The San Francisco call., 1897-09-27
Two Glasses of Actions Lie
Against the Board Of
Education.
Full Text of the Law That Pro-
vides for Their Summary
Removal.
Directors Say They Followed Legal
Advice and Do Not Fear the Suits
Against Them.

III spite OF the fact that yesterday was
Sunday there was a great deal Of discus
sion over the suit OF DR.. c. c. O Donnell
against the Board OF Education, an &C
count of which was printed in THE CALL
exclusively Yesterday.
AS stated in that article the suit will be
filed in the Superior Court to-day, and
there is a proba Dility that Attorney Wall
will also file his suit. II Is said that he
has decided to file criminal as well as a
civil suit, and that the actions will both
be prosecuted vigorously, in spite OF the
fact that DR.. O'Donnell says he is the only
one whose suit will be prosecuted to a
finish.
Il have been approached by an intim ate
friend" SAID the doctor yesterday, land
asked whether l cannot be induced TO
stop the suit. My friend is close TO some
OF the Directors, and he says there are
those of the board who feel the matter
keenly. l sent word that they might as
well try to blow away a brick house with
q hand bellows as to get me to stop. l
shall fight the N after to the end"
Attorney Baggett, who IS OF counsel for
DR.. O'Donnell, was seen relative to the
suit last night. He said: 81 am so busy
L
given very little attention to the school
board matter, leaving that to my associ-
ate>. l am of the opinion, however, tn at
there is a strong case against the board, II
the evidence of their conduct IS as it is re-
ported 10 me. We shall soon go at the
case vigorously, as our instructions from
DR.. ODonnell are to push the matter as
rapidly as possible.
Section 772 of the Penal Code is likely
in no cob naI
board case before the matter is finally set
tied. as that is Attorney Wallis long suit
IL he proceeds with his case 1t l. likely
that be will depend largely on the Grim
NAL law. The provision is as follows:
Section 772, Penal Code -
" hen an accusation in writ
ing, verified by the oath of any
person, is presented 10 a Supe-
riOr Court, alleging that any
officer within the jurisdiction
of the court has been guilty,
etc. etc. or has refused
or neglected TO perform the
official duties pertaining to his
office, the court must cite the
party charged TO appear, etc,
and must proceed TO hear, in a
summary way, the aCcusati IN
and evidence offered in sup
port of the same. and the an
swer and evidence offered by
the party accused; and If. on
such hearing, ii appears that
the charge il sustained, the
court must enter a decree that
the party accused be deprived
of his office and must enter a
Judgment for $500 in favor of
the iBfOrmer, and such costs as
are allowed in civil eases.
Mem bers of the Board of Education say
they have no fear ot the suit OF DR.. o DON
nell o. Attorney Wall. Speaking of the
case DR.. Ragan, one of the more bellig-
erent OF the board said: The truth is we
went into the school book question with
the best Intentions of obeylng the law.
They claim that we have violated the law
by changing books oftener than every
four years, as the law prescr;b 8. Now
the fact is that the adoption of a book
that has never been used before is not a
change of text books. There is not a sim
gle instance where We have changed q
book. We proceeded as we did backed by
the opinion of the Superin tendent of Pub
lie Schools of the State. We have no fear
on this score. OF course, we shall be
obliged to go into court and fight the case
if it comes to an issue, and We are ready
to make strong showing when the
proper time comes"