The Washington times., 1906-10-25
Supervising Principal De-
MES INSTRUMENTATION
to MOntgOm-
cry.
PRESENTS PETITION
TO RETAIN POSITION
Names Board of Education
in His Plea for ReinState-
ment in His Old
Office.

Francis 1. Cardozo. formerly super
vising principal OF the Thirteenth diyis-
ion OF the public schools OF Washing
ton. who was deposed by the Board OF
Education, because OF his alleged dis
loyalty 10 his superior, Assistant Su-
peFintendent Montgomery. today ap-
peaIed 10 the District Supreme Court
for a writ OF mdndamus TO compel the
Board of Education 10 restore him 20
his position OF supervising principal.
Admiral George ". Baird, president,
and the other members Of the board
are named as defendants in the pro-
ceediugs.
After recitiug the law under which
The Board OF Education was created.
and its duties and functions Mr. Car
dozo gives a brief recital of his connec-
tion with the Washington public
schools from the time he was appointed
teacher in the first grade, September
]. 1890, 10 the time or his elevation TO
the position OF supervising principal,
May ,. 1904
Summoned Before Superintendent.
Referring 70 the troubles which led
10 his being deposed, he says, on Oc-
tOber 8, ne was summoned before Su-
perintendent Chancellor. and closely ex-
amined as 10 his opinion OF Assistant
Superintendent Montgomery.
lie says he was also asked by Super
iutendent Chancellor if he had any Crili-
Clsm To make OF Assistant SupeFinten-
dent Montgomery.
Upon his replying frankly TO the in
QUITes of Superintendent Chancellor. Mr.
CardoZo says the former took from his
desk an anonymous pencll-WrItteu let
Ter, addressed 70 a newspaper IN Wash
iugton- Ia which the writer severely crit
lCleed ana aLtstJl-1f. assistant 1"4eTIn-
teudent Montgomery, and asked him.
Cardozo, III he had written Vhe letter
Mr.. CardOZo says he denied the author
ship OF The letter In question There
upon, he says. superintendent Chaucel-
Tor produced several letters which were
written by him and asked il he was the
writer. After examining two of the let
tiers Mr. Cardozo said he admitted writ
ing them.
At this stage Of the proceeding Mr.
CardJZO said superintendent Chancellor
summoned Assistant Superintendent
Montgomery into the office and asked
him If Mr. CdrdoZo had been loyal 10
him. Mr. Montgomery, Mr. CardOZO
says, replied alilrmauVely. adding tnaC
at times the latter had been inclined 10
be disputauous. Mr. Montgomery was
then asked by Mr. Chancellor II he be
Ieved that Mr.. Card0zo had written
the letter criticlsing him and he said he
did, because OF the similarity OF the
handwriting.
While this was going on Mr.. Cardozo
said there were two members Of the
Board OF Educ5tion IN Alr- Chancellor's s
office, and he and MT. Montgomery were
requested 10 retire from the room
When they were invited 10 return TO the
Office he says there We're four members
OF the Board of Education in the room,
and Mr.. Chancellor asked them If they
desired TO compare the writing of the
letters admitted by him TO be his
with thar OF the anonymous letter To
this three Of the board said that they
had previously seen the anonymous let
ter and believed IL TO have been written
by Mr. CaTdUZO.
At this time superintendent Chancellor
turned 10 Mr. Cardozo and told him to
consider the question Of resiguing or
being dismissed. in reply Mr.. Cardozo
says he stated that inasnuCh as he had
not written the anonymous letter, nor
I'm any way been deTeliCt in his duty,
NE saw no necessity of considering either
his resignation or dismissal.
The following day AiF- CaUdOzo SAYS
he called upon Superintendent Chaucel-
Tor and again denied the authorship OF
the anonymous letter. and the latter
said TO him:
What you are up against is this let
ter-tts up to you to prove 10 those
four men who We're here yesterday that
you did not write this letter"
Promised Fair Play.
Mr. Cardoz0 says he then called upon
three of the members Of the board of
education who were present and endeav-
ored to see the fourth. but was unable
Continued on Eleventh Page.)