The San Francisco call., 1897-08-17
G. S. Benefits Suit Against
the City Board of Educa-
tion.
Judge Hebbard Hears Testimony and
Argument in Very Important
Case.


system of drawing and to substitute the
Thompson system which is published oy
d. G. Heath & Co.
Heller 81 Powers, attorneys Tor tne
plaintiffs, set forth that their client hao
been injured by the proposed change ana
contended that as a citizen Mr. bennett
had right to stop such proceeding. In
support of this position the law was cited
which prohibits the Board OF Education
from changing series OF school DOCKS
after they have been once adopted unui
four years have passed, except by gong
through the course of advertising their
intentions, as laid down in the statute.
The further point was made that parents
will be subjected to unusual and unneces-
sary expense If the order of last June,
directing the change, is allowed to stand.
Judge Hebbard replied that the court
had nothing to do with Che second sugges-
tion; that the only question to be In
uuired into here is whether the Board
of Education actually adopted the
Prang system of drawing on July IL, 1885,
as alleged by the plaintiff. Ii that was
done, then if the necessary notice has not
been given, the attem pied change OF asst
June must fail, as the law has not been
com Piled with.
i
disclosed the fact that the board had re-
solved to adopt the system of drawing ar
ranged by Miss katherine Ball, an expe-
rienced teacher of drawing, and it was
shown that she arranged aud introd uced
the Prang system. This affords narrow
margin on which Judge Hebbatd must
found his decision.
1t was adduced in the testimony that be-
fore Miss Balls advent in San Francisco
xhnr hod M p a
system for teaching drawing in the public
schools of this City.
Miss Ball was called as a witness and
testified that she had examine ed the two sys-
TENS or series of drawing now under de-
bate. She knew that the Pran system had
been In use for some time and that great
expense had been incurred by the Board
of Education and the parents of pupils
for the purpose of providing the necessary
material for pursuing the plan laid down
by Prang's system.
1t was Miss Balls opinion that the
models purchased for use in the Prang
system would be entirely useless. Some
system might be adapted. but lot of
material would be discarded. The draw
ing books are not available for practical
use.
Mr.. Heller asked Miss Ball if she consid-
cred it would be beneficial or detrimental
so far as pupils are concerned to change
the system of drawing while inethe course
of completin it. That is to say, what
would be the effect on the pulpils to dis
card the Prang system now and introduce
the Thompson system.
Mr.. Vogelsang interposed an objection
and Judge Hebbard ruled out the question
on the ground that the discretion and
responsibility for the selection of the
sy tenn to be used rests with the Board of
Education, not with the court. The ques-
tion here was whether the proposed
change had been ordered in a proper and
legal manner.
Miss Ball testified that she had received
a salary of $3.50 month while she was en-
ployed in the public schools of San Fran
cisco, and that siuce ner dismissal no
teacher has been appointed 10 the place.
Mr.. Vogelsang became involved in a
spirited controversy with Miss Ball as to
the question of drawing in general. He
wanted to know If a teacher of drawing
could not learn something of value from
every manual on that subject.
This opened the hoodg gates of Miss Balls
eloquence. She declared that there is ex-
tant great mass of literature on drawing
that is not only valueless, but much that
is pernicious.
Mr.. Vogelsang thought that any teacher
of drawing might be benefited by reading
any system OF drawing, but in this he was
contradicted by Miss Ball, who said she
had observed the evil result of this idea
through the errors that are made by
teachers as we'll as students. The false
systems have been allowed to go unchal-
lenged until mistakes have grown up In
the public mind. 1t was the duty of the
true educator 10 set the world right in
this regard. She would do so if given an
opportunity. She insisted that there is a
standard in drawing as in any other true
science, saying that drawing is a branch
of mathematics and may be demonstrated
on that basis.
Mr.. Powers wanted to know the opinion
of Miss Bail as an expert as TO whether
anY other person could take up the teach
ing of drawing in the public schools of
San Francisco and carry it on as success
fully as she could, in view of the fact that
she had already devoted year to intro
ducing the proper system in this COM
munity.
Toe lady smiled gently as she.promptIy
replied, "Of course not" though Mr.
Vogelsang entered an objection and asked
that the answer be stricken out. He
thought 1t would be calamitous if anv-
thing should happen to incapacitate Miss
Ball from teaching drawing. He bowed
gallantly to the lady, but could not think
1T possible that she held q monopoly on
knowledge touching this branch of learn
ing.
G. W.. Hudson, an employe of D. G.
Heath Co., was called to the witness
stand and Mr.. Heller said that he ex-
pected to show by this witness that the
Board of Education had adopted a set of
books they had never seen; that as a m at
ter of fact the Thomp pson system had not
been published when the alleged resolu-
tion OF adoption vas passed. To begin
with he asked Mr.. Hudson if it was not
true that he had asked School Director
Gallagher to secure postponement of the
drawing-system question until after the
Thom pson series could be printed.
Judge Hebbard thought that if counsel
intended to raise such an issue as he had
intim ated it would be necessary to insti-
tute another form of proceeding, so that
II the School Directors had been guilty of
malfeasance or neglect of duty that aues-
ton could be inquired into in accordance
with the pleadings.
Mr.. Vogelsang made the further point
that the law does not make it obligatory
for the Board of Education to examine
the books they are to adopt. They might
receive their information in any manner
that was right and proper in the dlsch arge
OF their official duties.
ALI OF Mr.. Hudson's testimony was on
motion OF the defendant ordered stricken
out, and after Ex- Superintendent of