The Washington times., 1906-12-28
Endangering Good Cause NeedlessIy.
washington Times, wednesday, December -

are officially entitled 10 every show or
respect; and in this case there was no
reason whatever to believe that their
action in regard to certain expenditures
of the school fund would be otherwise
than free from bias and entirely sin
ceFe- Similarly. but to a greater de-
gree, it was needful to be consistently
respectful to the court, whose Impair
TALLY was unquestioned. and whose in
depreciation OF the law was the law
until it was either reversed by an ap-
peliate court or repealed by Congress.
Neither the Board OF District Com
missioners nor the court has obtained
this fair, elemental consideration at the
hands of Or. Chancellor. After enduring
so much from other quarters quietly.
he has-in the particular contingency
instance calculated to work him most
harm-not only talked a great deal b11t
talked impulsively, lII-advisedly. ana in
consistently. In a statement concerning
the Commissioners, he has assumed an
parently that every official of the Gov
ernment who disagreed with him was
either Ignorant or unfair. Now in the
interview indicated and in an official
communication to the members of the
board. he has upbraided the District
supreme Court, and in substance a.
cused II OF preferring technicalitv 10
justice.
ii is not forgotten that DR. C,bsnoat,o-
mas been warrantably exasperated ne
mas encountered unmistakable disIovaIt,,
IN ms official force. He has been ham
pered by private interests strongly in
trehched- Though he has given his
Nhoie heart to the betterment of ON.
SCHOOLS practically everything he has
cone has been misrepresented. But
surely the superintendent of schools
ought to see clearly that these dif6cuI-
Ties have no connection with the action
OF the Commissioners and the co,,rt
surely, the superintendent OF scbools
ought to see that even if they had s1Icb
connection they could not condone the
petulance and intemperance of his Ian
guage- And the effect of his outbursts
mas been to give the opposition to him
the only effective ammunition ii has
ever mad TO use against him
1he merits Of the ''Cardozo case -
which was the matter reviewed bv the
court, do not enter into this discussion.
proceeding under advice from its conn
sci, the Board of Education took action
looking 10 the dismissal of a supervis-
ing principal for reasons, in its iudg-
ment sufficient. The court has now de-
ciared null the proceedings adopted TO
mat end. but it has not passed upon
the charges Either the board believed
Mr.. CardozO TO be unfit to remain in
the service. or it acted willfuHy with
gross injustice toward him. The latter
hypothesis is hardly TO be taken seri-
ousiy. The boards duty, therefore. is
10 start anew under the law as inter
preted by the court, try MIR. Cardozo.
and either make effectual its finding as
TO him or develop unmistakably the in
efnciency of the present law. In the
meantime, it can if it chooses. .apDeal
from the judgment of the Supreme
Court.
The question raised by the decision of
the court is chiefly one of methods.
But the issue precipitated by the exas-
perated outbreaks from the superin-
teRdent or schools involves the welfare
Of the whole school system. He has.
indeed. endangered the great work of
reclaiming our District schools from
the control Of seekers after special privi-
lege, from a condition of continued dis
order, from the conflict of rings OF
school politicians. The persistent mis-
representation of the proceedings of The
new authorities has been bad enough
J But every friend Of the purpose ex-