The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-09-05
AFRAID OF THE COURTS.

The present situation of the controversy
in existence between the state board Of
control and the state normal board is
quite interesting. The controversies exist
ing between those bodies go down deep
into the relative powers and authorities of
the two bodies. The disposition evidently
evoked from recent conferences among
the members of the two bodies is one of
compromise.
Mr.. Lee. of the board Of control, is
highly diplomatic gentleman. The Ian
guage used by him in his statement pub
lished in these columns yesterday is very
clearly the language of a diplomat and,
moreover, of diplomat who is prepar-
ing to recede from a position already
taken 1t will be surprising if some ar
rangement mutually acceptable to those
officials Immediately in interest, but more
or less uuwarranted by existing law, is
not soon patched up which will enable
the normal board TO avoid the sentence of
official death already decreed by the other
| body.
The offer made by the normal board is
really ingenious. 1t is to submit the diff
ferences 10 the attorney general who, ae-
eording to the other side, has already
shown his predisposition in favor of those
who now invoke hisdecisron and Judgment.
The submission will be made by the edu-
cational body, in case the other contend
ing body binds itself to accept the unoffl-
cial decree of the attorney general. This
is a very adreit, even if not particularly
effective, way of whipping the devil
around the stump.
There is one way to settle this. contro-
! versy and only one consistently with the
! interest of the people of the state. That
! way is to appeal to the courts for their
interpretation of the relative rights and
! powers of the two bodies in controversy.
Why is that course not adopted? Why
engage in scheme of politics, such as
the proposed plan is?
Here is the very guarded language in
dulged in by Mr. Lee of the board of con-
troll:
"The boards, as We understand the
case, have not disagreed as to the va
lidity of the law. The normal board ac
cepted the law as valid, and was willing
to be governed by it, and permitted itself
| willingly to be guided by it in all partic-
| ularS. Our disagreement, if there has
| been disagreement, is regarding other
matters entirely. We think, and always
/ have thought, that the board of control
| and the normal board can get along in
I perfect amity. We recognize that the
! normal board has certain functions and
| powers in the government of the schools,
! and We are willing to accede to them ali
| of their rights; but we also feel that we
/ have our duties in the same connection.
/ At some of the points of contact perhaps
| the powers of the two boards may not
| be distinctly defined, but we feel that
/ we should be able to agree upon those
| matters without difficulty and act in uni
| SON. There has been no definite agree
| ment as yet between the two boards but
| at this time l think it is safe to say
| that We will be able to adjust our differ
ences without application to the courts.
| These gentlemen well know that there
| is only enc way of adjusting the matters
! of difference IL the board of control
has supreme control, and the other body
as the presumption now strongly is, must