The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-31
Superintendent Babcock's Ar
raignment of the Ex-
President.
THE KINGsBURYg WARRANTS.
A Relative Who Was Told to Return
Money to the Treasury But Did
Not Do So.

AS result of the report of the late
Grand Jury on the present Board of Educa-
ton, such a storm OF indignation has been
raised among the officials now in Office
that the searchlight of investigation has
been turned in another direction, and there
is every probability that F. A. Hyde, who
is accused of having instigated the report
that has stirred up all the feeling,
as well as some of his friends. will be
put on the rack TO explain, if possible,
some peculiar transactions that have
recently come to the knowledge of the
School Directors and Superintendent
Babcock.
The late Grand Jury thought it had dis
covered that three employees of the School
Observation-Disclosures Superintendent
Babcock, now Superintendent, and Prlnci-
pals Joseph O'Connor and Albert Lyscr-
had drawn moneys from the treasury to
which they were not entitled, under the
guise of back salary, and in communica-
ton to the Board of Supervisors recon-
mended that they be sued for the return of
the money, amounting to nearly $1,000.
The Supervisors decided that if the ale
cations were true the proper course was in
criminal prosecution and referred the mat
ter to the present Grand Jury. Learning
of this action, the accused officials who
could not see where such charges could
come from unless from eX-President Hyde,
at once took steps to have the investiga-
ton of the most searching kind, and the
report of Director Clinton, which was SUBJ
united to the board at its meeting on
Wednesday evening, contained many start
ling charges which, if true, will give the
Grand Jury material for thought if not de-
cided action.
The one result of the charges was to force
Superintendent Babcock to make an ad-
mission which has never been uttered, that
though he had been told that he was enti-
tied to the back salary which had accrued
through the action of the former board in
reducing and then restoring his salary, he
had never drawn the amount, but hadal-
lowed 1T to remain in the treasury, thus
entirely disproving the assertion of the
former Grand Jury that he had taken
money to which he had no right.
Embodied in Director Clinton's report
were also letters from the other accused
officials, and copy of the report will
before the Grand jury.
In Superintendent Babcock's letter.
which forms part of the report, appears
the following paragraph:
Is it not significant that this report of the
Grand jury makes no reference to the paying
OF $1,000 of salary to school official in excess
OF the amount fixed by statute and which ex-
cess was paid at the instgation of Mr.. Hyde ?
The report says nothing OF the making up of
back salaries by fixing salaries in advance, in
order to cover such back salaries. OF course
the Grand Jury did not know what questions
to ask to bring out some OF the inwardness of
the management of the schools during the
years 1891 92-93-94- when Mr.. HYDE was the
board. The report contains no mention of the
means used to whip board members into line
how could it since the members are not sup
posed to have kept track OF these things as you
and have?
The report contains no reference TO any land
speculation that Mr.. Hyde may have consum-
mated with his colleagues, for the Grand Jury
is not supposed to know how to put the ques-
tons that would lead up to SO interesting q
matter.
Isn't it surprising that in SO important a
body as the Grand Jury there should not be
some man who would instinctively size up a
Hyde who sneaks into the privacy of their de-
noeratlons, to, in some way or any way, with
ghoullsh satisfaction, feast upon the charac-
ters of honest men In conclusion, let me say
that San Francisco owes me $3.50 that was
Kept from me In way beside which the
methods OF highwayman are not to be COM
pared.
Another lead which the Grand Jury will
follow is contained in the answer of Prin-
cipal Joseph 0Connor to the Grand Jury Is
structures; also a part of Director Gin
tons report.
Mr.. O'Connor refers to an article which
appeared in THE CALL of March 81, 1892,
relating to the discovery by a School Di-
rector that Mr.. Hyde had, without the
knowledge or consent of the other mem
bers of the board, authorized the drawing
OF warrant TO Miss Susie kingsbury, a
| relative of his, for $40, claiming that it
was due for back salary. The investiga-
ton into this matter led to the discovery
that another warrant for $3.50 had been
drawn and cashed by w. ID. Kingsbury,
a leo oIoff 0F - . h.
cuse. 1t was ordered that w. d.. Kings
bury should repay to the City $3.50 il
legally drawn and the warrant held by
| Miss Susie klngsbury was Cancelled.
What the Grand Jury will be asked to
inquire into is why the male relative OF
Hyde did not return the $3.50 as ordered.
The records of the treasurer's Office show
| that 1t was paid, but there is nothing to
show that the amount was returned.
The Grand Jury will also be asked to in
quire why in 1882, Hyde's first complete
hscal year in the presidency of the board,
the cost of tuition per pupil was SIS 40,
while IN l894-95 the cost per pupil was but
| $40 0S; why the Tough Old Board, as the
board OF 1884 was called, cared for and
taught 3l,57S pupils at an average OF
30 IS per pupil, while the board of 1928,
OF which Hyde was president, paid out
$34 TO per pupil for that year; why by
| the actions of the board certain scnool-
| teachers were compelled to go into the
courts to obtain the salary due them,
and other pertinent questions suggested
by the report.
Superintendent Babeock said yesterday
| that the Grand Jury had been urgently re-
| quested to slit the matter to the bottom
ana that the investigation would not END
| with the present board, but would extend
BACK several years, covering the time when
Hyde was member of the department.
pIaasas 81. r-.. Om.x.1.