The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1919-06-24
SUBSIDIARIES
DON'T JUSTIFY
FIRING BRUCE
Corporation Counsel Syme
Rules That Board Has No
Ground for Legal Action.

Charges against Roscoe c. Bruce.
colored assistant superintendent Of
schools, preferred by George c. Smithi
chairman Of the public school COM
mittee of the Central Northwest Citi-
zens' Association, do not justify the
dismissal OF the school official, in the
opinion Of Conrad H. Syme, Corpora
tion Counsel.
Mr.. Syme has sent a communica-
ton to the Board Of Education ex-
pressing his opinion on the matter,
and 1t Is probable that the obard viii
act in accordance with his advice at
its meeting Wednesday.
The charges made by Mr.. Smith are
not connected in any way with the
charges compiled by the Parents
League, composed of 10000 Washing
ton residents, officials Of the league
stated today. They assert the Pa
rents League has consistently re-
fused to give its charges to the board
In secret session
Il am sorry to hear that the
charges preferred by Mr. Smith have
not been accepted as sufficient evil
dence for the removal of Bruce" said
the Rev. DR.. James L. Pinn, of :he
Parents League. today. However.
the charges compiled by the Parents
League in no wise conflict with those
made by Mr.. Smith, and are stronger
and more definite. We shall not take
these charges to the board, but will
present them directly to the Congress
sional investigation committee.
MI. syme's Opinion.
Mr.. Syme's opinion in the Smith
charges reads, in part, as follows:
1.-THE first series of charges, dated
June IA, 1918, are signed by a COM
mittee composed Of George c. Smith,
chairman, and F. r. Rillingsworth
and CISCO ]. Cooper, members Of the
Central Northwest Citizens Associa-
ton. These charges allege that Mr..
Bruce was morally unfit in that he
committed perjury in the trial of the
case Of Evans VS.. the Board Of Edu-
cation, tried before Mr.. Justice Stat
ford in December, 1918, and January,
1915
THE alleged perjury, according to
the charges, was that Bruce stated in
the Evans case that the program OF
the school Of which Evans was in
charge was not submitted until Septem-
Der IL. 1912, when it was shown later
that such a schedule was submitted on
September 10, 1912, and also on the
goth, and II was further charged that
returning Of vouchers by Evans. who
was principal OF the Armstrong
School.
II have read the testimony in the
Evans case, and it fails to sustain the
above charge. Bruce did not pretend
to be certain about the dates when
he received the schedules from Evans,
and il was apparent that he was
speaking of a completed schedule
Bruce was testifying to occurrences
happening over three years before the
trial, and he was. no more inaccurate
than a witness ordinarily is under
such circumstances.
"The record in the case further dis
closes that the charge that Bruce mis-
represented facts as to the return Of
vouchers by Evans as principal Of
the Armstrong School is equally with
out foundation.
Bruce had recommended the dis
missaI Of Evans which recommended
ton the Board of Education had fol
lowed and its action was sustained
by the court after a full hearing. AS
the record of this case discIoses that
neither perjury was committed by
Bruce nor any misstatement made by
him which was intended to misIead
the court 7 am of opinion that the
foregoing charges should be ignored.
"PedaEOGicaIIy Unit"
The other charges filed by the
committee OF which Smith is chair
man. state that Bruce is pedagogical
Iy unfit and enthusiastically UNFIT
mo specific facts are stated in sub
sanitation OF the above charges. All
OF the things mentioned may well be
the subject Of a serious difference of
opinion among people of the best in
tentions. 1t is beyond question that