools in many districts have
been mixed for several years.
2. The members of the board do not
receive one cent of pay, either directly or
indirectly.
Mr.. Kennard is, therefore, mistaken,
both as to the law and the facts, and ap-
parently knows very little about the pub
lie schools, the members of the board, or
the manner in which the laws are enforced.
This is most unfortunate. Hence our
disappointment. We had hoped for an
ineligible discussion of the alleged errors
of the board, with view to having them
corrected. But instead of this, the re.
marks of the speakers were a mass of
words, bundle of assertions palpably.
VIGOROUSLY groundless, as two-thirds of
the pupils know, Even the reaolnt;o,,s os-