The Commonwealth. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1911-1914, 1913-11-13
SINCLAIR HAS NOT FORFEIT.
ED RIGHT TO TEACH
State superintendent Pres,on Holds
That His Socialistic Declarations
Don't DisquaIIfy Him.

State Superintendent Of instruction
Preston gave her decision in the case
of J. e. Sinclair, the Arlington Social
| ist teacher. The state superintendent
holds that Sinclair's offense was not
such as to justify revocation of his
right to teach, basing that decision on
ruling of the state supreme court in
which the high court declared that a
teacher, outside of professional obliga-
tions, possesses the ordinary rights
and freedom that other persons do, the
same social privileges and the same
right to discussion of public questions
at proper times and places. Mrs. Pres
toms decision follows:
State Superintendent's Decision.
con October Is, 1913, at the close
of the hearing in this case, made the
statement in the presence of all par
ties concerned, that important field
work would take me out of my office
for the ensuing two weeks and that
when 1 returned, November 4, should
give this case my most careful con-
Sideration until l arrived at a decis-
ion. Since my return to the office,
Tuesday, November 4, l have given
my entire time to the consideration of
the testimony and affidavits present
ed, and have arrived at a decision.
From an examination of the evi-
dence and papers submitted at the
hearing, / feel that the conduct of
MIR. Sinclair has been such as to ma
terially impair his usefulness as
teacher. The disturbance in the
school affairs of the city of Arlington.
shown by the evidence, is to be de-
blored.
Cannot Revoke Certificate.
"As superintendent of public in
struction, however, l ain convinced
that on the evidence submitted I have
no power, under the law, to revoke
the certificate and thereby legally re-
strain Mr.. Sinclair from teaching.
"The law governing revocation is
as follows:
"'Any certificate TO teach named in
this act may be revoked by the au-
thority authorized to grant same upon
complaint of any superintendent for
immortality, violation of written con-
tract, intemperance, crime against the
law of the state or by any unprofes-
sional conduct after the defendant has
been given an opportunity to be
heard
Charge Against Sinclair.
"The charges made against the de-
fendant were these: Neglect of duties
unpatriotic, and guilty of unprofes-
sional conduct. Since the first two
charges, viz, neglect of duties and
lack of patriotism, are not specified
as cause for the revocation of a GER
tificate, these charges must be dis
missed. The third charge, unprofes-
sional conduct, Is based principally
upon an article written by the defend
ant and published in the Everett Com
monwealth under date of April IL,
1913, a copy of which was introduced
in evidence, and with reference to
which a considerable part of the ex-
animation OF Mr. Sinclair was devoted.
Reprehensible as may be the ideas
therein set forth, the act of writing
such an article for publication does
not fall within the meaning of the
term 'unprofessional conduct The
reasonable Interpretation Of the term
as used in the statute and the one
usually accepted in judicial interpre'
tation, is the behavior or personal de-
pertinent Of an individual respecting
matters having ethical or moral i'm
plication, dishonorable or diseredit-
able to a member of his profession.
The matter complained of relates TO
the possession and expression OF the
defendants political views, not to his
personal behavior or department Re
garding the rights OF a teacher the