The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-12-10

MIR. Wormser-The committees action
has not nor cannot be questioned. II ~
had been l would be the first to agree 10
having the testimony made public.
Mr.. Gibbons-Nrs. Booth was given the
privilege of this floor and by the pupil
cation of her speech gained the public
sympathy. She gained mine, too-she
made it fine Oaughter), but she is entitled
to no more consideration than is Mr.. How
ell. Let's see that evidence; lets go u, INTO
that he is guilty; don't know that she
is innocent.
Mr.. Carson-I move that Superintendent
Howells request be granted in so far as the
evidence of Mrs. Booth and Mr. MCKINLEY
are concerned The superintendent re-
quests that the testimony be added to his
statement.
The motion brought Mr.. Wormser to
his feet. He argued that the evidence
was the business of the committee:
that the board approved the commit
tees action in recommending Mrs.
Booths vindication, and that it would
be unwise. indiScreet and impolitic to
again go over the ground Mr.. Carson
had signed the report. He had no NOR
al right to reopen the matter unless
there was some new testimony. Mrs.
Booths case was settled. The evidence
pertained only to her. 1t was now the
boards business TO consider only Mr..
Howcll's guilt or innocence of her
charges.
MIR. Gibbons motion that the meeting
go into the committee of the whole for
the purpose of investigation was car
ried. President Schriefer de, lined to
serve as chairman as did Members
Jennings. Williams and Barker. Mr.
Jennings, however, finally consented.
Mr.. Carson renewed his motion for
the reading of the evidence of Mrs
Booth, and Mr. MCKINLEY that had been
heard before the committee. Mr.
Wormser and MIR. Jacobs opposed 1t
and Chairman Jennings decided To al
low Attorney OBrien, who represented
the superintendent, the privilege of the
floor.
MR.. O'BRIENS REMARKS.
Mr.. O'Brien stated that the superin-
tcndents statement would be inCom-
plete without the testimony which was
recorded as having been heard in COM
mittee. That testimony was a board
record and could properly be made q
part of the superintendent's address.
Superintendent Howell asked no con-
cealment of all the facts in the case.
He desired the fullest publicity. In an
swer to Mr.. Wormser he would say that
no fair-minded man would object to the
publicity of facts that would make
guilty or innocent a man occupying so
sacred trust as that of superintendent
of schools.
Mr.. O'Brien's last statement evident
1y ncttled Mr.. Wormser. He remarked
that he had addressed his colleagues
and not Mr.. O'I'rien and thought the
board was capaLle of deciding upon
its course Of action without legal ad-
vice except from its regularly employed
solicitor.
The superintendent's attorney and
Mr.. WormSer repeated in substance
their former remarks and Mr. Williams
made motion that the evidence be
read BY this time the members, the
chairman. the attorneys and the spec
tators We're hopelessly at sea as to
where the meeting was at or what bus
ness had precedent. The complication
was intensified when Mr.. Wormser
made another address. MIR. Jennings
pleaded for more cautious procedure
and asked that all motions be with
drawn and a new start made.
Tho start was not made, however.
for sometime; not until after Attorney
Burns. Mrs. Booths representative,
and ex-Judge Knapp, the boards So
licitor had been accorded the floor,
and even then, the proceedings did not
immeiiately assume tangible form.
At Chairman Jennings request Mr.
Burns was given an innings, and in his
deliberate and easy style aimed to con-
vince the board that while neither Mrs.
Booth nor Mr.. Mckinley opposed the
admission of the troublesome evidence,
its admission was hardly a proper pro-
cedure. He likened the case as ana
lagous to court proceedings. Grand
jury evidence, he said, is not placed
before the court nor did it seem proper
to put before the board the evidence
heard before the committee. The right
way to proceed would be for the COM
mittee to specify Mrs. Booths charges.
If she made any, against Mr.. Howell
and then dispose of the case without
the use of dead evidence.
EX-Judge Knapp then addressed the
board in response to the requests for
enlightenment from several members.
He said it was for the board to deter
mine whether the harsh words used
by Mrs. Booth We're charges against the
superintendent. If it was believed
charges had been openly and publicly
made and worthy of investigation, it
was certainly the boards right to in
vestigate. He agreed with Mr.. Burns
that some kind of tribunal should be
selected If an investigation was de-
cided upon and said some method
should be outlined which would not
make unnecessary scandal.
NO LEGAL OBJECTION.
III utpdtlhS Iilduc ny NIL
Wormser that the whole matter be re-
ferred to a special committee of three
In conjunction with the three attor-
neys for the purpose of outlining a plan
of procedure, Mr.. Davis requested ex-
Judge Knapp to state if there was any
particular reason why the testimony
should not be read.
"There is no legal objection" was
Judge Knapp's response.
moi lat lac.
Wis. This board has got deep into the
matter and it can't pull out now with
out injuring both Mr.. Howell and Mrs.
Booth. One of them is entitled to have
his or her innocence proved"
Mr.. Carson insisted on the putting of
his motion that the evidence be read
and made a part of the superintend
ent's statement.
A motion was made by Mr. Schriefer
to table Mr. Carson's motion. There
was no end of debate before either was
acted upon.
Mr.. Notz-Mrs. Booths case is disposed
OF. The question now Is on the superin-
tendent's guilt or innocence. All this de-
lay is unnecessary. l move we adjourn
or do something 0aughter).
Mr.. Wormser-The testimony has for
sometime been at the disposal of any one
who wished to see it. This Is no place to
make 1t public. j certainly shall not be
d party 10 ndNlHS IL Teau mere Wnen Such
thing would be unnecessary. If the
members want to know what the evidence
was, it is on file and they can read 1t.
Mr.. OMalley-Mr. HOwelfs reputation
Is as dear to him as Mrs. Booths is to her
We listened to her charge him with these
things. Now he doesn't ask that; he only
asks that We acquaint ourselves with what
came before the committee. |, for one,
am here to defend him until he's proved
guilty.
Attorney O'Brien--Tt is Mr. Howell's de-
sire that the testimony be made a part
OF his statement and his defense. He
stands now an accused person. His
statement as read by him is not all of his
case. He asks that you add to it the Of
ficial and recorded testimony on the mat
ter. The statement as read and the evil