Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-26

=. Chancellor. in the assumed ONCE of
superintendent Of schools. preferred and
presented to the defendants certain charges
and specifications charging the complain
ant as SUPERVISING principal with conoacs
unbecoming a supervising principal. and
violating the rules numbered "a q, 90. &
and IS of the rules and BY laws Of the board
Of education.
Objected to Standing Trial.
upon the presentation OF the charges
and specifications to the defendant, the
complainant vas notified. and appeared be-
fore the defendants on January Is, 1907,
and formally objected to the right and
Jurisdiction OF the defendants to try him.
Upon the presentation Of his objection
to the defendants the same was overruled
and the complainant was called upon to
plead to the charges and specifications. and
dismissed as uncertain, vague and INSULT
cient In either law or fact.
This motion was also overruled and the
complainant again called upon to plead He
pleaded to each Of the charges and specfh-
cations not guilty. and the defendants,
claiming to be the board OF education.
entered upon and are now engaged In the
trial of the charges and unless restrained
by this honorable court will proceed with
such trial and adjudge the complainant in
respect of the said charges and speeif1ca-
lions.
Law Declared Unconstitutional.
THE complainant AYERS that the pretended
act of the Congress of the United States
in so far as IT purports to establish a board
of education for the District Of Columbia Is
unconstitutional and void In that the public
schools of the District of Columbia are part
of the administrative or executive system
of the District exclusively, having no re-
Iation to connection with the judicial sys-
TEN; that the pretended act nevertheless
purports to vest the appointment of the
education Off1Cer
officers having to do with the administrative
system of the District of Columbia and not
In any court or other official body, but in
the certain persons in the pretended act
designated Supreme Court judges of the
District of Columbia that there not in
law any such persons known as supreme
Court judges of the District of Columbia;
and that il it were the purpose of the PIE
tended act to mean by the Supreme Court
Judges of the District of Columbia the SUI
preme Court of the District OF Columbia,
II was beyond the constitutional right of
the Congress of the United States to vest
in the court the appointment of officers hav-
ing connection with relation to the
court the administration OF justice In
the District of Columbia. but having re-
laton exclusively with the administration
of the public schools of the District of Co
lumbia. --..~.a go.
"The complainant further AYERS that 1t
was not the intent of the pretended act OF
the Congress of the United States to abolish
the corps of teachers of the public schools
of the District of Columbia, and according
ly that the complainant continued after the
date of the pretended act to be- as he had
been since May "a, 1904 supervising prin-
cipal. and he never has been subject to the
authority or Jurisdiction of the defendants,
unlawfully claiming to be the board of ed
ucation of the District of Columbia.
The complainant also AYERS, even though
the defendants In law constitute the board
of education of the District of Columbia,
the charges and specifications do not set
forth any matter or thing in violation Of
the rules numbered % -. Gu, 81 and 50, and
that there Is no offenSe known either to the
law or to the said rules and bylaws of
the board of education of the District Of
Columbia as conduct unbecoming q SUPER
wishing principal:' notwithstanding which the
defendants are now asserting an authority
to try the complainant though the said
charges and specifications do set forth
against the complainant matter of Of
tense.
The complainant as teacher and prin-
cipal and supervising principal in the pub
lie schools OF the District of Colu s1bia has
justly earned a reputation for lear Ang and
skill in his calling; the complainant's office
as supervising principal Is a position of
trust and profit. yielding him an annual in
come of $500. and by his deprivation
thereof the complainant would suffer ir-
reparable damage both in his character and
financially.
Restraining Order Prayed For.
THE premises considered, the complain
ant therefore prays follows:
''First-That process may issue to the de-
PENDANTS commanding them to appear and
answer the exigency of this bill of corr
plant
"Second-That both during the pen0ency
of this cause and on it's hearing the de-
PENDANTS may be enjoined from claiming to
be the board of education of the District of
Columbia.
'"Third-That the defendants, during the
tendency of this cause, and on the final
hearing. be restrained from undertaking to
try the complainant.
"Fourth-That the complainant may nave
such other and further relief in the prem
ises as the nature of the case may require"