Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-23
The Cardozo Decision.

The Cardozo Decision.
Justice Andersons decision in the Cardozo
case fully affirms the contention of The
Star that the statute providing for the re-
organization of the District public schools
guarantees to all teachers-including SUI
pervisins principals-the right of trial when
their dismissal from the service is sought
by the superintendent and the board OF
education Thus in an authoritative man.
ner is the principle established which, it
was generally believed by citizens, Con
gress intended to write into the law
When this matter first came into question
The Star sought to show that Congress
had Enthusiastically provided for the right OF
trial in declaring that when d teacher is
on trial or is being investigated he or she
shall have the right to be attended by
counsel and by at least one friend of his OF
her selecton." 1t rejected as unsound IN
law and in common sense the theory that
Congress by this language intended to sttp-
ulate only that if teacher was granted
a trial he or she should in that process
have the right to be attended by counsel
and friend The court likewise sweeps
this sophistical theory aside and lays down
the broad, sound doctrine that the right to
counsel carries with it the right to trial
Thus a step is taken at last toward equita-
bic procedure in school administration,
step which the school board and superin-
tendent should themselves have taken at
the outset. and which indeed they might
have taken without in any degree lessenins
their disciplinary authority
Justice Andersons decision first defines a
supervising principal as teacher and thus
clears a doubt which has somewhat con-
fused the public consideration of this case.
1t next declares that the proceeding at the
Franklin building which resulted in Car
dozo's dismissal was in no sense trial
This second factor of the ruling Is of i'm
portance apart from its bearing upon the
case in hand inasmuch as it sets standard
for the future conduct of the board of
education in its treatment of accused
teachers.
This Cardozo decision. by an inference
which appeals strongly to the laymen and
doubtless as well to the lawyer, practically
stamps as Illegal all other dismissals that
have been ordered by the present board of
education. In the beginning The Star con-
tended that it was tho purpose of Congress
in the statute of last June to continue in
service automatically subject TO subse-
quent trial and dismissaD every teacher
who was on the rolls at the date of its
approval This view was not shared by
the board. Consequently the first appoint
ments promulgated by the board were In
the nature of new appointments and
teachers so named were required to take a
new oath of office. Subsequently the
boards attorney held that the law did IN
fact automatically continue all the old
teachers in office. Therefore each of the
teachers and principals then or subse-
quently dropped or dismissed. MIR. keane.
Mr. Swartzell, Mr.. Clarke, Mrs. Cooper,
Miss Male and Mr.. Love, was to be re-
garded as having been forcibly ousted from
the school system without the trial which
Justice Anderson now declares to have been
required by the law.
According to the official records, Mr..
SwartzeIl refused to accept a position ten
dered him by the board and the board held
that this refusal was tantamount to a
resignation. Mr.. SwartZeil maintained that
he had already a status as high school
principal and that moreover the position
rendered had no legal existence. He was
dropped against his protest without trial.
Mr. keane was transferred from a SUI
pervisng principalship TO building prin-
cipalShip, not then vacant it being neces
sary TO degrade chain of teachers to make
room for him. He also cOntended that he
was still supervising principal and on his
refusal TO accept the proffered place lie was
dropped without trial.
Mrs Cooper. Mr.. Clarke, Mr.. Love and
Mss Male were all In the school system
last spring. were all automatically con-
tnUed In the service according to the
boards legal adviser. and were all sum
marily dropped. without trial. by the board
on the superin;endent's recommendation
FOR the good of the service"
Here then are six cases of the forcible
separation Of Notwithstanding principals
from the school service without trial
There would seem TO be difference be-
tween these cases and the Cardozo case
just decided, even though Cardozo was con-
tinued both by the law and by reappoint-
meut while the others were continued only
by the law. the board recognizing their
status as teachers by formally dsmissing
them from the service. In no case was the
teacher granted the right of trial which
Justice Anderson declares to have been as
surCd by the statute TO every school
worker.
With this plain mandate and this equally
plain definition before them the board and
the superintendent should promptly pro-
coed To right the wrongs that have been
committed. Ii any teacher is charged with
conduct prejudieial to morality or to good
order and discipline in the public schools
the means al hand to bring the ac-
cused to an open and fair trial in con-
formlty with the Law.
The holiday season is no time for politi-
cal economists 10 preach against the prodi-
gal expenditure of money in this era OF