Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-25
CR|T|CISES THE COURT
Dr.. Chancellor Discusses De-
cision in the Cardozo Case.
SAYS BOARD is MANACLED
Claims the Judge Passed Over Points
of Importance.
ALL FACTS NOT REVIEWED
Superintendent Regrets That Techni-
calities Should Be Urged at
Expense of System.
ILL FACTS NOT REVIEWED

DR.. VIM. E. Chancellor, superintendent of
the public schools. has made public the fol-
lowing letter, which he has addressed to
each member of the board of educa ton,
stating his view of the situation created by
the decision of Justice Anderson ordering
the reinstatement of Supervising Principal
Cardozo:
Il beg leave to hand you herewith, for
transmission to the board of education at
its next meeting, the following commune
cation relative to the action properly to be
taken in pursuance of the decision of JUS
tice Anderson of the United States Supreme
Court for the District of Columbia, grant
ing mandamus to reinstate F. L. Cardozo
as supervising principal of the thirteenth
division of the public schools.
Four Questions Considered.
There are now several questions to be
considered and answered by myself as
superintendent of schools for the District,
as the officer initiating the proceedings
against Principal Cardozo. and by the
board of education. which saw fit by
vote of to o. member not voting, to
adopt my recommendation. The first Of
these questions is whether or not to take
ond is whether 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 leadership as
supervising principal The fourth question
is whether or not. as a board or as indi
viduals, to ask the Congress for legislation
to give the board legal authority common
surate with its public responsibility.
addressing myself to the first question,
permit me to call to your attention certain
features of the law and of this decision.
To reach his conclusion. the Judge decided
adversely to the board three points in sue
cession. The first was whether or not a
supervising principal is a teacher Or an
officer. The second was whether or not
the principal was summoned to q trial
The third was whether or not the trial was
such as the law contemplates On his rul-
ings upon these three points the judge
based his decision.
The Courts Conclusions
These three points appear insufficient
to bring the argument to this conclusion
Granting that the supervising principal is,
as the decision recites. at times an officer
and at times teacher. a matter that per-
haps was not fully canvassed, I note that
the offenses of the principal were COM
mitted in his capacity as an officer, and not
in his capacity as teacher. These Of
lenses were consistent and intentional acts
of disloyalty to his next official superior
and were committed In attacking that SUI
perior in conversations with subordinates
who were teachers. and with citizens gen.
orally. They were freely admitted as es-
sential to the purpose of F. L. Cardozo in
securing the removal. sooner or later, of
his superior officer.
In this respect the decision apparently
fails to consider the purpose of the provis-
ion that when teachers are on trial they
shall be assisted by counsel and a friend.
In great school systems. such as the two
controlled by your board. the teachers are
remote from the board: few board mem
bers know or are known to them; and GER
tain officers intervene. To protect the
teachers from these Intervening officers
who have the ear of the board and by
whose reports of their proficiency they rise
or fall in position and in salary, the Con-
gress provided that in their time of trouble
the teachers should be protected both legal
ly and socially.
The Spirit of the Law.
with this purpose of the law we all
heartily agree. The Congress did not con-
slider the officers SO remote from the board
as to require similar protection. They do
their own reporting and make their own
records, with none to intimidate or to mis-
lead them.
THE decision does not seem to consider
all the facts in respect to whether or not the
supervising principal was notified of trial.
with him legal counsel and friend. The
case had been pending several years; and
he had been in constant presence at the Of
flee Of the board and in full knowledge of
all the facts, of which, indeed, he himself
supplied most.
"As to whether The law really contem-
plates a trial as to some 'issuable fact
does not seem to have been fully consid-
cred. Removal of officers and of teachers
from the service of the schools usually take
place upon one or more of these grounds,
viz. incompetence, moral obliquity and dis
loyalty
Special Board Suggested.
'In order to try the first class of cases
upon issuable facts, board would neces-
sarily consist exclusively of educators, ia
miliar with the theory and practice Of
school administration and of pedagogy. To
try cases of moral obliquity, board would
necessarily be a court of lawyers, with
power to summon and to swear witnesses
and to punish for contempt such as decline
to answer. and for perjury such as answer
falsely. To try cases Of disloyalty, the
board you'd necessarily be composed of
persons serving on adequate salaries and in
attendance upon the schools to inspect and
to discover the daily processes of instruc-
ton and Of management
1T scarcely seems that the Congress
could have meant that this board OF educa-
ton, holding an office OF pubic honor with
out compensation, should De at one and the
same time educators 1urlStS, properly con-
stitutea as judges. and inspectors in regu-
lar daily service. On the contrary, It would
seem that the Congress would expect the Of
ficers Of the board to determine these facts
before they make their recommendations,
anu the board only to pass upon the fair
ness Of the spirit and Of the purpose of the
recommendations and the probability OF
their improving the service of the schools,
If adopted. I question. therefore. whether
the decision Is right In ruling adversely
upon this point. I know of no state in the
Union where board Is itself required to
be a trial board to determine only 1ssuable
facts Neither do / find any provision in
the act of 1906 to this effect.
Questions Not Touched.
But before reaching conclusion such as
this It would seem that the court should
have determined three other questions, ap-
parently omitted. OF these, the first is
whether or not the same kind and amount