New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-10
CALLS THEM GOLD LADIES'
Women Principals Thus Dubbed By
Board of Education attorney.

This is a court of equity. and a court of equity
is not going to compel the Board OF Education TO
do thing absurd and foolish, because Of rights
which, if they admitted exist. of such an
abstract and atmospheric quality those urged
by the plaintiffs"
The speaker was Edward J. Mcclure OF the Cor
poration CounseTs Office. and the case that Of
derson Maxwell which argued yesterday
morning before Judge Fitzgerald. in the Suprems
Court, Special Term. Part II.
The GOldey case" proceeded Mr.. Mcclure. put
these respectable grandmothers. with licenses
Issued in the dim past the eligible list Of prin-
epa4s but no power except act Of the legislature
can compel the Board Of Education appoint them
TO such positions
I would like TO call the attention Of my learned
friend TO the fact that the plaintiffs are single
"on1fSl and, therefore, cannot be grandmother"
Aalo Lewis L. Delafield, counsel for the plaintiffs
/ used the word fgurativeIy. literally"
turned Mr. Mcguire, and I quite certain that
"hen these gentle old ladies made principals
me Board Of Education will have given up the ad-
ninistration Of the public schools"
Inc women alluded to in the above conversation
are Alkaline f. Anderson, Mary A Crothers, Eliza
A r. Sullivan. Anna E. Perham and Mary H.
4ompklns. They were nominated by the board Of
superintendent October Z, 1903 for vacancies
in four school board districts in the Borough OF
Manhattan, and their names were rejected by the
Board of Education The board Of superintendents
then took steps 10 nominate the next five names,
secured injunction restraining further action
until the case had been settled by the courts.
The action Of the board Of superintendent"
said Mr.. Delafeld yesterday, is practical
movsl Of the names in question from the eligible
list in TO al disregard OF the provision Of the
/ vised charter that nominations for the place OF
principal shall be made in the regular order Of the
standing Of the candidates in the eligible lists.
cept that the superintendent may consider for
each appointment the first three names the
appropriate eligible list
The rejection Of the nominations does not con-
.rrute removal Of the names in question from
. gha eligible list The nominations made for
part .uar districts. and the rejection OF a
for district does not indicate an unwtlnngness
on ire part of the Board of Education to consider
f. f.~ auotre- district It by no means follows
ina. because a teacher IS not qualified for duty
/ in one district ne she would not be adapted
for work i'm another where the conditions may be
widely different. and this fact was avowedly taken
into consideration in the revision OF the greater
Neq-York charter. Under the original charter
nominations made generally for the grade
Of principal but under the revised charter
provision Is made for each separate district
in the enlarged city the educational advantages
which the character of its population demands.
For the same reason the board of superintendent
! IS allowed TO exercise some latitude Of selection
among the names first on the eligible list
If, therefore, the names OF these five teachers
still remain at the head OF the eligible list, it is
violation Of the charter to pass them over and
nominate the next five. for the board OF superin
tendeuts is required by law 10 consider only the
highest three names on the eligible list in making
nominations.
Under the revised charter the persons entitled
10 a place on the eligible list all those licensed
before the present charter went into effect, all
who have since been examined and found TO be
qualified. and the graduates OF certain colleges and
Of those licensed prior TO the time that the charter
took effect 1t is required that they shall be placed
on the list in the order in which their licenses
were granted The plaintiffs belong to the class
whose licenses were issued prior TO the going into