South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1891-05-08
County Superintendent.


matter it is that our schools should be
properly supe,iatended and taught,
the two pieces in your last Issue
would be subjects of amusement.
First MIR, Shaver does not care t,
incur the cost of public explanation,
but invites voters TO approlch him
one by one, SO that (as presume,
he can suit his explanation to each
individual case. (By the way, as he
is known a, o arm believer in the
max'u, oil Franklin. ''a penny saved
is penny gained" would suggest
that in his next report 10 the State
Superintendent he renew his recon-
mendatlon that County Superinten =
dents he allowed stationery and
stamps.) Ii Mr.. S. has further
details 20 give 10 the "entire sa;is-
faction" Of ally one. why does be not
publish them so that all can have the
benefit Of themP No, Mr., Shawen,
it is not mater OF "opinion," It is a
question OF knowledge, Of "fact."
chsrilably a'cribed your statement
t. fault Of memory, but I now sol.
EMMY say that ! knoW you were 10 or.
ror when you stated that the matter
OF the certificate restod quietly from
1886 to 1889. Will you say over your
own signature that did not repeat.
edly urge you to an inves,rg alton
after 1t was first mentioned to you?
But tue real "fun" comes in with
Mr., Riley, He states that he told
Mr., Shawen that ne had held SIC No
l certifca'e s prior TO 1886 II this is
so the county Superintendent have
treated Mr.. r. vety badly indeed.
He s credited as follows in their re-
ports To the STATE SupeIintenden :
In 1873. No. 4; 1880. No. 81; 1881,
No. 2; 1888, No. f.; 1884. No. 2,
report for 1885 not at hand, but
believe he received a No. |. But
strangest OF al, while seemingly de,
Tending Mr.. Shawen he Indirectly
brings most grave charge aeai nst
him. lie says do not knot0 MGt nly
certificate ,cds 1eVoked." Is il possl .
be that the Board would revoke &
certificate without giving no ice TO
the holder that lie might defend him.
sef and il revoked. not uotfy him OF
tdg factP Did Mr. Riley continue to
each by authority OF the years r.
lihcate, or did Re file the one got for
"iunP' The results OF such cer,ifi-
Gates may be "Gun for tie ''boys''
Qcachers) but they may be intellectual
and moral death 10 the children,
Further, II he was not notified bow
did the Board get the information on
which his certificate was revoked.
(Unless Mr.. S is ore Of the Jealous
demagoges" referred to by 81. Riley,
who failed to pan out for 10 a let
ter to me Mr.. ShaWen says: "Mr.
HieLps hooks are inde hnile-som q
stubs not filed out at all. No one
can tell from the books He repeat.
edlY told me the same thing, and
when asked TO produce the books
that might examine them, failed to
do so though ! had ~ much right 10
nccess TO them as las had,
1t Is hardly Necessary TO ref, 10 Mr..
RIley's personal alIusionq 10 nv.
self. IL may have been Fortunate
for teachers who wanted better certi-
ficates than they neri.td, that was
"snubbed" and defeated by a few
votes when a candidate for Superin.
tendent. refused TO sign more than
one certificate when last member OF
the Examining BOARD, anil time has
justified my action, as can be easily
Shown. have received No. certi.
ficstes IN this and other counties when.
ever wisl Ell TO use them, and IN
Ohio. Whether deserved lie not for
me to say, but as TO the results Of nv
tesobiuy, (tbe true test proudly 70
fer To hundreds Of men and women
taught 10 Frederick CO., Va, and in 8
or counties In w Va. | will risk
Sue statement that two OF the now an
nouncCd candidates for County SUI
porintendent will not say that they
are my lhe less fitted for the rsspon.
sible position to which they aspire by
having been my pnpils. bave never
been 'snubbed'Or defeated in Bloom.
cry district, and bsve held the mos
responsible District Office Tor I 5 years
Bat no intelligent reader Of Mr.. RI.
ley's letter wants better evidence thar