Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-08-04
PROFFER OF POSITION
sUPERINTENDEHcy or THE DIS
TRIcT SCHOOLS
Said to Have Been offered to G. n.
Kendall Of Indianapolis-oues-
lions Answered.

The delay in the deliberations Of the
special committee OF the board of education
on the selection OF new superintendent
of schools is caused by the desire of the
committee to hear from Superintendent Cal
win N. Kendall of the public schools OF In
dianapoiis. Ind. who has been practically
rendered the position in so far as the COM
mittee has the power to make the offer.
The situation in regard to Mr.. Kendall Is
the same as that In regard to Superin-
tendent Van Syckel Of Baltimore about o
week ago.
A few days ago Superintendent Kendall
was before the entire board for about two
hours. and was questioned very closely.
He was told that the committee would like
to know whether he would consider the po-
sition were it offered to him. He asked Tor
several days to consider his answer to this
question. and It is his reply that IL
awaited.
While the board and the committee. 1t is
stated are not unanimously in favor Of
Mr.. Kendall, 1t is understood that he has
made very favorable impression.
Mr.. Kendall has been superintendent OF
schools at Indianapolis for about six years.
Raised By Admiral Baird.
ITO what law officer shall the board of
education refer questions requiring legal
definitions or explanations?"
AhiS oiSHlACdAt QuCStlOH, IaiScO NY <1N-
niral Baird. president of the new board of
education. in q letter to District Commits
sioner mcfarland. under the date of July
8. 1906. has been answered by Corporation
Counsel Thomas, who, by his Interpretation
OF the new law reorganizing the public
school system, holds that the board of edu-
cation has no authority to refer questions
directly to the corporation counsel. To. an
other inquiry in substance, Ito. whom shall
the board of education following its organic
cation report" propounded by Admiral
Baird, MIR. Thomas replies that If 1t refers
to the matter of expenditures and estimates
contemplated by the board then an ac-
counting should be made to the Commits
sioners.
These two questions settled. still another.
shall the board OF education make any.
annual report to the District Commission
ers?" Is raised, according to the construc-
ton put on the matter by DR.. William Tin
dali, secretary to the Board Of Commis-
sioners. to whom the papers were referred
for transmission to the corporation coun-
sci. DR.. Tindall helds that "the act OF
June 90 1906, which vests the control Of the
public schools in board of education con-
ssting of nine members. makes no require
ment In the matter of a report: but section
ID repeats all conflicting acts and raises the
question whether the requirement of the
act Of June 6, 1903, directing report to the
Commissioners is inconsistent with the later
law
To Submit Estimate.
Although leaving this question practically
unanswered. as far as it refers to report,
Mr.. Thomas points out that the board is
required. under the new law. to transmit to
the Commissioners annually estimate"
in detail of the amount Of money needed
by the schools for the ensuing year. which
the Commissioners shall submit to Con-
gress, with such recommendations as they
may deem proper.
The piy1ton jo
stated means practically that the board of
education Is in no way accountable for its
acts to the Commissioners. but that when
legal questions arise, upon which the board
desires an opinion from the corporation
counsel, they must first be referred to the
Commissioners for action.