New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1892-08-10
CALLED EACH OTHER NAMES
The new School Board Finds Time to IN
dulge in Shameful Personalities.
Mr.. silVerson Assumes a Leading Role and
Makes Unfounded Charges Against
Prof. Nix
The Latter Does not Minee Matters but
Uses language Familiar to Every
body.

Saturday night after the new school
board had elected its officers and accom-
plished an organization, Mr.. Silverson
sought to breed trouble by the introduc-
ton of several resolutions. One of these
denounced in no uncertain terms What is
known as the Fari5ault and Saltwater
systems as proposed by Archbishop Ire
land. Of'course this was passed and re-
ceived the cordial endorsement of every
member of the board.
The other resolution, and the one
which stirred up the strife, provided
that whenever teacher should be re-
ported as saying anything derogatory to
the members of the board that teacher
should be per-emptorily discharged.
Here there was room for discussion and
in giving his reasons for the intr oduc-
ton of the resolution Mr.. Silverson
stated that he had heard that Prof. Nix
had read the proofs in the REVIEW office.
of the articles that appeared in recent
number of that paper. To this Mr.. Nix
added an emphatic denial and demanded
of his accllser to state the source of his
information This was said to be Col.
Baasen and thereupon the professor re-
marked that If Col. Baasen had made
any such statement as that he was a
liar. This remark, so brief and vet SO
pointed, caused rustic and Mr.. Silver
son said that:the professor had better
see Col. Baasen before making remarks
of such nature. Peter Scherer inter
posed at this juncture and read the
members, who are seeking to stir up so
much strife for personal reasons, a lee
ture that they deserved. He forbid Mr..
Nix to do anything of the kind and
charged those who wanted to make ac-
cusations to- appear before the board
and substantiate them. Even a crimin
al, he said, was entitled to fair hear
ing,in open court, and Mr.. Nix, he
thought, was deserving of as much.
This settled the discussion, brought the
disputers to time and the resolution
never came to a vote.
Regarding the accusation referred to
in the above, the Review feels that it has
alright to say word both in justice to
itself and to Prof. Nix. Not only has aschool
teacher as much right to speak against
members of the school board as anyone
else, but it is small business for members
of the board to devote the time allotted
by law for the performance of their du-
ties to discussing matters that have alb
solutely nothing to do with the conduct
Of the schools. Furthermore it is entire
" out Of place in members, who swear
upon taking their oath of office to. sol
emily attend to business, to spend valu-
able time, that might be appropriated to
better advantage, in trying to decide who
81 & +
writes the editorials in a paper Like the
Review,wfich they themselves confess to
hold in utter contempt. For the life Of
us, we fail to see what difference itmakes
to the school board whether those arti-
cles We're written by the editor of the
REVIEW or by someone else. One thing
is certain, they were written and the Re-
VIEW editor is the only party to be. held
responsible for them. If they don'tsuit,
Prof. Nix is not to be held blamable and
the school board sessions are not inten-
ded as places TO assign the authorship.
1t should be left to men like Mr. Donnel-
ly to rob writer's of their due and place
the laurels on another.