The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1910-10-22
he members off the board.

win tne question decided, PreSl-
lent Hill voiced the boards senti-
nent when he said that since the |
members desired to sit in the in
luiry. they must be allowed to do so |
and the motion was overruled
Mr.. Quigley took exception to the
ruling of the board saying: "The
least that these men can do is to
stand up like men and say that they
will not participate in this inquiry
as members of this court. You have
employed stenoghapher (pointlng
TO Jacoby. We did not employ him."
The board did" interrupted ia
coby.
No Fair Trial.
when you filed the complaint"
Quigley continued, you deprive the
accused of fair trial You made 1t
impossible for him to go before an
court. for his two ac-
cusers are sitting as members of that
court. You robbed him of the pre-
sumption of innocence, of the cloak
that the law places about any man
on trial. You know Jacoby that no
law in the land requires man to
prove himself innocent and that Is
what Longbon must do; you are not
going to prove him guilty. You make
II necessary for hfm to prove his in-
nocence. Therefore we object to
these members sitting as part of
the" court.
President Hin declared the OBJ
lection overruled and called for the
Introduction of evidence.
At this point Mr.. Thompson OF the
defendants counsel. stated that Mr.
Longbon had previously filed de-
murrer to the charges. He said that
he wished to withdraw that demur-
rer and substitute another one.
In the pleading the defendant OBJ
jected to the court as whole be-
cause the board has no jurisdiction
and as no part of the charges states
sufficient facts to constitute cause
of action.
Charges Not Sufficient.
II want to declare to YOU gem
tlemen." said Mr.. Thompson, that
even II every charge i'm these speci-
iications Is proved, there is not suf-
ticient in them to cause the dis
missal of Mr.. ,Longbon.
THE law plainly states that negli-
gence. intemperance, immortality and
inefficiency are the only offenses un-
der the statutes on which You have
right to try the accused and TO
dismiss him If guilty. Granting for
the sake of argument that all are
true their Is not sufficient offense,
under any one of the four headings
to warrant dismissal In the open
ing statement you charge him with
improper conduct. What improper
| conduct? Does II amount to immom
lity. TO intemperance, TO inefficiency
or TO negligence? All you charge in
the opening statement Is improper
conduct and that does not come un-
der any Of the four charges on which
you must try the accused"
Taking up the first specification
which alleged that Longbon made i'm
proper proposals to raise the grades
OF manuscripts graded by him II his
co-examiners would lower the grades
of their manuscripts so as TO give ap-
plicants certificates for but one year
to embarass the applicants the np-
plicants and annoy and embarass
the board of eduction, Mr.. Thompson
grew rather warm. He said:
IF 1t is annoying for you to have
numerous applicants for teaching
positions then the sooner your resig-
nations are handed In the better II
Will be for Marion and her schools
The accusation in this charge is
| AGAINST the board and not against
Mr.. Longbon. II is remarkable in
deed. The board is emba rassed by
having numerous applicants" The
last in sarcastic vein.
Attorney is WrOth.
In the third charge 1t is said that
Mr.. Longbon gave incorrect grades
In several manuscripts and upon re-
viewing the same Mr.. Longbon ad.
mitted that he had made mistakes
and corrected his mistakes.
you have all taught school and
all have made mistakes. If you want
examiners who are infallible you
will never have board of examin.
ers in Marion. Pardon me II I be.
| come little excited but II arousei
all of the wrath and indignation that
there Is in man when another mar
| is brought up and forced to &c
through trial on such himsy. riff.
| raft charges as these. Grading Is q
matter of opinion and few grade
| exactly alike, Even If he did make
n mistake II certainly could not b'
serious enough for removal. And
the next startling charge is that hs
admitted his mistake. This is indeed
humorous. You would remove him
because he made a mistake and ad-
mitted the mistake"
| "Now to the third specification. Ir
this matter Mr.. Longbon Is charged
with refusing to submit his ques'
| tions to the examining board on de-
mand for their approval after 1t had
been agreed that such should be
done and this himsy charge con-
tinues and is reported, alleged that
his reason for so doing was because
he was informed on the best of autho
rity that desperate attempt was
being made by Examiners Bowen and
| Clark to get his questions and that
II was their intention of railroadine
through number of applicants
who had repeatedly failed in exam.