Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1890-03-15
lslp asstslltps,srer.


.fff lA0Cooters -
ANCAsTEn, PA, March IS, 1880.
HliaA Managers.
H.. mauagen Of the Institution for
- blind In Philadelphia have under.
- IN Investigation Of the conduct Of
Institution spurred up thereto by
nblic denunciation Of the manage
Int made by the chief instructor. The
! ~ matter that commanded the atten-
"a Of these gentlemen, who are sup
= osd to be the pink of Philadel-
,lla intelligence, was the act OF
3ke chief instructor In making
49, public allegations that drove
lem to an inquiry that clearly
G1ould have been made by them long
80. And the conclusion these gentle
IN reached in the matter, and we be-
16<e unanimously, was that the chief
s INSTRUCTOR should be at once dismissed
& - having committed gross breach Of
& H. discipline Of the institution In maxi
3ng his communication to the public
4 z&n6 not to the chief of the institution or
~ board Of managers and dismissed he
Woe accordingly. After this accomplish
kSlhent the managers proceeded to inquire
- the pupils what complaints they had
~ make, and are reported as hearing
them with incredulity and betraying
manifest inclination to consider that
s. %&verything was as 1t should be.
( This inclination IL readily to be inferred
tSom their treatment Of the chief In
$ffuctor and from the fact that any
hing wrong In the institution would BIZ
A severe reflection upon their care over
y They are themselves on trial and
& Seeing also their judges they may be
sSGxpected to reach prejudiced decision.
That q reputable and reasonable Get Of
1nuagers should be willing to discharge
4 Iom their employment this instruc-
" who reported to the public the
wrong doing Of the superintendent Of
Ss1he Institution, for the sole reason
I hdt be complained to the public and
1pt TO the accused superintendent or
board Of managers who persistently
eccd by and protected the superinten-
& ent, u probably natural; but 1t GER
oinlx js not action that will command
- sympathy aud approval Of the pub
I - What the board Of managers clearly
Ho11d have done was to investigate first
- Instructors charges; and II they
qad them false, dismiss him but
ts1e. excuse him for breach Of
pipllne that bore so abundantly good
3olk It Is highly probable that If this
tructor had complained TO the man
ox1 he would have lost his place with
Il e oecuring an investigation. He con-
nded 70 take the public into his conf
nce, secure the investigation and take
erhAnces Of keeping his place.
bis charges are true there Is no
~ that he will not be restored and
3on put In higher authority. The
nagen Of this institution cannot dis
. good and faithful officer for any
ding cause. This institution belongs
the people. 1t IL largely sustained by
1eir taxes, received through the state
oasury. 1t Is, we believe, one of those
I. charity institutions, Of
hich the state has 30 many, That beg an
4 sufficient for their support,
q but strive diligently to retain the ex pend
S teers In the control of a private manage
ent. That the state should divorce It,
*DX from all Of them 10 made clear
the conduct Of the managers
3 the Institution for the blind, who
DNV Be assumed to be saturated
aeh folly, since they can show no
4 her wisdom than to discharge the
Fnleg Instructor for telling the public
~ must be assgnied to be the exact
4 Ue4 About the instruction; who dis
1xg him FIRST for his telling and pro-
- afterward to inquire into Its truth.
81 seems, however, to be habi of the
clal mind to stick in the bark in
tnvestigation, and to be more horri-
~ at breach of discipline than at
|h actual crime. This happens to be
m forcibly illustrated just now in
8 - c0urt-martial convened at San
oaclsco to try Commander Cogh-
L. Of the navy, for making to
31&eWppaper certain statements deroga-
o4y to the standing Of the staff corps of
~ navy; the charge against the COM
ondcr being distinctly his publication
- Tho newspaper, and in no way in
}elving the truth or falsity of what he
I'D. In fact 1t is pretty generally con-
eoed that there was good deal more
pneh than poetry In what he said but
- = tried only for the saying, It
5bg1ng terrible breach OF naval disci-
,1e for an officer to talk to the public.
(lIe the managers Of the institution for
~ blind, the naval department. ex poets
~ officers to talk to the public only
through 1t. 1t is an excellent way to
~ the lips Of officers, and to keep the
nblic from knowing anything about
M condition Of the navy.
There II, however, generally a notable
Gxception in practice to the severity of
~ discipline for an officer may talk
Jgivately and write privately pretty
n1lach as he pleases, SO long as his cor
rospondents are discreet and keep his
name out of the newspapers. This
3lbeety IL doubtless due to the necessity Of
s1nle case as It is practically impossible to
\ Dedlock mans mouth or stop his pen.
IL may be, too, that 1t is an offspring
1n the old law Of libel, which made the
writing and publication the gravamen
~ ofienss and gave the truth or
1tv q what was said secondary con-
ntion.
vidently there needs to be
oem In this idea of administration,
u greater room for the doctrine that