The San Francisco call., 1899-11-16
WHY WEBSTER
GOT HIS SALARY
Ex-AudItor BroderiCk Explains a
Point In School Department
Salaries.

Editor San Francisco CALM an arti-
Gle published I'm The Call OF November
IA. headed Webster Found Golden
Windfall,' / think some injustice has
been done. and / therefore beg leave 70
make or suggest some correction. Al-
though the subject matter of the article
Is now two and half years old. i have
very distinct recollection as 10 the same.
The article rccites that Mr.. Webster
was elected Superintendent OF Schools IN
Io'o, that BabcOck, the incumbent, re-
FUSED 10 turn over the office: that Web
ster instituted suit In 1895 and obtained
favorable decision in March. 1897. and
that during the two and a half months
the action was pending. however, Babcock
coiluiued 70 present his salary warrants
ana Auditor BrOderick hOnored them. In
stead OF holding them up until such time
as decision should be handed down
-. Up 10 1871 IN such a contest. under sec
ton $50 OF the Political Code. the Auditor
would have been obliged TO hold all such
Claims, but In 1891 that section was
amended, making specific provision and
direction for the payment OF the salary
OF an ONCE TO an incumbent discharging
the duties OF the office during the
such contest or proceeding was pending.
Mr.. Babcock received the salary Of the
once under this provision OF law, and is
therefore under no obligations whatever
10 the Auditor. His demand and warrant
was legal and could not be denied or re-
fused.
The article also stated that upon Mr..
webster obtaining the office he presented
claims for salary from January / (shOu'd
be December 90 20 March %, 1897. but
Broderick held them UP on the ground
that the salary had been paid 10 BahCock.
webster contended that BabCOck had no
right 20 draw IT, hut BrOderick was OBJ
durate, and webster finally let the mat
ter pass
This statement is absolutely erroneous.
MT. Babc9cks 5 receipt OF the salary mad
nothing whatever To do with the cause of
my refusal % pay Mr.. Webster the salary
Of Superintendent Of Schools Mr.. Web
ster. I'm my Judgment then. and In my
judgment now. had deliberately by his
own action become disqualified and had
forfeited any right he might have had 20
such salary. Had he not done 80 the
Auditor should and would have allowed
the salary on the face OF the decision. He
would have had the same right 10 salary
as the reinstated teacher has who obtains
salary Notwithstanding another teacher
has been paid for teaching the class dur
ing the pendency Of suit for reinstate-
ment
Section 1853 OF the Political Code pre-
scribes that mo School superintendent
who receives an annual salary Of 1880 OF
more must Follow the profession Of teach
ing, or any other vocation that can con-
met with his duties as Superintendent.
but those receiving less may teach
in public schools OF this State"
MIR. Webster presented demands for sal
airy properly allowed and audited by the
Board Of Education as teacher I'm the
POLYTECHNIC High School, and received
payment thereon for the month Of De-
cember. 1886, and the months Of January
and February. 1891. He was admonished
and advised at the time by the Auditor
that he was perhaps ieOpardiZng his right
10 the salary Of Superintendent in the
event OF the decision being in his favor.
There was considerable doubt as 20 the
outcome of the contest. and Mr.. Webrter
may have considered "a bird In the hand
better than two in a bush" As ne so
willed IL. / allowed him the bird I'm the
hand. lie has now. IL seems caught the
] ! wH Ia
years ago. / thought Mr.. Webster was
entitled 20 but one salary under the pro-
visions Of the law, and he forced me 70
allow and pay that Of the teacher during
TIT TTTTVVT TIWITTTI VI TUF contest. TWeFtTUTe
the city was entitled I'm my Judgment 20
the beneht OF his deliberate and vOlun-
tary action Of disqualification. Respect
fully. w. FREDERICK
San Francisco. Nov. 10, 1899.