Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-11-27
THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
Criticism of. Board of Education in
Publication.
FAILS TO KEEP APPOINTMENT
Witnesses Heard in Support Of the
Accusations on File-Teach-
ers Reticent.


court for the trial of Dr. VIM. E. Chan
cellor, superintendent of schools, on
charges of insubordination and of other
alleged derelietions, resumed its consider
alton of the case this afternoon. The
sessions are being held at the rankin
building.
The first charge taken up was that in
which it is alleged he refused to obey or
ders. 1t is claimed that he was ordered
to appear before committee of the board
of education at a stated meeting in Oc-
tober, and that. although he agreed to
appear, he later refused to do So in a
letter to Capt. Oyster. In the letter,
which is expected to be Introduced in
evidence. DIR. Chancellor said. according
to the charge: II will meet your special
committee or any committee of the board
any time at any place; but decline alb
soiutely to appear publicly before your
special committee"
Other charges which. it is expected. viii
advised Assistant Supt. Bruce to
disobey the orders Of the board to ap-
pear before it; that he denounced the
board and individual members of 1t in
an address to the teachers {. the
street High School; that he advised r. M
Hughes, assistant superintendent, not to
give any information to the board Of ed,l-
cation, and that he gave to the puDhc
press articles criticising the Commis-
sioners and judicial officers of the Dis
trict
Prefer to- Be Neutral
The board of education Is finding trou-
Bile in getting the teachers to come for
ward as witnesses in the present trial,
according to member Of the board this
afternoon. The teachers ask that they
be allowed to remain in an apparently
neutral attitude. In preparing for the
trial. 1t is added. the teachers gave prac-
tically no help and DIR. Chancellors su--
bordinates Sat the school headQuarters
were unwilling to come forward with
affy lat2 or evidence. xs.sssx. .
The finding of the manuscript : m ~;
Chancelior's handwriting which 10 claimed
to be the original draft of the article IN
the Educational Review of last February
critieising the local school system, whlcn
was the trump card played oy tne ooa.o
yesterday, was an accident, according 10
President Oyster. who produced 1t. When
he was looking for some other papers ne
ran across the manuscript and demand
Cd 1t.
Formal Trial Proceedings.
Evidence to sustain the charge that DIR.
William E. Chancellor, superintendent OF
public instruction, was the author of the
article published in the February num-
Der of the Educational Review. criticising
the District school system. the author
ship of which DIR. Chancellor denied, and
Of the charge OF characterization IN that
he taught in Chicago University at the
time of the board meeting August q last,
after instructions to be present, was given
at the trial session of the board Of educa-
ton held yesterday afternoon In the
Franklin building. This evidence was pre-
sented after the preliminaries outlined In
the Star Of yesterday.
Testimony in support of section (b) of
specification III Of the charges was first
presented. This charge was that ''the
said Supt. Chancellor. in February,
1907. contributed to the publica-
tion of an article in the Educational Re-
view styled Education in the District
Of Columbia libeling the educational
systems and conditions of the District OF
Columbia. and thereafter at meeting
of the board Of education. April "a. 1907.
the said Chancellor denied any part in
or knowledge Of said publication"
To support this. manuscript was intro
duced much Of which was in the Ian
guase of the article objected to, and
Percy NJ. Hughes. assistant superintend-
ent of schools. Identified this manuscript
as the original draft Of the article which
appeared. He also identified the hand
writing as that Of DIR. Chancellor. Mr.
Hughes testified that this manuscript was
first read to him several months before
its publication by DR.. Chancellor himself
In cross-examination. 1t was brought
out that letter was written on the in
struction Of DIR. Chancellor. asking that
the article be withheld from publication
until further instructions were given. and
that. so far as known by Mr.. Hughes. no
further instructions for its publication
were given.
Charge Of Insubordination.
Testimony was next given in support of
section (a) of specification II which
charges that 1.-THE said Supt Chancellor
was guilty of insubordination in that
after his having been granted leave Of
absence for vacation to August Is. 1907
he failed and refused to return unti,
August "a. 1907: that after being directed
nss,,s august -; iSH' TO be present at the
August %. 1907, the said Supt. Chan
cellor left the city without word of ex-
PLANTATION and remained away until Sen
tember 2. 1907. and thereafter represented
to the board that In his absence he was
engaged in official duties with a member
of the school commission, when in fact
the said Chancellor was not SO engaged
but was in Cincinnati or Chicago or else
where In the west on private business
Testimony was given by Cant Oyster
that DR.. Chancellor had been told by
him that his presence was necessary at
the meeting of the board on August o.
that he was absent on that day and that
In excuse for his absence, he had stated
that he went away from Washington
with Capt. Morrow On official business
and that he was taken Ill on a train
near Cincinnati and was conveyed to a
hospital In that city. Two summer stu
dents of the University of Chicago then
testified that DIR. Chancellor was a mem
per or the summer school faculty Of that
eonese during August, and that they
attended lectures given by DIR. ChanceIlor
on August 2s and August %. the day Of
the BOARD meeting and the day following.
DIR. Chancellor was present with his
counsel Attorneys Leckie and Fulton,
but he made no statement nor introduced
any witnesses for the defense The prose
cution exhausted the entire session in
presenting their side of the case. under
the direction of Assistant United states
Attorney Mcnamara. DIR. Chancellor fire.
euently made suggestions to his counsel.
Declines to Dismiss Charges.
The hearing began. as stated In The
Star yesterday, with the presentation of
the formal motion to dismiss the charges
BY unanimous vote the board overruled