New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-19
Harvard Mans Protest Against
New Appointments for School
Inquiry Called ridiculous"
LETTER FROM PROFESSOR
Expert Originally Engaged AS
serts That Moore's Report Is
an Essential and Integral
Part of Investigation.

| mate. "QICn ndnuled tine l1dnuS lhN'S'l'
cation, said yesterday that the action OF
! the Harvard professor in protesting
against the appointment Ot Professor
| Goodnow and Dr. Howe by the commit
tee was not only entirely unwarranted'
I but could best be described as putting
! in"
! THE committee engaged Dr. Howe and
! Professor Goodnow to do the work on
which Professor Moore fell down. said
! Mr.. Mitchell. "and on which Professor
! Hanus by backing up Professor Moore
'funked out on the committee. II IS
ridiculous for Professor Hanus to pre-
sumo 10 dictate to the committee as 10
| these appointments
The Colum bia professor and the director
of the Peoples Institute, who have now
! been named b" the Board OF Estimate
! committee to go over that part or the
school inquiry work which was under
? Professor Moore i'm the Hanus inVestiga-
ton, viii report to the committee direct
/ MIR Mitchell said, and will have no asso-
citation whatever with the Harus inquiry.
Mitchell Gives Out Letter.
Professor Hanus addressed letter 10
Mr. Mitchell. which was made public yes
terday. protesting against The appoint
ment of Professor Goodnow and Dr.
Howe on the ground that Professor
AIoorc's part of the Hanus report COW
cred the ground which the committee
appar,.tly meant TO have the new ap-
uoiptees 20 over. The letter was as ioI-
lows:
desire To protest most vigorously
AGAINST the action OF the Board OF Esu-
mate in it's so-called rejection OF IIo-
| fcssor MOorc's report and IT'S unWar AM
! ed appointment of Professor Goodh0W
and DR. Howe TO prepare report IN us
gtr1d The action Of the committee on
school Inquiry totally dlsreSdicS '"r
/ hasis on which my investigation was
undertaken I was asked to make an
4 unnre iIidired study of the cducduouai
I aspecis Of the school system or New
. York city, and for this purpose ! ChoS'
various specially qualihoo asSl~ttI "
20 whom certain parts OF l'' iuF'HN--,
ZION were delegated. Al the roh'luSlv''
81 .Fr INQUIRIES. the committee not NHu-
ing one part of the report To their tdSI''
summariiy sets IL aside ana "ilhout III.
ference with me disregards me au'h
fiv conferred upon me ana OF I've
own motion desiEuatcs two DINER
gentlemen TO nm lu the gap II has mus
made. As neither of these Gehu'Ih'll
Is an educational specialist. ana as '"'I.
is "a person of discretion mere Is tttlg
reason 10 doubt that they, fIpu thcII
unIut If view. will attempt 10 cover tho
important subject delegated To Professor
Moore.
regard it as my duty. % call the a.. At
tcutiuu Of the people OF New s"Ih 10 lI'
fact that Professor NJOT'S report con-
stituted an integral and essential poI-
tICn of my complete report ma ihhl ItS
place cannot be taken by an. "lhtI 40,
u,ucut subsequently, and Independently
he gfTTLINf OF lIEia tiAlllllN
and replacing IT,
Mr.. Mitchell took the position that the
TIauus inquiry was at an end and that
Professor Hauus had no connection win
any further moves that the Board Of rs
innate and Apportioumcnt committee de-
cidcd upon.
professor Hauus was cmplo' cd 10 do
certain work" said Mr. Mitchell lie
was given the authority 10 select MS
associates. subject 10 approval by the
committee. and when he selected Pro-
lessor Moore for one part of the work
objected al FIRST. but Professor Hanns
saId hc would De personally responsible
for Professor Moor"'s part OF The work.
when Moore's report was submitted and
.ysr1in.d Il was found 90 be- lacking IN
facts. and was therefore rejected iy the
committee. As a disdpproy"d report II
can nave no standing in the final report
NJ the committee TO the Board OF Esu-
mate and Apportlonmeut but of course
II vas printed in The city Record
.yybcn Profess,r Hanus returns 20 the
committee the revised proof Of the re-
ports Of his various associates his con-
ncctlon with the committee viii cease
II has been the contention Of friends Of
Professor Hanus thai the Board Of Esti-
mate committee members wanted TO re-
wise and edit the reports OF the experts
but this Mr.. Mitchell denied fatty.
Says Facts Were Lacking.
eve suggested the addition Of some
tables and other matter 10 make their po-
sition more clear. but II was up TO them
TO accept those suggestions or not. Apart
from that. we merely asked for facts on
which their opinions on various points
were based, and Professor Moore saw fit
to decline to give us those facts. Profess
sor Hanus chose 10 support Professor
Moore I'm that position, and that was the
end Of the matter" said Nh Mitchell.
Mr.. Mitchell added that the preparation
OF questions for the budget hearing on
the Department OF Education for 1912,
which had been put up to Professor
Hanus, was nothing more than n part Of
the work that the committee expected
Of It's investigator.
Professor Hanus knew when he was
retained that the entire inquiry was
pointed at budgetary matters" he said,
and although the specific request for
questions for the hearings did not 20 to
him until two or three weeks before ,he
hearings, II was supposed that his work
up to that time would have furnished
him with the information necessary to
frame such questions. As a matter Of
fact, he fell down on that task-thc task
OF preparing questions for the budget
hearlng-and as he had conferred with
Or. Allen, of the Bureau of Municipal
Research along those lines, he turned on
Allen then. and that was the beginning
of the trouble over the HanIs report"
AS 10 the accusations from the friends
OF Professor Hanus that Mitchell allowed
Allen to direct the inquiry Mir Mitchell
dlsrnlsses them as ridiculous, but admits
frankly that he accepted Aliens help
whenever he thought IL valuable His
attention was called 10 the reports of the
Bureau OF Municipal Research, In which
IL claims credit for drafting the reso-
luton" which authorized the school In
auiry. and Mr.. Mitchell said that the