The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-06

provisions OF the city OF Houston, the
mayor OF said city. as they are informed
and believe. appointed and nominated the
defendant w. w. Barnett for the posi-
ton OF superintendent of schools OF the
| city OF Houston and on said date the city
council OF the city Of Houston duly con-
| trmed the said w. w. Barnett as such
| superintendent of schools and he there
upon accepted the eaid appointment and
did thereupop enter upon the duties OF his
| Office and continued to perform the duties
| thereof until interrupted by this suit.
| Defendants further state that the board
| of public school trustees Of said city, com
posed of Fred Fenwick, b. e. Blossom,
Henry +. Fisher James Charlton, Andrew
| Dow and George Jones. with s. II. Bra
shear the mayor OF eaid city, also APP
pointed said w. w. Barnett as superIn-
tendent OF schools and he accepted said
| appointment and has entered upon the
| duties Of said office as hereinbefore al
| legged.
! These defendants say that II is not true
that the plaintiffs are In possession OF all
| OF the records OF the board OF trustees OF
| the city OF Houston, or that they have pos
session of the buildings OF said school. as
well as all other school property pertain
ing to the public schools OF the city OF
Houston and they respectfully show the
court that the plaintiffs have not the pos
session, but these defendants have pos
session of the Longfellow school In the
Third ward OF said city; the Taylor school
In the Fourth ward of eaid city, and OF the
Fannin school, also in the Fourth ward
of said city. And these defendants say It
Is not true that the plaintiffs have pos
session of all of the property or that they
are controlling and managing the same;
but defendants say that when the contro-
versy arose prior to the filing OF this cult
as to whether or not the plaintiffs or those
Iafnp a,tg ann co1 he, aohN al
board OF said city school buildings and
public grounds of said city with the keys
OF the buildings were in the possession o.
the janitors, who were under the direct
control and SUPERVISION Of the mayor OF
said city and tho board compose
defendants, and to create pretense, as
these defendants are informed and be
Ieved and so charge the fact to be- the
plaintiffs or some of them surreptitiously
gained possession of the keys to several oti
tho buildings belonging TO the public |
schools of said city and attempted to take
aud did take possession thereof by locking
the doors of said buildings; that the board
of school trustees composed of said Fred
Fenwick, d. e. Blossom, Andrew Dow, |
George Jones, Henry F. Fisher. James
Charlton and s. H. Breashear have had
and now have possession of the presidents /
offico of the board of trustees at the Mar |
ket House or City Hall in said city. which
HuS utcH IcSOSHlHeu luc pitSlutul VI
flee for many years. and they have pos !
session OF all of the books and records
belonging to said board pertaining 20 the
office OF president of the board Of trustees;
that the said S. II. Brashear has been at
all times, prior to the fling OF this suit.
since his election, attending to and being
recognized as the presiding officer of said
board and he and said board have charge
of the janitors in charge of the school
buildings and each of said janitors was in |
direct charge and control of said board
when the plaintiffs or some one for them |
In some way got possession OF some OF
the keys to some of the buildings, that the |
said S. II. Brashear as president of said
board. has. as they are informed and be-
lieve, insured all the buildings belonging
to the public schools of the city of Hous-
ton aud now has the policies In his pos
session as presiding officer of said board. |
These defendants deny, as alleged by the
plaintiffs, that they are threatening to In
terfere with the exercise by the plaintiffs,
D. e. Blossom and Fred Fenwick, of their
dutias as trustees as aforesaid, or that
they are threatening to interfere with
their control together with the other mem |
bers of said board, or possession or man
agement as trustees of said school or |
property belonging to the same; but they
say that they do not recognize and do not
believe that the plaintiffs, Charles p.
Shearn and J. r. Cade. are members of
said board of school trustees; but allege /
that their terms of office have expired 4
under the constitution OF the State of
Texas and that IL any law has been passed
continuing them In office then these de-
PENDANTS say that they - informed and
believe and charge the fact TO be that such
law is unconstitutional and void.
Defendants say that 1t is not true, as
alleged by the plaintiffs, that II these de-
PENDANTS are permitted to Interfere with
said schools that such interference will
produce irreparable injury or that 1t will
disorganize the schools or prevent the
proper administration OF the same or that
there will be n conflict in the corps Of
teachers and they say that If they are al
lowed 10 pursue their course as trustees
OF said school board that they will as far
as their ability lies, organize said schools
and administer same for the best interests
of all concerned, and they deny that they
have any intention of forclbly taking pos
session of said buildings. except as they
may be entitled under the law to do. or In
any manner lnjurng the said school prop
erty and they further say on information
and belief, that all Of the school buildings
which are owned by the city OF Houston
are built on property owned by said city
and that said buildings were built with the
funds of said city and the said mayor and
the school board above named were In the
rightfnl possession thereof when this suit
was filed.
Defendants further say tnat II the pam
tifs did, as alleged submit their right
to hold their position of trustees to the
superintendent OF public instruction OF the
State OF Texas and he ruled that the de-
PENDANTS, George Jones and Andrew Dow,
were not members OF said board OF trustees
and that the mayor OF said city was not
member of said board and that the mem
beers OF the board as It existed on March
80. 1899, should hold their positions until
the next election, as provided In the act OF
the legislature OF the STAKE OF Texas, OF
March 30, 1899. then these defendants say
that they duly appealed TO the state board
of education from all Of said ruling and
said State board sustained said superin-
tendent and these defendants now say that
they are informed and believe aud so
charge the fact to be that said rulings by
said superir ntlent and said board are
absolutely Q Z sneous and In violation OF
the law OF the State OF Texas for this; Il
that said members Of said school board
we're appointed for two years and at the
end OF that time their terms expired and
under said alleged law OF March 80, 1893.
these trustees then in office would by a
mere act OF the legislature be reappointed
In continue In office onc-haf OF them for
two years and the other half Tor four