Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-22
CARDOl0 WINS
MANDAMUS CASE

MANDAMUS CASE
Continued from First Page)
an officer. and that under the reorganiza-
ton OF the school system, pursuant to the
act Of June 20. 1895, the relator was con-
supervising principal Of the thirteenth di-
vision, and that. being such an officer and
not teacher, the act does not apply to
him.
One Of Most Important Duties.
IF that were So then. Notwithstanding as
I have pointed out and as appears by the
undsputed testimony submitted to the
court, one of the most important duties. If
not the chief duty. devoiving upon the su-
pervistng principal, Is to teach, all that
would be required to get rid of that teach
err, without giving him an opportunity to
be tried according to the statute, would be
to elect him supervising principal, and
then to proceed to dismiss him peremp-
torily Manifestly no such evasion of the
law would be tolerated for a moment. 1t
is not what a person Is called, but what
In fact he is. and what his duties are and
hts relation to the work to which he was
appointed and employed by the board, that
determines his character as teacher or
otherwise. This being so it next remains
to be determined whether he was given
trial within the meaning Of the statute under
consideration. This statute 1 have already
read
1T is fair to assume that in the enact
ment OF this statute Congress did not aim
to do a vain thing. One Of the general rules
of Interpretation Of a statute laid down by
the Supreme Court of the United States is
this: In whatever language a statute may
be framed its purpose must be determined
nv IFS natural and Snp1hlo effect
Rule Of Construction.
aided by this rule Of construction, there
can be no serious difficulty in determining
what Congress meant by this statute. 1t
certainly did not mean that where a teach
er was being Investigated or tried such
investigation or trial should not partake of
the character indicated by the very words
themselves. A trial ex vi termini means
hearing based upon some issuable fact to be
determined by the triers of that fact. In
trying such fact the burden Of establishing
it is upon the party alleging the truth of
such fact, and this in turn involves the in
PRODUCTION of evidence, or the right SO to do,
in support thereof, which gives to the party
against whom such fact is charged the
right to meet such charge by counterproof.
and upon such proof pro and con must rest
the right determination of the question in
volved. l don't mean to be understood as
saying that It must have all the formalities
and qualities of a judicial trial, but. as I
have stated. it must be based upon some
issuable fact to be determined by the triers
Of the fact be a jury, school board or any
other body of men charged with the duty
of trying such a fact upon which the action
of such jury or such board depended
Was Trial HadP
After quoting from several legal decisions
Justice Anderson proceeded
WAS such trial had?
Before the board has Jurisdiction to
proceed to the trial of teacher there
must be laid before the board a recommen-
dation by the superintendent Of schools,
which recommendation. II 1t be for the
removal of teacher. must in the very
nature Of things be based upon some spe-
ciffc and adequate cause. and the teacher
against whom such charge is made and
whose removal is thus recommended by
the superintendent is entitled to be advised
of the nature Of the charge so lodged
against him. and must be cited to appear
before the board at given time and place
for trial upon such charge. When these
essential conditions have been complied
with such teacher not only has the right
to go before the board in person for trial,
but to be attended by his counsel and
friend.
while such teacher has the undoubted
right to waive the presence of either coun-
sci friend, such right cannot be denied
him, because 1t is expressly conferred by
the statute itself.
First Learned of Charges.
TN the case at bar the relator. accom-
panied by his counsel and a friend-and 1
am simply stating the substance of the
matters brought to the attention of the
court in the course Of this testimony-ap-
peared before the board, and then and there
learned for the first time what the charges
were and what the recommendation Of the
superintendent was ThereupOn. speaking
through his counsel, as he had a right to do,
he Informed the board that he was not pre-
pared for trial: that he was not there for
that purpose, but rather for the purpose of
ascertainjng the nature of the charges pre-
ferred against him by the superintendent.
and his recommendation based thereon, and
having a time and place fixed for his trial
under those charges, pursuant to the statute,
One, at least, of the members of the board.
recognizing not only the justice but the
right under the law, of the relator to pre-
pare for his trial to the end that the truth
of these charges might be inquired into and
determined in due order. not only suggested
a postponement of any action by the board,
but refused to unite with the other men,
bers of the board in then voting for the re-
moval Of the refator, such member giving
as reason that she was a new member,
was meeting with the board for the first
time. and was not advised as to the facts
involved, although her information as to
what the charge was, was as full and COM
plete as that of the refator, his counsel and
his friend.
"Moveover. another member Of the board,
upon the announcement of the relator,
through his counsel, that he was not pres
ent for the trial Of his case, but for the
purpose of being advised of the nature of
the charge preferred against him in order
that he might prepare for trial Inquired If
he could be ready for trial by the follow
ing morning, to which answer was made,
according to the testimony of the REALTORS
counsel, that he could, while certain other
witnesses testified that they did not recall
what answer was made to the Inquiry.
Thereupon. 1t was insisted by the superin-
tendent and certain members of the board
that they proceed to act forthwith upon the
reeommendatio then before the board. not
withstanding 1T was pointed out by counsel
for felator that one of the charges involved
the genuineness Of the handwriting of the
reIator in respect of the letter referred to
in the charges, which, he insisted and
properly so, entitled the relator to meet
that issue by appropriate evidence. But