The San Francisco call., 1896-10-08

votes and fair proportion of the wealth, IN
telligence and enterprise of this community.
Why should such a narrow-minded policy
American municipality? Why should we rec
ognize anything but worth, capacity and
morals i'll the Selection of our teachers! TN.
Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, or OF the
Stanford University would be ineligible 10 ap.
pointment as teacher in our public sch ools. |
have heard it said by certain advocates OF the
charter. one of whom is now seeking puDnc
office, that under this clause an applicant Will
not be obliged 70 pass through the public
schools, that he or she may after leaving a prl-
vate school enter the Normal Schooi, tnere
study for one year and thereupon shall be
eligible TO appointment as teacher Such
construction is absurd. The very letter ana
spirit of that provision require that the appl1-
cant for a teachers position shall be brought
up" or "reared" or Grained in the puDnc
schools of the State. The constitution OF the
State defines the public school system. We
find the definition in section OF article TX OF
the constitution as follows:
s'The public school system shall include
primary and grammar schools and such high
schools, evening sch ools, normal schools and
technical schools as may be established by the
Legislature or by municipal or district author
ity."
received his or her education or training in
the school system as defined by the constltu-
tiou
Suppose a girl spends the first year or two OF
her school days in one of the primary grades
of our public schools. Suppose she spends the
remainder of her school days in a private
school; can it be said that she has been edu-
Gated brought up or reared) in the public
school system of this State? Certainly not.
Suppose the child instead of spending the
first year of her school days in the primary
grade spends the last year only of her school
life in the Normal School, can il be said that
she has been educated, brought up or reared
in the public school system of the State Ger
tainly not. The cases are parallel. The char
construction
accordance with its spirit. ANY court to whom
the validity of this clause will be submitted
would hold, and reasonably so, that perso ns
educated or brought up in private schools
must be excluded from positions as teachers
in our public schools. / sincerely hope that
no court will ever have an opportunity to pass
upon the question, and that the charter will
never pass beyond the tribunal of the people.
The promises made to the teachers py the
trainers and advocates OF the new charter TO
secure amendments TO the same by bringing
about repeal of ali Objectionable provision
relating to the School Department are too
silly TO notice. The teachers are not fools to
be taken in by promises which the promisers
have not the power to keep.
The opinion of the attorneys employed by
the charter makers that the provisions relating
to the public schools are unconstitutional and
void is entitled to no respect whatever. In
the Freeholders' convention were two able
lawyers one of whom is denouncing his work
as unconstitutional How does any person,
layman or lawyer, know that the Supreme
Court will decide the school law in the charter
to be unconstitutional? None but the Omnis-
cient can fore tell how the Supreme Court will
decide any question. Let the teachers take no
chances but exert their influence in every
possible direction to kill an instrument which
strikes deadly blow at their craft. Let every
true American ignore tie mouthings and
literature of sham reformers, who proclaim the
charter to be q godsend, and let honest clu-
zens on election day damn beyond hope of re-
demption the iniquitous charter. Very truly
yours, JOSEPH l. DIMoND.