The Washington herald., 1907-11-28
Report by Chamber of Com
merce Committee.
MAY REMOVE DR.. CHANCELLOR
Law and Decisions Quoted In Sub
StRntiHtion of Finding That Board
of Education Is Acting Wholly
Within Its Rights in Placing the
school superintendent on Trial.

has obtained from a subcommittee an
analysis of the law from that point of
view.
The inquiry was not intended to reach to
the merits Of the charges preferred by the
| board against DR.. Chancellor, but was
designated as a means OF answering the
question whether or not the hearing now
in progress meets all the requirements
OF the law
The finding Of the subcommittee is that
the trial now In progress is more than
is guaranteed 20 DR.. Chancellor by the
law. The report of the subcommittee
will be included in any report which the
whole committee may make on the
schools. and submitted to the board OF
directors OF the chambe-.
Committees Conclusions.
These conclusions are advanced by the
committee:
That no tribunal other than the board
Of education has the power or Jurisdic-
/ tion TO try the superintendent Of schools,
/ il a trial is required by the act. or TO
remove the superintendent from his Of
/ fce: that when II has exercised the dis
erection committed TO it by the act. in
legitimate way, there is no other tribunal
which can upset its judgment
THAT the superintendent OF schools is
not entitled under the act 10 a trial al
all. as a matter OF right. at the hands
Of the board OF education.
That the act evinces a careful inten-
ton Of extending all such protection TO
| employees Of the system as can be wisely
extended without Gripping the admins
tration Of the system, and that its pro-
visions as 10 trials should not be ex-
tended beyond employees whose main duty.
If not entire duty. is TO actually teach
the various classes Of children.
The report submitted TO sustain these
conclusions consists chiefly of citations
from judicial decisions offered 10 sustain
each step in the committees argument.
Not only all the opinions Of District
courts on the present school law are re-
viewed. but many general opinions from
the United States Supreme Court and
the appellate courts OF the several States.
4 Specific Provision.
After noting that the board is by law
given control Of the schools. the com
mittee cites this specific provision OF
law as 70 the superintendent: The board
shall have power TO remove the superiu-
tendent az any time for adequate cause
affecting his character and efficiency as
superintendent and calls attention t6 the
fact that there is no provision whatever
in the act for an appeal from the decis-
I ions Of ~ 1r.T ,r L.
to appointments. promotions. or dismis-
sails or for hearing on said matters be
fore any other tribunal
Many authorities are quoted % show
that generally the courts have refused
either TO Interfere IN or review the per
formance Of discretionary acts when per
formed by constituted authorities
The bulk Of the report is devoted 10 a
discussion Of the second conclusion-that
the superintendent is not entitled 10 a
trial
''1he only provision in regard TO trial
10 be found in the act" says the COM
mittee. lis contained in two lines and a
half, designated as section 10. which reads
as follows. When 4 teacher is on trial
or being investigated he OF she shall
have the right TO be attended by counsel
and by at least one friend Of his or he7
selection
Decisions Of the District Supreme Court
. and the Court Of Appeals are cited To-
interpret this provision They are the
now familiar judgments IN the Cardoza
and Male cases, and their effect Is given
by the committee 20 be: That the pro
vision requires. FIRST that the applicant
for trial must be a teacher: second.
that the provision does not reach 10 re-
I rfRF. af@ 9
third. that these restrictions are consti-
tutioHal. clear distinction is made in
the act. as the committee reads IL. be-
tween teachers and officers, and IL comes
/ To the conclusion on the basis OF this de-
( cision not only that "A superintendent IS
not teacher, anJ. therefore. not within
/ the scope OF section 10, but that further
testimony would have made II plain TO
J the court that M. Cardoza. being "a super
vising principal. was not within the intent
/ Of the provision.
Courts Cannot Interfere.
/ Il is further held that in the exercise
/ Of the discretion Of the board upon the
| quetion OF what is adequate cause af-
/ fecting the character and efficiency of the
| superintendent the courts cannot inter
4 fere nor can they upset the conclusion Of
the board.
In arguing the third conclusion. the
committee says:
in view Of the fact that certain definite
and specific powers are vested in certain
employees Of the board of education. the
whole body of such employees cannot be
said 10 bear strictly the relation existing
/ between master and servant, but. never
/ theless. the relation Of these employees to
the board must necessarily be more ike
that between master and servant than
| Ike any other relation known 10 the law
In the Well-known and wisely developed
law governing the relation of master and
servant there is not now. and never has
been. such a thing as a trial as a prere-
qUiSite for the dismissal of an employe.
No principle of the law is better estab-
lished than this: That the right to en-
plOyment is not a vested right So far
as the board Of education is concerned.
II the superintendent and higher officers
in the school system who are brought IN
practically direct contact with the board
and through whom the board Is obliged
TO exercise its functions. should have the
privilege OF trial before any body other
than the board. and such other body
should sustain the superintendent or high
officials through whom the board must
act, the board would practically have to
resign or become ineffective, as the inde-
pendence guaranteed TO the superintend-
ent or other high officials would in all
human probability make such friction that
the boSrd could not effectually discharge
its functions. Such a condition would be
intolerable.
Wise Law by Congress-
Congress has provided a wise law TO
govern the administration Of the public
schools OF the District" says the commit
tee I'm conclusion. "The act evinces a