New-York tribune., 1905-07-17
WINS LICENSE SUIT.
Board of Education Obtains Victory
an DOrtant Case.

An important victory has been by the Board
OF Education in a decision handed down In the Ap-
pellate Division Of the Supreme Court in the case
Of Miss Rose NJ Finnigan formerly teacher in
Public School No. II. Queens. Because Miss Finni-
gan was permitted teach after the expiration OF
the three years of probationary service she held
that she entitled to a permanent license. The
charter provides that the City Superintendent
may give a teacher permanent license after
three years. The contention was made that may
means must" and that where teacher has a.
fourth year Of trial she is entitled to a permanent
license.
Many similar suits have been brought in the last
few years. These issues have been before seven
Justices at Special Term. and six have held that
the City Superintendent must either refuse or
grant the permanent license at the end of the
third year. The other held that the charter in
tended to give the City Superintendent power
either to renew or make permanent the license at
the end Of the third year. Justice Miller, of the
Appellate Division. has now rendered the following
decision
The relator was teacher in the town Of Flush
ing at the time OF its consolidation with the greater
city. and was the holder of a second grade School
Commissioners certificate, which, by its terms
expired on July 81, 1900 She continued to teach
under temporary license issued by the City Su-
Derintendent for period of one year, at the ex-
newed twice. the last renewal expiring June 80
1902 She continued to teach, however, under a
,ctihed by the City superintendent that, owing to
an unsatisfactory report on her work. her license
She now claims that both because she was a
teacher In the territory included greater city
at the time OF consolidation. and because she had
taught three years continuously under temporary
nent license. and that having retained her as a
teacher under the special permit after the expra-
ton or three Of service the city superintend-
ent cannot now say that her work was not sue
cesstul, but that the provision of section 10S9 OF
the charter that 'at OF the third wear of
contlnuous successful service the city Superintend-
ent may make the license permanent Is manda-
tory.
The fact that the relator was n teacher at
the time of consolidation and held n school COM
member of the permanent teaching force of the
greater city. The issuance to her of first grade
school commissioners certificate thereafter did
arect her status as a member of the teaching
force of the city.
To succeed, therefore. she must establish the
proposition that the word may in the portion OF
the section quoted means must After a teacher
has become member Of the permanent force she
Is protected by statute from removal, except on
charges preferred, and opportunity to be heard,
and it cannot be that IT was ever designed by the
State to take away from the licensing power all
discretion in the first instance.
The fact that the teachers tenure Of office is so
carefully guarded necessitates the greater on
porary licenses permanent. and requires that his
discretion should not be interfered with No reason
is suggested why the permissory language of the
statute should be construed mandatory.
1t is unnecessary to consider the cases relied on
by the relatOr because in each the teacher held n
permanent certificate its equivalent. The fact
that the prObationa term of three years ex-
tended by the city superintendent by a special Ii
cense cannot avail reator. because the additional
opportunity afforded her to demonstrate her
construed determination by the superintendent
that she was entitled to