Evening journal., 1919-08-27
regret CITY LOSES
FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS
Rejection of Code Robs
Taxpayers of Benefit OF
P. S. du Pont Offer
OLD GUARDS FEARS
CAUSED rs DEFEAT

Rejection Of the State School Code By
the Wilmington Board OF Public Edu-
cation was generally expected by educs-
tlonal leaders IN the State, since the
majority OF the board members had
made no secret OF their opposition
from the time the resolution 10 accept
the code was introduced by Shermer
Siradley, member from the Ninth ward.
In fact. so strong was the majority op-
position from the beginning, that the
friends OF the code apparently accepted
rejection as a foregone conclusion and
put up no fght 10 carry the measure.
The only arguments offered during
the board discussions OF the new code
were advanced by the opposition. Al
though rejection followed the reading
OF City Solicitor Huxley's opinion that
the code was unconstitutional the Op-
pOnents OF the code made it clear that
even II declared constitutional the code
would be rejected by the city board be-
cause Of probable school tax increase,
unwillinmess 10 have the State Board
control Wilmington schools. and vari-
Gus other reasons.
Il was surprised at the vote. l
thought the rejection would be to 3,
something like that, not 10 TO B." said
Representative Edward ]. McNabb.
II expected It." said George B. Miller,
president Of the State Board OF Educa
tiOn, and former president OF the city
board.
"The old members Of the board were
against any interference by the State
authorities In matter OF city school
management. ! am extremely sorry for
the action. The rejection OF the code
by the city schools will aid the rural
schools greatly, inasmuch as the state
board viii have more time 10 devote
TO the rural schools. / am in favor OF
the school code for this city. Need
less 20 say" he added, Wilmington
will not be eligible 10 share in the
s., 100000 gift Of p. s. dupont"
Ellw0Od Souder, former member OF
the city Board OF Education, from the
Ninth ward, expressed surprise at the
rejection Of the code.
From the general discussion OF the
code while I was a member of the
board" he said 1T was generally un-
derstood that the code was a good
thing for this city and was 10 be ac-
cepted without any reservation. The
question Of the State dividend was not
a matter Of speculation. lt was known
before this board came into power that
the city Board OF Education would get
its $4,000 dividend code or no code.
But it was neither the fear Of the State
dividend nor the cOnstitutiOnality of
the law. as declared by City Solicitor
Huxley, that were the main causes for
the rejection Of the code. The mem
bers OF the board who voted against
the code were simply against the regl-
lation OF the city Board OF Education
by a State board. I am extremely sorry
for the action OF the board. BY that
action a great opportunity for the city
IS thrown away. ! was very much In
favor OF the school code"
Shermer Stradley. the member who
introduced the resolution to adopt the
code. said he had done what he could
10 further acceptance but was satisfied
the opposing members voted from hon
est conviction that the code would not
benefit the city schools.
Il regret very much,' he said that
the code was not accepted by the
board, but ! must abide by the decision
Of the majority. My conviction that
the schools Of the city would be better
of under State management, however,
Is unchanged and I would vote again
for the code II it came up.
ut is not a question Of persons, but
of systems Of management. The mem
bers who ~sted against the measure are
sincere about their beliefs in the man
agement OF the schools, according TO
the old system. We who voted for the
code believe that the State school code
would minister better TO the interests
Of the children Of this city, by Great /
ing a more efficient system OF public 1
school education in this city"