Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-06
evidence IS ALL IN
Trial of Francis L. Cardoz0
Drawing to a Close.
ARGUMENTS SET FOR FRIDAY
Defendant Completes His Stsry at
Hearing Yesterday.
FEATURE OF THE AFTERNOON
Counsel Consider ACCESSIBILITY of
Withdrawing With Their Client
and Appealing to Court.
FEATURE OF THE AFTERNOON

With all of the testimony in the board Of
education, at o'clock pm. yesterday,
voted to postpone the arguments in the
Cardozo trial until 1870 o'clock next Friday
evening The attorneys for the defense,
Messrs. Mason N. Richardson and James A.
Cobb announced that they would probably
consume about one hour each in arguing
the case, and Attorney Stuart Mcnamara
said he would require about an hour There
is said to be some difference of opinion
among members of the board as to whether
or not they will vote at once on the case.
in open meeting or take it under advise
ment and announce their decision at a
later date This question win doubtless be
decided Friday evening.
CardoZo, the defendant, completed his
story yesterday afternoon and was cross
examined by Attorney Mcnamara and by
members Of the board. Frequent excep-
lions to the way the witness was handled
by members of the beard were noted by the
attorneys for the defense. A feature Of the
afternoon was the insistence by Attorney
Mcnamara that a certain witness for the
strenuous objections by counsel for the
other side who held that as the prosecution
had completed it's case in chief the witness
should not be heard. When the board
finally voted to uphold its own attorneys
view of the matter as it has done in prac-
tically every instance during the trial. tue
attorneys for the defense for moment
considered the ACCESSIBILITY of withdrawing
entirely from the board room with the de-
PENDANT and taking their chances in a
court of law.
Resumption Of Hearing.
It was 3:s5 o'clock when the board met
for continuation of the trial yesterday
afternoon, all the members. with the excep-
| ton of DR.. Atwood, being present. The
defendant resumed his testimony
Witness told of interview with Super
intendent Chancellor. October II. He said
on that occasion he had a letter from At
torney Henry r. Davis for Presentation ta,5
he had appointment with Superin-
| tendent Chancellor at o'clock pm. but
| that the superintendent kept him wait
| ing until 2:55 O'Clock. at which time he
sent in Mr. Davis letter. with a view of
gaining an audience. That he did. he said.
because he understood his case was to be
| called before the board at o'clock that
| day and he wished to learn its status.
| The letter from MFR. Davis stated that he
had been employed as Cardozo's attorney
| and was under the necessity Of asserting
l
Immediate audience for him, Cardozo said.
! and when he entered the superintendent
| was very angry and finally. after demand
| ing to know who Henry E. Davis was. left
| the room to telephone, returning later and
| stating that he was going to. recommend
| the dismissal of witness because he had
| presented the letter from Mr.. Davis. Wit
ness said he asked for trial, but Super
1 intendent Chancellor said: ~.
| 1--WE will see about that"
| Witness said he pressed his plea for a
| trial and the superintendent again said,
1 ave will see about that"
Wrote to Superintendent
Cardozo told of writing two letters to
Superintendent Chancellor, one in congrat-
ulation on his appointment as superintend-
ent and another in reference to matter Of
4 training teachers. He wrote no other let
\ tiers to the superintendent he stated.
| Attorney Richardson asked witness
| whether, he made certain derogatory re-
I marks about DIR. Montgomery in the pres
ence of Superintendent Chancellor. Wit
ness said he did not make the remarks.
Witness denied that September II he re-
ferred to DR.. Montgomery as "acting as
sistant superintendent"
ibid you ever remark to DIR. Chancellor,
or any member of the board or anybody
else that DR.. Montgomery was a ruin to
the schools?" Attorney Richardson asked
| Il never made any such remark, or any
thing like it, to any one at any time" was
| the reply.
Attorney Richardson then read from Dr.
Chancellor's testimony in which the su-
perintendent stated that Cardozo made
| such remark to him and practicany did so
| in the presence of members of the board.
Certain correspondence between the wit
ness and DIR. ]. r. Francis was put in
evidence to establish the contention that
witness never had any other ambition ex-
cept to remain as supervising principal of
the thirteenth division. He read from a
! letter from DR.. Francis written August 10.
| worry about his continuance as supervising
principal. as DIR. Francis thought all SUI
pervising principals would be retained.
Mention Of Interviews.
Witness said he was appointed supervis-
ing principal September 4, about o'clock
pm. and left about three or four hours
later for Atlantic City. He said he did not
go to the Office Of the Washington Times
! before leaving the city.
While certain interviews with the super
intendent were being described by the wit
ness he was asked by his attorney whether
any member of the board was present at
the time.
Not as far as could see" witness re-
piled.
What do you mean?" Mrs. Terrell asked.
| ct meant nothing derogatory."
| "You might have been blind to them as
you have been to other things" Mr.. Oyster
| remarked.
II would like to have that remark go into
the record. and 1 want to note an excep-
| tion." Mr.. Cobb interjected.
| Justice herself is blind" Mr.. Mcnamara
| remarked. smiling and there was laughter
| all around.
| Witness told Of seeing an article in the
| Times last summer referring to the posi-
4 bility of the dismissal of DR.. Montgomery.
~.~I tvn Afc,,,a atn Of hok ftnla ba
| had defended DIR. Montgomery.
The defense called witness Attorney
| James E. West. who told of an interview
| with Cardoza during the summer. in which
the defendant spoke favorably Of DIR. Mont
gomery. Witness said the statement made
by Cardozo was in substance that Cardozo
| had said that as DIR. Montgomery was the
| prospective assistant superintendent he