The Washington times., 1906-12-25
Chancellor Regards as Calamity
The Reinstatement of Cardogo
But Prefers That Action
to Ordering New
Trial of Case.
HIS REPORT TO BOARD
Gives in Detail His Views as
to the Proper Disposal
of Case.


Following is a report of Superintend-
ent - Public Schools William T. Cham
cellor on the recent findings OF the Su-
preme Court for the District of Colum-
bia In the case OF F. L. Cardozo, the
deposed supervising principal of the
Thirteenth Division of the public
schools.
Washington. d. c.. Dec. "a
Onice of the superintendent of Schools.
The Secretary OF the Board OF Educa-
.tion, District of Columbia:
sir-I beg leave TO hand you herewith
for transmission TO the Board of Edu-
cation at its next meeting. the follow
ing communication relative TO the ae-
ton properly 10 be taken In pursuance
of the decision OF Justice Anderson. OF
the United States Supreme Court for
the District of Columbia. granting a
mandamus to reinstate f. L. Cardozo
as supervising principal of the Thir-
teenth Division Of the public schools.
There are now several questions 10 be
considered and answered by myself as
Superintendent Of Schools for the Dis
trict. as the officer Initiating the pro-
ceedinss against Principal CardozO. and
by the Board OF Education. which saw
NJ by a vote OF to O. one member not
voting. to adopt my recommendation,
The first of these questions is whether
or not to take an appeal in the present
case. The second is whether OF not TO
give the officer another OF a different
kind Of trial The third is whether or
not pending such trial 10 suspend him
from the performance of the duties ot
his office or leadership as supervising
principal. The fourth question IS
whether OF not as a board or as indi-
viduals, to ask the Congress fer legisla-
ton to give the board legal authority
commensurate with its public response
bilty.
The Question of Appeal.
Addressing myself to the first ques-
ton, permit me 10 call 10 your attention
certain features Of the law and of this
decision To reach his conclusion, the
fudge decided adversely 10 the board
rbree D7ints IN succession. The first was
whether or not a supervising principal
is a teacher or an officer. The second
was whether or not the principal was
summoned 10 a trial The third was
whether or not the trial was such as
the law contemplates On his rulings
upon these three points. the judge based
his decision. These three points appear
insufficient TO bring the argument 70
this conclusion. Granting that the
supervising principal is, as the decision
recites, at times an officer and at times
a teacher. a matter that perhaps was
not fully canvassed, note that tAe
Onenses of the principal We're committed
In his capacity as an of1cer, and not IN
ofTenses were consistent and intentional
acts OF dislOyalty 10 his next otnclal
superior. and were committed IN atJaCk-
ing that superior IN conversations ",Sis WI
subordlnates who We're teachers. ana
with citizens generally. They were
freely admitted as essential TO the pur-
pose OF +. l. CardOZO IN securing the re-
moval. sooner or later OF MS superior
oflcer.
Protection to the Teachers.
In this respect, the decision apparently
fails to consider the purpose Of the pro-
vision that when teachers are on trial.
they shall be assisted by counsel and
friend. In great school systems, such
as the two controlled by your board,
the teachers are remote from this board;
Few board members know them or are
known TO them; and certain officers IN
tervene. To protect the teachers
from these intervening officers who
have the ear OF the hoard and by whose
reports OF their proficiency they rise or
fall in position and salary, the Congress
provided that in their time Of trouble.
the teachers should be prC 1cted both
legally and socially With this purpose
or the law, we all heartily agree. The
Congress did not consider the officers
so remote from the board as 10 require
similar protection. They do their own
reporting and make their own records.
with none to intimidate or to mislead
them.
The decision does not seem to con-
slider all the facts in respect 10 whether
or not the supervising principal was
notified of a trial. He was sufficiently
notified TO have present with him legal
counsel and a friend, The case had
been pending several weeks, and he had
been In constant presence At the Office
OF the board and IN full knowledge Of
all the facts, of which, Indeed, he him
self supplied most,
As to whether the law really contem-
plates trial as 10 some 'issuable TACT
does not seem to have been fully cOnsid-
cred. Removal of officers and Of teachers
from the service OF the schools usually
take place upon one or more OF these
gTOunds--VtZ-. Incompetence, moral oh
liqUity, and dislOyalty. In order TO try
the first class OF cases upon tSsuable
facts. board would necessarily con-
with the theory and practice OF school
administration and of pedagogy To try
cases OF moral Obliquity, a board would
necessarily be a court OF lawyers with
power TO summon and 10 swear wit
uesses and to punish for contempt such
as decline 10 answer. and for perjury
such as answer falsely. To try cases of
disloyalty, the board would necessarily
be -compcsed of persons serving On ade-
dIate salaries and in attendance upon
the schools 10 inspect and 70 discover
the daily purposes of instruction and Of
management.
Purposes of Congress
II scarcely seems that the Congress
could have meant that this Board OF
Education. holding an Office of public
honor without compensation should be
at one and the same time educators.
jurists properly constituted as judges.
and inspectors IN regular daily service
On the contrary. 1t would seem that the
Congress would expect the officers OF
the board 70 determine these facts be-
fore they make their recommendations.
and the board only to pass upon the
fairness OF the spirit and Of the pur-
pose Of the recommendations and the
probability OF their improving the SER
vice of the schools. II adopted I ques-
ton, therefore. whether the decision Is