The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-07-15

headed system, but this condition has
been brought about by different interpre-
tations OF the new school law.
The Post reprinted this law few days
ago, calling attention to the different con
tentions as to its application.
Yesterdays Post contained the an
noupcement that at a meeting OF the
school board the night before Prof. W. w.
Barnett was elected by the board super
intendent of schools. vice Superintendent
w. H, Klmbrough.
1t was stated In the report that this
election was by unanimous vote of the
board. This statement may have been
misleading and more correct statement
of the case would have been that the cleo
ton was by unanimous vote of all pres
ent. for 1t appears that there was not
full board present. trustees Bloxsom and
Fenwick not being present at the meeting
and dissenting from it's action.
The members OF the board present and
electing Prof Barnett were Mayor Brasil
ear, ex-offco member. and Trustees
Fisher, Charlton, Dow and Jones.
Why trustees Bloxsom and Fenwck
were not present at the meeting was de-
veloped at another meeting held last
night in which they participated and at
which Superintendent Kmbrough was re-
elected as superintendent OF the Houston
schools.
This school muddle. for such 1t Is. has
been brewing for some time. The Of
fetal decapitation of Superintendent KIM
brough was anticipated the moment that
the returns in April. 1898. showed that S.
H. Brashear had been elected mayor. The
removal of Mr.. Kimbrough as superin-
tendent of the Houston schools was a
plank in Mr.. Brashears political platform,
and 1t was pledge that would have been
practically easy of redemption had 1t not
been that the last legislature passed a
law taking from the mayor and city coun
Gil the authority to create either a school
board or appoint superintendent OF
schools
The passage OF this law was an obstacle
but the mayor, by constituting that the law
is not yet operative as to Houston. has
seen his way clear to carry his point, but
things have now assumed that shape that
the final adjudication of the matter will
have to go to the courts.
~
Learning that Messrs. Shearn and Cadc,
who were removed from the school board
at the last meeting of the city council by
the selection of Messrs. Dow and Jones to
succeed them, regarded their removal as
Illegal and intended contesting 1t. re-
porter for The Post called upon Mr..
Shearn yesterday and asked him what he
thought of the action of the school board
the night before in eecting Prot Barnett
as superintendent OF schools.
Speaking for Mr.. Cade and myself"
replied Mr.. Shearn, 1--WE regard the action
as Illegal and having no more effect than
had any similar number of citizens got
ten together and arrogated to themselves
the right to appoint school superintend-
ent.
I'VE also regard the action of the mayor
and council in removing us from the
school board and naming our successors
as illegal and We propose to contest our
rights in the premises, not that the terms
for which we were appointed had not eN-
pired, but the new law prescribes how va
cancies when they occur on the board
shall be filled.
I'VE do not regard Mayor Brashear as
being a member of the school board and
the action OF the board on Thursday night
in electlng superintendent was illegal
for the reason that there were only two
of the recognized board participating In
that meeting, Messrs. Fisher and Charl-
ton, the other members having no Off
cial standing or recognition under the law
as construed by the State superintendent
OF education and the attorney general.
AT the last meeting of the school board
We were ready to select superintendent.
and believe then that the election of
Mr.. Kimbrongh would have been unani-
nous, but Mayor Brashear said he was
feeling unwell and as he desired to give
the matter some reflection he asked that
the election be deferred. which was done
out OF Difference to his wishes. and 1t was
decided TO defer the election till July IS.
Il remarked at the time that this de-
sire for delay on the part of the mayor
was significant. that there was game
yet to play, desperate one, but that l
believed he would attempt. anticipating
as ! did then that to carry his point he
would remove myself and Mr.. Cade from
the board.
''You observe that in this matter the
mayor has attempted to invoke the new
law In one instance and disregard 1t in
another. He disregards the law to re-
model the school board. but when he gets
board favorable to his purpose he In
vokes the new law by having that board.
instead Of the city council, select the
superintendent
Mayor Brashear was seen upon the sub
ject last night. II have contended all
along. and still contend" said the mayor,
that the new school law does not be-
come operative In Houston till 1901 and
that II is still within the province of the
mayor and council to elect school trustees
Z and 9 superintendent OF schools but as
there has been some question raised upon
the subject, the trustees thought II well
to act In the matter
$50 far as the new law goes. ! not only
regard It IS being imperative In Houston
K ct present. but very much question the
validity Of the law.
II questioned the attorney general today
- 70 his reported Interpretation OF It. He
replied that be had simply been asked to
eonatrue the law upon its face, and not
( 70 pass upon its validity.
: This law provides that trustees shall
- elected In 1893 190l and every two years
fhoreafter. with q proviso to the effect
( fhot "a cities. the description OF which
y ADplteg 70 Houston, It shall not be re-
Y l@ipo4 70 hold an election in 1892 but
Il 1kot tFustses 10 certain other cases, not
= G6G1fcnblo 70 Houston. shall draw lots TO
\ IS1oe0n1ne whether their terms shall ex-
~ y 1904 Or 1903. thuS Houston Is exc