New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-01-10

everything in his power to undermine
his (Milne's) position. Mr.. Milne also
said that he had never before made any
statement to any person whatever which
could be..construed as charge or COM
! plant against said Examiners; and that
he preferred to make such charges in
their presence, wherein he differed from
said Examiners. Examiner Schaller
Mines remarks we're uncalled for. Ex-
aminers Nix and Eckstein, after reprov-
ing MI. Milne for his insolence, demand
ed that he specify his charges against
them. Mr.. Milne replied that he needed
time for thinking over the matter, where
upon Examiner Nix inquired whether
Mr.. Milne could not comply with..the re-
quest without asking certain parties for
instructions. Mr.. Milne remarked that
he should like to see his paper on Eng
lish grammar, in which the questions had
been such as>he would give pupil Is yrs.
of age. He also said that his examina-
ton in physics had been unfair because
the Examiners made no allowance for
the fact that he had made mistake in
copying the answer to certain problem.
The Chairman interrupted him by the re-
mark, "Unfair in yoa1r opinion" where
upon Mr.. Milne said that said action of
| the Examiners was considered improper
by educators that had far more experience
| in this field than the Examiners in ques-
tioE. Examiners Ecks:cin and Nix de-
manded that Mr.. Milne submit his charg-
es against them in writing. Mr.. Milne
did not say whether he would Go so.
Examiner Nix stated that he had asked
Mr.. Milne at least six times for the auto
biographical sketch which this Board re-
quires teachers of this city to file with
its Secretary, and that Mr.. Milne had
promised each time, except the last time,
to deliver such sketch within day or
two. MIR. Milne admitted that he had
been asked for said sketch probably six
times, but denied that he had ever prom
ised to deliver it. Examiner Nix re-
marked that this was a question of verac-
ity between Mr.. Milne and himself, to
which MIR. Milne replied that it might
be question Of memory.
Mr.. Milne was then asked by Chair
man Eckstein why he had claimed in his
application that he had been granted a
State Certificate for Minnesota without
examination. He replied that he did
not know at the time what was meant by a
State Certificate, and that he had under
stood a certain statement relative to the
granting ofaP Principals Certificate in case
of his election to the Principalship of a
State High School to be equivalent to
the granting of State Certificate. The
Chairman then asked Mr.. Milne whether
he now holds State Certificate. Mr..
Milne refused to answer this question.
Mr.. Mines attention was then called to
the following statements contained in
his application: II am graduate of the
Clinton Collegiate Institute and the
Ottawa Normal School, taking the full
course in each. am also an under-g grad
uate of Toronto University" He was
asked by the Chairman during what year
or years he attended Toronto University
He replied that this question would be
answered in his biographical sketch.
The following communication was
then read:
university of Toronto:
Memorandum from the Registrar.
3, 10, 1898.
R. Nix Esq,
New Ulm, MINI.
Dear Sir
| [ do not find that
VIM. A. Milne ever attended the Univer-
sity. If he says he was present any years,
let him say what these were, and I shall
try to verify them.
Yours truly,
James Brebner"
Examiner Nix said, if Mr.. Milne had
filed the promised biographical sketch.
the question ofhis attendance at Toronto
University could have been decided long
ago.
Mr.. Milne was then asked by Chair
man Eckstein why he had submitted a
Second Glass Professional Certificate t.
the Board of Education. as we'll as to