Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-07

testified that he was present at the meet.
ing October 10 as Mr.. Cardozo's friend. He
then related his version Of the meeting
which was practically the same as that
given by Mr.. Davis. He testified that
members of the board declared at the
meeting that 1t was not necessary to give
Mr.. Cardozo a trial. In executive session.
he said, Cardozo was asked by member
OF the board whether he had criticized
his superior. Dr. Montgomery. and replied
that he had never criticized DIR. Mont
gomery in a way that would be detrimental
to the school system. Mr. Cobb said that
Pror. Evermann announced himself ready
to vote on Mr. Cardozo's own admission"
After Mr.. Mcnamara had cross-ques-
toned the witness Mr. Davis himself
mounted the witness stand and told of the
circumstances connected with the case Oc-
tober IL. During the consideration of the
question by the board, Mr. Davis remarked
Superintendent Chancellor was very much
irritated
And but for my uniform good nature he
would have been irritating" declared Mr..
Davis.
Permission to Withdraw.
AS the matter proceeded" Mr.. Davis
continued ut became apparent that there
was to be no trial, SO 1 asked permission
to withdraw. was careful throughout my
remarks not to enter into the merits of the
case, but merely to speak to the point that
In reply to a question by Mr. Mcnamara
MI. LAWS said he hadn't been able to hear
everything on account of the commotion
at my end OF the table, where DR.. Chan
cellor was seated
1t was stated by Mr.. Davis that Mrs. Mus
sey asked that the matter go to trial be-
cause she knew nothing of the affair and
.iEat she dld not participate in the final vote
hf- McNamara cross-quest Toned Mr. Davis
on that matter, but no different version Of
Davis. W '
Mr.. Cardozo on the Stand.
Inc next witness to go on the stand was
Mr. Cordozo. who gave his account of as
much of the meeting of October II as
ne was cognizant of. He told in detail OF
questions said to have been asked by Mrs.
Terrell and others as to whether Mr., Davis
meant that regular trial with expert
testimony be held. Mr.. Davis replied. ac-
corolns to witness, that he would 60 into
that later, but that a trial is a trial.
MI Cardozo admitted he had said to DR.
Snahcellor that he may have criticised Dr.
montgomery, assistant superintendent for
lhe coIored schools, but said he had re-
marked at the time that criticism NAV ha
favorable or unfavorable, and he wanted
opportunity at a regular trial to establish
Just what the nature of his criticism had
been. 1A"u
Session This Afternoon.
AFTER the noon recess Mr. Cardozo was
examined by the attorney for the board.
The latter asked the witness whether ha
had admitted having criticised DR. Mont
gomery, and witness said he had denied
at the meeting that he had ever said az
never hesitated to criticise the assistant
superintendent. l may in private CONVEX
satlon have criticised him unfayorabIv as
we'll as favorably.''
Mr. A. L. Stewart, director of Intermediates
instruction and formerly superintendent of
SCHOOLS was called as a witness by Mr..
mcnamara who asked him whether a su-
ficer. ~ OH VI
He is" Mr. Stewart replied.
When asked by Mr. Davis how such an
understanding of the law was reached Mr.
STUART replied that the controller of the
feet ~ ''ia' ca
; Prof. Evermann's Testimony,
Prof. Barton w. Evermann was oues-
TONED by Attorney Mcnamara as to what
occurred at the board meeting in question.
he told of the first recommendation, say
ing 1t contained references to disloyalty
and certain anonymous letter. and then
stated that the charge was withdrawn and
merely referring to 'disloyalty"
was substituted.
He said he asked Cardozo at the meet
In whether he was one of those EMPLOYEES
OF the service who consider they have a
night to criticiSe their superiors His rep,y
according to Prof Evermann. was such
that he, Prof. Evermann, was astoniShed
at his ''admiSSion'.