The San Francisco call., 1896-07-31

real estate job and of personal anmus
against Miss Manning. the principal, but
neither Of these statements seems to rest
upon truthful basis. An honest differ
ence of opinion is most likely the casus
belli. 1t is claimed that the lot in the
rear of the Lincoln Grammar Schools not
a suitable site for a. school; that the build
ings are old and dflapidated, and that the
real estate is so valuable that it could be
leased at a profit 10 the department if
cleared of the old buildings which now
incumbe it.
In answer to these arguments the friends
of the school say that 1t is centrally To-
Gated, is attended i. by greater number of
children than any other primary school
in the City and that the buildings are in
no worse condition than many others in
the department. All they need. is a little
repairing. The value of the school lots at
the corner of Fifth and Market streets is
admitted, but it is denied that there
would be any financial profit in tearing
down the Webster Primary at this time.
As things are now the Board of Educa-
tion' has power to lease the lots at Market
and Fifth streets for only ten years, and
it is argued that in consequence no great
profit could be expected from lease.
The Lincoln Evening School, the largest
and most successful in the United States,
has thirty-six classes. Half OF these find
accommodation in the Lincoln Grammar
and the other half in the Webster Primary.
OF course. the destruction of the Webster
would break up the elegant organization
of the Lincoln. Evening School, and for
this reason, also, the contemplated clos
ing of the Webster is held to be unwise
and premature.
A general feeling OF uneasness prevails
among the thirty-hve teachers, many of
whom would be likely to serve for an in
definite term upon the substitute list,
despite the assurances of the Directors to
the contrary. Miss Manning has filed a
written protest with the Board of Eduea-
ton against the discontinuanee of the
Webster Primary, in the course of which
she says:
1 have been informed that you intend to
adopt resolution transferring me from the
principRlship of the Webster Primary to the
principalship of the Jefferson Primary or some
other school of the grade OF the latter and
with less emolument than said Webster Pri-
mary. Under the law governing sal. Board of
Education and defining the rights of teachers
you have not any authority to deprive me of
my Office of principal of a seventeen-class pri
mary school nor deprive me of the salary at
tached to such office. The Supreme Court has
held that the rights of teachers must be held
inyiolate where they have not forfeited their
right to Office on proper charges after proper
trial.
l hereby protest thatyour threatened action
is wrongful and unlawful. 1t will amount to
an unlawful invasion of my rights, for which
must hold you accountable in such manner
and to such extent as the law of the State
allows.
Concerning the rights OF teachers Miss
Manning's illusions to the decision of the
Supreme Court of Californis in the case of
Kate Kennedyvs. The Board of Education.
January 8, 1890, is true, but in its decision
the court said: ut may be we'll to say
that cases may arise in which a teacher
cannot compel the Board of Education to
continue his employment and enforce paw
ment of his salary. For example, when
the school in which he is teaching is abol-
ished, or from any other reason the posi-
ton has ceased to exist. But no such
question is presented here"
There is no parallel between the case of
Kate Kennedy and that OF Miss Manning
and the only part of the Supreme Court
decision applicable in the case of the prin-
cipal of the Webster is that above quoted.