The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1906-12-26
Admiral Baird Opposed to
Chancellor Plan.
NOT IN FAVOR OF APPEAL
Burden of the Fight, He Declares,
Rests with the BOard-WiII Meet
the Issue squRrcIy-Matter to BE
Taken Up mt TO-day's Session.
Discusses the Possible Action.


board in the case Of F. /. Cardozo, the
deposed supervising principal of the
Thirteenth division. Admiral Baird is
Of the opinion that a new trial will be
granted Cardozo while the superinten-
dent expects that an appeal will be taken
from the decision OF Justice Anderson.
A letter from Supt. Chancellor 10
the board giving in detail his views
as TO the proper disposal Of the case
He says in part:
There are now several questions TO be
considered and answered by myself as
superintendent Of schools for the Dis
trict, as the officer initiating the pro-
ceedings against Principal Cardozo. and
by the board Of education, which saw
fit by vote Of to O. one member not
voting, 10 adopt my recommendation.
The first OF these questions is whether
no not 10 take an appeal in the present
case. The second is whether or not to
give the officer another or a different
kind Of trial The third is whether or
not, pending such trial, TO suspend him
from the performance Of the duties of
his Office or leadership as supervising
principal The fourth question is whether
or not. as a board or as individuals. 10
ask the Congress for legislation 10 give
the board Legally authority commensurate
with the public responsibility.
Ruled on Three Points.
addressing myself to the first question.
permit me 20 call 20 your attention Ger
tain features Of the Law and Of this de-
c.sion- To reach his conclusion, the judge
decided adversely 10 the board three points
in succession, The first was whether or
not d supervising principal is a teacher
or an officer. The second was whether or
not the principal was summoned 10 a
trial The third was whether or not the
trial was such as the law contemp!ates.
on his rulings upon these three points
the judge based his decision. These three
points appear insufficient TO bring the ar
gument 20 this conclusion.
Granting that the supervising princi-
pal is. as the decision recites. at times
an officer and at times teacher. a mat
ter that perhaps, was not fully canvassed.
note that the offenses Of the principal
were committed in his capacity as an
officer and not in his capacity as a
teacher. These ohenses were consistent
and intentional acts Of disloyalty 20 his
next Official superior, and were committed
attacking that superior IN conversation
with subordinates, who were teachers,
and with citizens generally. They were
freely admitted as esseutioI to the pur-
pose Of F. L. Cardozo in securing the
removal sooner or lEer. Of his superior
officer.
Regrets the Publicity.
In discussing DR.. Chancellor's letter
last night, Admiral Baird said he was
sorry that his views Of the case had been
published before they were officially sub
mitted to the board Of education.
The burden OF this tight rests with
the board and not with the superintend-
ent," said Admiral Baird. 1T is our
affair. and we propose TO meet the issues
fairly and squarely and without prejudice.
As Judge Anderson has ruled that the
dismissal Of Cardozo was Illegal, IN my
opinion the board will tomorrow decide
to give him another trial
Speaking for myself, as well as other
members Of the board, 1 may state that
CardozO will be given every opportunity
TO refute the charges made against him.
The board is handicapped, as they cannot
compel the attendance Of witnesses, but
II VIII be their endeavor to conduct the
proceedings so as 10 allow no cause Of
complaint either from Cardozo or those
who may appear against him.
Every means Of vindication will be
given him, and II he proves himself -
cent of the charges. the baaLd
glad to set him right - n
public and his associate
IF he is again found Fakes
an appeal which is the
affair. so far as the concerned,
is at an end. The metfd@Neb be pursued
in case another appeal should be sus-
tanned cannot be determined at present
Changes In Laws Needed.
Material changes are necessary in the
present laws governing school affairs,
and, in my opinion, such action will be
taken by Congress without the request
Of the board of education. Under the
present laws the board, while its respon-
sibilitles are large. has little power. The
recommends all dismissals
and appointments. which the board acts
upon at his suggestion. This was the
method of procedure adopted in the Car
dozo case.
Mr. Chancellor has proven good su-
perintendent in many ways. He is a man
of energy and excellent ideas, and when
he assumed charge of the public school
system the majority Of the teachers were
pleased with the changes inaugurated by
him
Personally. I was in favor Of the ap-
pointment of local man. but after meet
ing DR.. Chancellor and becoming &C
quainted with his views. conceded with
the board in their selection Of him as SUI
In reference to the agitation which
followed the dismissal Of several of the
teachers, discovered when l entered
upon my duties as a member of the
board that a dismissal of a teacher had
not occurred in twenty-six years.
Controversy Was Feared.
When I inquired the reason Of this &C
ton I was informed that such action
would result in a controversy such as re-
Gently occurred. Ny reply was that If we
had one good fight and won the board
would not again meet with similar diff
culties II for good and sufficient reasons
we find it necessary to dismiss a teacher
or officer upon recommendation of the
such action will be adopt
ed by the board without fear or favor"
DR.. Chancellor said last night that in his
opir-on an appeal viii be taken in the
present case. 1t being suggested 10 him
that his letter TO the board regarding the
decision Of Justice Anderson makes him
liable to a charge of contempt of court,