The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-14
WOMEN PRINCIPALS SUE CITY.
nr>y SCHOOL BOARDS RIGHT
10 REDCCE SALARIES.
..,r.ms court OverruIes the City's. De
rurrrr and an Appeal Has Been Taken
In All IN women Are Interested
rb,,r Demands. with interest. $50. 1000.

-,urrrr and an Appeal Has Been Taken
In All ~ women Are Interested
Tbelr Demands. with interest. $4,000.
Thirty-elght principals in public
-yhooIs throughout Manhattan and The
nm, are suing the city In the Supreme
S.,y+ 10 recover money which they alleRe
=. bs due them in unpaid salaries. Tho
81 sued for IL S45, 937. in sums ranging
- as; 10 Si,SOO. Interest IL also de-
landed for varying periods, and II the
..hoolr,a' ANS recover the city will have
"a nav more than $4,000.
r. facilitate the trial thirty-seven OF them
haze assigned their claims 70 the thirty
.,rbtb She IL Miss Sarah E. Buckbee,
no has been a principal for years. Miss
p,ckbee appears as the sole complainant
,sainst the city. and her complaint oon-
ans thirty separate causes OF action.
A, each cause Of action takes up a couple
~ nrinted pages, the complaint IL n Of
the longest on record.
v1cept for the names and amounts
,hs thirtv.eight causes of action are iden-
,i.al They recite that in accordance with
hill pas-ed by the Legislature the school
hoard met on May II, 1900, and passed =
rssolution 10 the effect that beginning
lime / Of that year all women principals
Of nine years standing would receive the
maximum salary allowed by law, namely
$3.50 per annum.
Under this resolution. the complaint
recites. the thirty-eight principals became
entitled to the maximum salary, and did
receive it for the eve months between
lime 1 and December 81, 1899. But since
the last named date they have been receiv-
ing only the former salary Of $3.50 a year.
The principals. who sue for the full six
Years, or 81 500, are; Emma H. Alling,
Teresa l.. Atkinson, Wilhelmina NJ. Bone
seel. Elizabeth VI. Ball, Sarah F. Buckelew,
sarah A. Cooper. Mary 8. Cunningham.
Catherine v. Davis, Julia NJ. Elliott, Kate
NJ. Falvev, Joanna j. Hill, Addie L. Mckee,
Mary Maclay, Margaret B. Milton, Sara j.
JMcCaFery, Eliza Hoffman, Juliet Pearson,
Josephine +. Rogers, Hester A. Roberts,
sarah smith, Urania d. Seoord, Mary E.
Tate and Miss Buckbee herself, twenty
three in all.
January /, 1900. and the amounJe due them
Emma f. Brennan, S8s7; Mary ]. Blair,
!ls7; II. Louise Clark, 81 ,229; Mary 4. Dun
mean, ssie; Mary j. Farmer, Sos. Mar
garet l., Miller, 9dOo, mary -. mOLll eoo1'
Rose NJ. O'Neill, $3.50; Mary E. Perley,
$40; Mary A. Rogers, 81 900; Hannah A.
Sill; s9l8: Mary A. Tremper, t910; Annie
L. Whyte, S9l6; Emily A. White, $500, and
Eliza 4. Martin, S54l.
Incorporation Counsel Delany, under
whose administration the suit was begun,
served the city's answer on Miss Buckbee's
counsel, Theodore II. Lord. In the answer
the fact Of the passing OF the resolution on
May II, 1890, was admitted, but as a defence
The city set up that on December 10 OF the
same year the school board met and re-
pealed the order Of May II. The board
also passed another resolution, the answer
set up. 10 take effect December 81, 1891,
restoring the old scale OF salaries. This
new resolution IA passed unanimously
and went into effect with the beginning
Of 1900.
Miss Buckbee's oounsel demurred to the
'city's answer, on the ground that the de-
fence set up was insufficient in law. The
demurrer came up before Justice Creep
baum in the Supreme Court some time
ago, and his decision sustaining the de-
murrer and directing the city to put In q
new and more complete answer in now
pending on appeal.
In the Opinion accompanying his de-
cision Justice Greenbaum expressed his
belief that the school board, having once
increased the salaries of the principals, was
debarred from reducing them except for
just cause and in individual instances. He
wrote:
Il must be presumed that when the board
advanced the salaries of the plaintiff and her
ssGgnors It was honestly influenced by con-
~Sideration of the merit and experience OF
these principals. The board was not Obliged
10 make uniform increases, but. II IL did 40
the presumption above expressed would
nevertheless exist.
To hold otherwise would be to permit the
board to increase salaries, whether uniformly
or not. as II saw fit. and thereafter cspriciously
or srbitrarilytto reduce one or more. as its
mood, whim or purposes would prompt.
II the higher courts should uphold the
ruling Of Justice Greenbaum the city will
be left without any defence to Miss Buck
bees suit, and recovery by the principals
concerned will follow as q matter OF course.