New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-02-28

er aye orno. Thus when the motion to
appoint L. S. Koch teacher in the pub.
lie schools was before the board, Presi.
dent Stricken, who had dumped half a
bushel of papers upon the table, discov-
cred with well-fe1gned surprise that he
had left the papers of the Hazard candi-
dates at home. Not even Koch's appli-
cation was produced. Every one of the
Five knew that Mr.. Koch's only recon-
mendation was by teachers agency
had Mr.. Scherer, the only member who
had previous experience in public school
matters and the selection of teachers.
known this, he would certainly have
voted against Kcch's appointment. But
Mr.. scherer was given no opportunity
to learn anything of the qualifications of
Mr.. Koch, and for this reason could not
| vote. It was afterwards claimed that
Mr.. Scherer was equally responsible with
the other members for the troubles grow
ing out of Koch's appointment because
he '.had voted in favor of the same.'
The promise by leaders and candidates
OF the opposition to retain Supt. Nix hap
evidently not been made to be kept. DIR.
Strickler's father-in-law wanted Mr.. Nix
removed and DR.: Strick ler had five votes
in the board. In view of the fact that
the expected majority of 800 had dwin-
| died to 10 ont of 1925 votes cast, and
that ano;ner election will inevitably be
held in July 1894, DR.. Strickler and his
associates decided not to discha1 ge Mr.. Nix
atonce, but to make enough trouble for him
to cause him to resi- gn. With such men
in power, Mr.. Nix considered it his duty
to the schools with which he had been
connected for II years, to remain at his
post until discharged. While protesting
that they had"the most unqualified conf
deuce in his ability as a superintendent
| and educator" the Five missed no op-
portunity to lay indignities upon him.
He was no longer consulted in the sele>,-
ton Of teachers; when his opinion was
| asked it was either on matters of no con-
sequence, ,or on points On which they knew
that every honest man in his position
and with his experience, must dissent
from the opinions previously concocted
in the conclave. The Five were subsc-
quently pleased to call these expressions
of opinion given by Mr.. Nix at their re-
quest, ''offensive remarks.''
The first important change made by the
new board was the abolition of the perma-
nent tenure of office system. Not one of the
Five claimed that this system, in the
form given it here by the experience of
several decades, had worked unsatisfac-
torily. But they pretended to fear that
it might cause trouble in the future, and
without acting on Supt. Nix's sugges-
tions as to probationary service, passed
resolution requiring teachers to apply
anew for their positions before July 1st
of every year, such applications to be
acted upon in the July meeting, cor as
soon thereafter as possible.' 1t IS evil
IDENTIFY the intention to place the exper-
fenced teachers of this district in COM
petition with birds of passage willing to
nest in these parts for season or SO at
almost any salary. Verify, New Ulm
has become Ell Dorado for the shelf
worn collections of teachers agencies.
| During the first two months of the
new regime, the clerk of the board did
not enter the minutes in the book provi-
ded for that Iurpose uotil after their
adoption by the board. Mr.. Scherer re-
peatedly protested against such pro-
ceedings, and this reform was d1scontin-
ued after it had served its purpose.
The board met Sept. II, 1898, for the
purpose of electing one ". A. Milne a
teacher in the public schools. Pres't
Strickler read the special certificate (per-
nit to teach) which the local examiners
had conditionally issued to Mr.. Milne.
Dr.. Strickler then claimed that Milne did
not need the local certificate because he
| held a State Certificate. Mr.. Scherer
pointed out the absurdity of employing
a teacher to teach branches never studied
by him. But DR.. Strickler desired to
| have Milne elected, and that meant 4
votes, Mr.. silverson being out of the ci-
ty. To give these men more time to
consider the matter, Mr.. Scherer objected
to further proceedings on the ground
that the meeting had not been legally