New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-30
IN FAVOR OF PRINCIPALS.
Supreme Court Continues Injunction
Against Board of Education.

A decision favorable TO Miss Alkaline E Ander-
son ana Mis- Mary A Crothers, in the case Of
Anderson VS.. Maxwell, rendered by Judge
Fitzgerald OF the New-York Supreme Court yester-
day
Il VIII be recalled that Miss Anderson Miss Croth-
ers Liza A 2 Sullivan Anna z. Perham and Mary
. n Tompkins were nominated principals by the
Board Of Superintendents on October 2, 1903. for
vacancies in four School Board districts in the
Borough OF Manhattan and that their names were
rejected by the Board Of Education. The Board OF
superintendeuts then took steps TO nominate the
next FIVE minutes o. the list whereupon the women
whose names had been passed over secured an
injunction restraining further action until the
had been settled by the courts The motion for an
injunction was argued by Lewis L DeIaheld Of the
firm OF Hawkins q Delaheld for the women, and
was opposed by Edward J. Mcclure. Assistant Cor
poration Counsel. before Judge Fitzgerald on De
eenber g
In the course OF his decision Judge Fitzgerald
says; There is no question but that the nomination
OF plaintiff was made Cor particular district. and
rhat the appointing power could only consider her
qualifications within the limits Of that nomination.
is II unreasonable, then for her 10 dispute the
proposition that her rejection upon that nonina-
r0L constitutes rejection OF her generally for the
same position in al OF The forty-six districts into
which Ehe city is dividedT'
The III junction granted by Judge Fitzgerald 70
Miss Anderson and her associates is OF the great
est importance, not only to those women whose
standing in the public school system it has estaD-
Lzhe1. but 70 al other teachers who hold Licenses
issued TO them prior the date when the greater
NeW-HOrk charter took effect Its effect IS 10 re-
strain the Board Of SupeTinIendenIs from removing
directs that IN making further nominations this
board shan not consider nominate any persons
other Khan the three whose names appear the
head OF the eligible list That is say. until
these women receive their appointments pTin-
cipals women principals can be appointed, and
& deadlock Is ests blished-
IN making nomination Tor any particular school
board district. however. the Board OF Sgperin-
TerdeDrs may disregard the OF any candidate
who has previously been nominated and rejected
for that particular district. The injunction also
1o-bids the Board OF Education 10 appoint any per-
sons as principals who shah have been nominated
By the Board OF Super1nrendents otherwise than IN
accordance with the terms OF the injunction
The Board OF SuperiutendenrE has sought by every
possible means 10 evade the effect OF the famous
first sixteen names on the wOmen's eligible list as
principals placed there Its attempt 70 disre-
gard the claims OF the women who have appeared
& plaintiffs IN Anderson against Maxwell was due
the uUWilli-guess 70 obey the law as con-
EJrued by the Court OF Appeals in the Goldey
however that all. substantially all, OF the men
who We're placed upon The eligible list under that
decision have Elrea az been appointed as pr7nci-
pals The present decision. Il sustained VIII pre-
vent the intended discrimination against the
women.
cation in the present case. First. il appeal. II
n sees a. 70 the Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court from the order granting the Injunction: or
second. Il may adopt suggestion OF Judge Fltz-
gerald and bring The case on Tor tral al speclaI
term Of the Supreme Court In the event mat a
judgement entered after trial should be adverse 70
me board could then appeal successlFeiy 70 the
Appellate Division and 10 the Court OF Appeals