The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-08-21


Comparison with Few Paltry
Dollars.
Prompted on the one side by his ven
Grafton for the law, and urged by his
native gallantry on the other hand,
Judge Kelly stood, as it were, between
love and duty, in being obliged to
make decision In the case of Cathe-
rine PNtnam against the city of St
Paul. Miss Putnam fails in the action
she brought to compel the city to re-
imburse the teachers for the cut that
was made in their salaries in the month
of June, 1895. The case has been long
in litigation, and Judge Kelly confesses
his personal Discrimination to make the
decision rendered, in these words:
Despite the Jealous and clever argu-
ment of plaintiffs counsel; despite the
fact that this concerns the very flower
of our citizenship, the school teachers;
despite the gallantry of the court
inherent in his Irish blood and Ken
lucky breeding; despite the sincere ad-
miration in which the court holds the
exalted office of the teacher, and In
particular the teachers of st. Paul, the
ineXorable law and logic of this Sltua-
ton compels me, as much as L regret
It, to deny plaintiff the relief demanded.
The questions involved were the le-
gality of the action of the board in
making a contract with teachers for
specified time. The decision is based
on the grounds, broadly, that the
school board has not the power to make
any contract, the total Of which ex-
ceeds the appropriation for the pur-
pose.
In June, 1894, the school board made
en- estimate for the school budget Tor
the following school year. In this
budget they put the sum required at
$475.2OO and of this sum the amount
provided for the payment of teachers
was placed at $360,000. The city coun-
Gil in making the appropriation cut
the total sum down $4,000 and reduced
the allowance for teachers salaries
$3.50 Between the time of making
the estimate and time Of the reduction
of the allowance by the council the
school board made schedule OF teach-
ers' salaries for the ensuing year and
appointed the teachers at liked salaries.
Miss Putnam was appointed to the
Hancock school at a salary of SllO per
month. After the estimate had been
cut down the superintendent OF schools
notified the teachers that they would
have to submit to reduction In pro-
portion to the amount of the general
allowance cut off. Then the board OF
education called a meeting Of teachers,
would have to submit to a pro rata
reduction: those who did not desire to
accent the cut would be at liberty to
resign. This was in September, 1884,
and it was arranged that the pro rata
reduction should be made in the salar-
les for the month of Jure, 1895. Under
this ARRANGEMENT the plaintiff in this
action received but S72 for her work
during that month. When the assign
meE,ts were made the teachers were
notified by the superintendent, and &C
companying the notification was 81 p
upon which the treasurer might write
hey acceptance.
1t was claimed that this notification
and its acceptance made a binding con-
tract, and a test case was brought by
Miss Putnam. 1t has dragged slowly
through the courts, the city making
the contention that there was no con-
tract. and. that if there had been the
school board had eXce5 ded is authority
in contracting for the outlay OF more
money than was appropriated for
specified purpose.
In a memorandum covering the de-
cision. Judge Kelly reviews the case at
length, and in denying the relief asked
for says:
And this for three reasons, either of which
is an answer to plaintiffs demand:
First-The board never undertook to make
any such contract
Second-The board has not the legal capa-
Third-Conceding. for the argument, the
board had the legal capacity to make, and
that it did make such contract, the conduct
thereafter of the beard and of plaintiff and
of her associates (Which includes the whole
teaching staff of St. Paul., modified the
contract Sc as to make lawful the reduction
of the June, 1895, payroll, OF which she COM
plains.
Any agreement. provisional or final, that
was made had the conGito ns of this law
49, yNrl
for word This must always be borne in
mind in considering the question involved.
In view of the following language in the
law: Teachers appointed by said inspectors
shall serve during the pleasure OF the in
spectors," it may be questioned whether any
contract for a definite period of time
be made. Conceding, however, that the gen.
eraI intent of tie act, gathered from the