The San Francisco call., 1896-07-25
SHE DOES NOT
WISH TO RESIGN.
A Fair Teachers Dispute
With the Board of
Education.
HER PLACE rs VACANT.
Miss Alice H. Metcalf's Marriage
and Her Disagreeab,e
Discovery.
VIOLATED A RECENT RULE.
The Wedding Three Days Late-A. w.
Marquis, the Husband, May
Contest the Case.
VIOLATED A RECENT RULE.

As has already been stated in THE CALL,
School Directors are likely to get into
trouble over the enforcement of the anti
marriage rule. The young lady teachers
of the department feel that it is their
privilege to marry whenever they like,
and that their designations should not be
compulsory Immediately upon their entry
into the matrimonial state, but that the
time should be left to the option of them
selves and their husbands. At least, these
are the ideas of Mrs. A. w. Marquis, for
merly Alice II. Metcalf, teacher in the
Haight Primary School.
Miss Metcalf was married to Alexander
W. Marquis on the 5th of this month,
three days after the formal adoption of
the rule requiring lady teachers to resign
Immediately upon their marriage. She,
though, was under the impression that
her wedding occurred before instead of
after the enactment of the troublesome
rule, and accordingly sent a comr1unlca-
ton TO the Board of Education, calling it's
attention to the change she had made in
her name and address. 'I do not wish to
resign my position" she wrote in conclu-
sion, to avoid the possibility of any mis-
take.
But the Solons of the sch ools are not
sentimental in such cases. They value
vacancies more highly than matrimony
and had much rather receive a letter of
resignation than a letter of application.
Consequently, at the session of the Board
OF Education last Wednesday, the position
held by Miss Metcalf in the School De-
partment was declared vacant under the
rT1las ond har mama at from Z 10
roll of teachers.
Mr.. Marquis is q young architect, in
business with his father at 4 California
street.
1--WE wish to avoid all unnecessary pub
licity in this school business" he said
when seen yesterday at his cozy home,
436 San Jose avenue. my wife has been
teaching in the department. for several
years. She has not yet received any
official notification of her dismissal in
consequences of her marriage with me.
We think the rule unjust and uncon-
stitutional, but it is not likely that we
shall take the case into the courts. We
may, but as yet are undecided just what
course to take.
''If we should appeal to the courts it
would require the expenditure of consid-
erable money and then years would prob
ably elapse before we could expect final
decision, so you see it would hardly be
worth while. The first information we re-
ceived concerning the adoption of this
anti-marriage rule was through THE CALL.
seriously doubt its legality should it be
submitted to the courts, but / suppose
the Directors have their friends to care for
and rely upon the chances of no contest
being filed by a teacher"
"The legality of the rule" said Director
Comte, sis yet mooted question. 1t is
impossible to say what the courts would
decide. In my judgment, though, the
rule cannot be logically construed as being
hostile to marriage. Section 710 of the
Civil Code says conditions imposing re-
straints upon marriage, except upon the
marriage of q minor, are void; but this
does not affect Limitation where the in
tent was not to forbid marriage, but only
to give the use until marriage.
"Our rule, you see, is merely limita-
ton as to time, and if it is not legal it
ought to be. The law stating the grounds
upon which teacher can be dismissed to
be incompetency, disobedience of the rules
and immoral or unprofessional conduct is
well established, and, of course, the only
reason which will justify teacher in dis
obeying a rule of the department is its
illegality. Now. it is only fair to assume
all rules to be legal until the contrary has
been proved"