Omaha daily bee., 1899-11-07
SCHOOL BOARD In FACTIONS
Lines Are Closely Drawn For and Against
Architect Latenser.
HIS OPPONENTS CALL HIM TO ACCOUNT
Alternately Blamed and Defended for
Having Allowed Contractors to
Violate Spccifcations-Supe
intendents Annual Report.


Although Architect Latenser was rein
stated as superintendent of construction OF
the new buildings being constructed by the
Board Of Education by eight votes, his OPP
ponents are determined that he shall enjoy
no bed OF roses. For the larger part OF Mon
day nights meeting he was on trial before
the board the members of which almost all
took sides either among his attorneys or his
prosecutors. The proceeding did not reach
a definite conclusion, as it was referred to
committee for investigation.
The architect reported that work at Saun-
ders and Pacific schools was progressing sat
isfactorily. He asked for action of the board
on the acceptance or rejection of the indi-
rect radiation, the setting of the boilers and
the quality of the hrebrick used at Cass
school He was called upon to explain the
faults in these portions of the work and did
so. Tho radiators, he said, were too narrow
in design and not connected and controlled
as specified. The boilers, he said, should be
dismantled to the lugs. painted and bricked
up again and the frebrick should be re-
jected because of nferority. While the radi-
alton did not fulfill specifications it would
delay the completion of the plant to reject
ii and he recommended its acceptance.
Hess asked Latenser IL he had not, in the
presence of himself and II. j. Banker, ex-
amned the radiators when they first arrived
on the grounds and verbally approved Of
them. He demanded an answer, yes or no.
Latenser declined to answer the question
in that way and reiterated his statement
that the interests of the board would not
suffer through the acceptance of the work.
Cowie demanded a direct answer to Hess
question: at which Latenser answered that
hn ait ther
time, nor would that have been the time or
place to do so.
Cowie moved to accept the work, such
action to be based on the recommendation
of the architect. The motion carried.
The architect was next put on to fry on
the matter of frebrick He was against
the brick which had been used, but before
anything was done the members arrayed
against Latenser demanded that the con-
trac tor be heard in his own defense. j. j.
Hanighen then said that the brick did full
fill the contract, which specified no partcu-
lar kind of brick. The kind his sub
contractor had used, he said, had been rec
commended to him by three users in st. Louis
and had been used by the government at
Fort Crook He was willing to give guar
antee for two years on the brick. He had
first been apprised of the objections to 1t
after the brckng-in had been completed.
Cowie made a motion to accept the brick
If covered by a guarantee for two years.
heated debate followed, during which Archi
tect LatenSer said the contract called for
brick costing S26 at the yard and the con-
tractor had deliberately substituted brick
costing $1450. He had been deceived by
the fact that the first 500 brick used were of
a standard make, while the rest were in
ferior. Cowie demanded to know why the
architect had not reported the facts to the
board at once. Mr. Latenser retorted that
he had sent the contractor four letters on
the subject and the contractor had gone TO
the buildings committee with these. AT first
he had waited because he supposed the con-
tractor would condescend to come to him and
inform him of the change.
Cowie and Bandhauer blamed Latenser for
waiting until the work was almost completed
before making a report. Van Glider held
one cf the offending brick aloft while he
declared that the board was being "gulled.'
Hess wanted the matter investigated and
testimony taken from experts by two COM
mittees but the board would not consent.
Cowie's motion to accept was also turned
down. Van Glider moved to adopt the
recommendations of the architect. but this,
too, was lost Hess suggestion to refer
for investigation was then adopted
superintendent's Report.
Superintendent Pearse submitted an eX-
haustive annual report upon the condition
OF the schools, from which the following
statistics are taken:
Population of city Census of 1S9Oo: lfo,i52
f0pn,aSoiII ursS Iune 20 1899. .e.......... 32,673
Population subject to compulsory
a,Ieiwe1 Ia" L, ,3J5
1,nrnIimert of nunils within limit of
hnno,I,,iHn, hi,isnry % .ftepdance law ...... 97aO
r,nUniimcnt total si.,.................1 Is. 1854
T., iuigh school (grades 9-lO-l1-l2).... 1876
~ ~ rar,p,a scbools (erades 5-6-7-S). 1883
In primary schools grades 1-2-3-D.... alsi
In kindergarten school ........',.....'' l'a,i
h,ornGa n,,mber belonging total ... IA .667
n IIiSb erhool ',.,.'............. 1.109
IN IN priSarw mgm sSnood and grammar schools. l2227
In IT,, pinderSarten Ia Schools ............ 1,269
IN night SSI% SSh9os sttendance $1 total 1867
In High school .............'...'' i'vSv
In primary and grammar schools, l'55i
In kindergarten schools ............... Liia
In night schools QO3) ................'' ~
Nun,bcr remnining June 49, 1899. l4,662
Wbite nunijs enrolled ................ 1897
Colored pupils enrolled ............... AZ
Number of teachers, total ......,.....'. 39a
T., grpmmar and primary schools -. 303
In kindergarten schools .......,...,... ~
In night schools go ..........;,,,,;.'.. d
!: kindergarten, ID .,..:..,...,,'...,, d
Number pupils per teacher:
On enrolment ...,..,.,''.'''''''''''''' ~ ao'n
In High school ..,,..'..','.',,, 1900 90