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

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 a decision in the case of Cathe-
rine Putnam 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 dissemination 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 situa-
ton compels me, as much as L regret
it. to deny plaintiff the relief demanded
The questions involved were the le-
galty of the action Of the board IN
making a contract with teachers for a
SHSClleu time. lie uSClSiOl 10 pooNN
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
an estimate for the school budget 1or
the following school year. In this
budget they put the sum required at
S415. 20O, and of this sum the amount
provided for the payment of teachers
was placed at $3.50, 900. The city coun-
Gil. in making the appropriation CUT
the total sum down $4,000 and reduced
the allowance for teachers salaries
$4,000. Between the time OF making
the estimate and time Of the reduction
of the allowance by the council the
school board made a schedule of teach
ers' salaries for the ensuing year ana
appointed the teachers at liked saiarleS.
Miss Putnam was appointed 10 the
Hancock school at salary or Sl1V per
month. After the estimate had peeh
cut down the superintendent OF scnooiS
notified the teachers that they would
have to submit to a reduction In pro-
norton to the amount of the general
allowance cut off Then the board or
education called a meeting OF teachers,
and they were informed that they
would have to submit to pro rata
reduction: those who did not desire to
resign. This was in September, 1894,
and II was arranged that the pro rata
reduction should be made In the saiar-
les for the month of June, 1893. Under
this arrangement the plalnti1t In This
action received but S72 for her Worh
during that month. When the assign
ments were made the teachers were
notified by the superintendent, and &C
companying the notification was a 81 p
upon which the treasurer might write
her acceptance.
1t was claimed that this notification
and its acceptance made bindlng con-
tract and a test case was brought by
Miss Putnam It 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 eXcee ded Its authority
in contracting for the outlay Of more
money than was appropriated for a
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-
city to make any such contract.
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 board and Of plaintiff and
of her associates (which includes the whole
teaching staff of St. Paul., modified the
contract so 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 conditions of this law
therein as clearly as if written there word
for word. This must always be borne In
mind in considering the question involved.
In view of the following language in the
law. phars anDOintpn nv said inSOactOrS
spectors,' 1t may be questioned whether any
contract for a definite period of time can
be made. Conceding, however, that the gen.
eral intent of tie act. gathered from the