The Washington herald., 1907-11-27

ernoon
By vote OF the board motion to dis
miss the charges on the grounds that
they were irregular unlawful. and un-
authorized by the board. though they
purported 10 be filed in its name. was
overruled. and Stuart Mcnamara. attorney
for the board. opened the case for the
prosecution. with Assistant Supt. Hughes
as the FIRST witness. The most important
facts brought out were the introduction Of
the original Of a much changed story
in the Educational Review. FOR which DIT.
Chancellor was alleged 10 be response
bic. and the alleged fact that he was a
member Of the faculty OF the University
Of Chicago. and lecturing there during
the past summer. when his services were
needed i'm this city.
Much interest was displayed In the
trial. and the library at the Franklin
Building was crowded. Dr. Chancellor
occupied a seat With his attorneys.
Messrs. Leckie and Fulton. Mrs. Chaneel-
Tor sat Immediately behind him. Both
watched The proceedings closely, and Dr.
Chancellor made frequent suggestions 70
his attorneys.
Arguments of Defense.
As soon as Capt. oyster. chairman of
the board. announced that court was
opened. Mr.. Fulton introduced the motion
for the dismissal of the charges, first
on the ground that their filing had never
been authorized by the board II eduCa-
tion as such. by any resolution or other
proper action appearing on record. sec
Cndly. because they had never been au-
thorized by the board in any public meet
ing in which the board could lawfully
act on them at which Or. Chancellor
could be- present and be heard, as pro-
yided by law, thirdly. because the charges
served upon him were not properly
signed by the president of the board, but
on the contrary that his signature was
obtained upon a sheet of paper to which
the charges, when thereafter prepared,
were annexed. the president, after at
taching his name. abscnting himself from
the city and having neither read nor
seen the charges as they were when
served upon Tho superintendent
Mr.. Fulton argued that for these rea-
sons the charges We're not only Illegal
and improper. but worthless and void
as such.
Mr.. Mcnamara suggested that he be
overruled. and Capt oyster. after stat
ing that the board had confidence IN the
advice and wisdom of its attorney. asked
for a motion. Miss Mussey moved That
the first two specifications De overruled,
and the board voted unanimously.
Mr- Fulton asked Mr.. Mcnamara 10
take the stand and testify with respect
to the third specification. Mr.. Mcnamara
stated that the charges in their present
form had been completed Monday week
ago at II q. M. that they had been COM
pleted iu the rough late Saturday after
noon. and that Capt. oyster had heard
them read. and suggested changes which
were entered ON the original, that he
did not have the original and did not
know where h was. that there We're
OF changes but he did not know
how many.
Mr. Fulton endeavorcd 20 show that tho
charges served upon Dr. Chancellor had
not been signed by tho president of the
board and called upon capt. oyster. ask
ing him about 4 newspaper interview
printed last Friday 90 the effect that he
had not Yet seen the charges and had
llfN I.f"l tl.'llis IA VfHAfi 3.iIA AIlelt
he had read and signed them and would
not attach his signature 10 any document
without knowing what IL WAS. Mr. Ful-
ton asked him IL he had signed the last
page or had read the document. but Capt.
oyster refused 10 make further reply,
and uplu motion Of Mrs. Nusscy the
third specification was also overruled.
Motion 10 Dismiss OVerruIed.
OF the charges on the further ground
that they were insufficient in law. This
was also oyerruled. on motion Of Mr.
Hoover.
Mr.. Mcnamara then opened for the
calling Mr. Hughes. and pro-
ceeding on specification 3b. that the super
intendent contributed 10 the publication
of an article in the Educational Review
libelling the educational system and con-
ditious of lne District Of Columbia. and
thereafter denying TO the board any part
in or knowledge OF the publication.
Mr. Hughes testified that Dr.. Chancel-
Tor was the author of the article; that he
CDr CHANCELLOR had read it 20 him one
evening wien he was a guest at the
superintendent home, and had given it
10 him TO have typewriter. He said the
published article was not the same; that
there had been changes and additions the
last page having been added. He pro-
duced the original, verified the signature
and IL was introduced as evidence Mr.
Fulton admitted It. subject TO objection.
On CrOss-eXamination. AIT. Hughes ad-
mitted that he was a candidate. 'in a
way" for the superintendency when it
was vacant. and that Dr. Chancellor may
possibly have gotten much Of his informa-
ton for the original article from him
He told OF conversations with board mem
5ers about the article. which he did not
communicate TO the superintendent and
said that he had had typewriter for Dr.
Chancellor a letter 70 the editor Of the
Review. asking him 20 with
hold the article from publication but that
he could not say this letter had been
signed and forwarded. He said ne had
talked to DT Chancellor once after the
publication had been denied by him, and
suggested that he make a correction.
Miss Wagner. Nr. Hughes clerk. was
1ext called. and testified us To the origin
al and TO typewritiHg f.
, Mr.. Hine. secretary. and Mr.. DeMaine
bis assistant. were called and Identified
he record Of the boards proceedings. Mr.
time leSilnta tlat II WIS correct ana
but the evidence later showed
hat Il resolution directing the president
II the board 10 ask for an explanation of
Or. Cnancellor's abscnce from the city
asst summer was not contained in them.
He also admitted that il was not YER
1atim, but the best Of lis memory from
Ong-hand notes.
Charge of characterization.
Mr.. Mcnamara took up the second
,pecificatiOn in the charges. section a
alleging that the superintendent was
guilty OF insubordination in that after his
having been granted leave Of absence. had
his time, and refused 70 re-
urn when requested. and later gave as a