The Washington times., 1920-03-17
NELL CHARGES
ISLANDER PLOT
Tells Senators School Board
Members Are Victims Of de-
famation Campaign"

Charges that a public campaign OF
ISLANDER 10 being conducted in Wash
ington against the Board OF Edd-
cation. and that IL is rupturing the
school System here. were made by
Dr. Charles T. Neill. member OF the
board, before the Senate investigation
subcommittee today.
"The way this campaign has been
conducted has got under my collar
declared DR.. Neill.
He implied that the Senate invss-
tigatinx committee was innocently
lending itself to a conspiracy to RUN
the personal and professional repu-
tation Of members OF the board who
! we're opposing Superintendent Thurs
ton.
Champaign OF Defamation"
This campaign OF defamation has
gone to unheard OF length" he said
"One woman member OF the boart
has been accused Of having mort
sased herself to DR.. Van Schaick in
. financial way. This charge Is alb
solutely untrue.
1T myself have been accused of be-
ling an enemy of the public schools
since / only attended them for two
years. Various people have tele-
phoned my wife, trying to get infor-
nation that could be used against
me-"
DR.. Neill registered a public pro-
test against the decision OF the COM
mittee not to allow the Board OF Ed
in the proceedings.
THE point is that many questions
have been asked by. Senators. placed
In their hands by a citizens commit
go periv trying to destroy the
board, which are designed to bring
90. v.Ily part OF the truth-questions
which cap be used in the continue
ton OF the campaign of Islander
against members Of the board"
Tried to Heal Differences.
DR.. NeilI stated that he had been q
member of the Board Of Education
for only two months. and that his
flrst impulse was to try to conciliate
the differences between Superintend-
ent Thurston and the board. He was
amazed. he said, to find that Super
intendent Thurston. in an address be-
fore the Board Of Trade, openly criti-
cixed the boards policy and seemed
to be entirely out of harmony with II.
II took no stand in the controversy
until Mr.. Thurston questioned either
the legal right. the good faith, or the
competence Of the board with refer
ence to his re-appointment. There is
no question that the law gives the
board authority on the subject,
When Superintendent Thurston ap-
bealed to the public over the head
Eof the board his position became i'm
possible, and / allied myself against
him.
"I am actuated only by my desire
10 see the public schools of the Dis
trict improved. What kind of a sit
Mation will you have here II you per-
init the superintendent of schools to
defy the board?
"You will have soviet rule, moth
ing more or less. II the superintend-
ent can defy the board, teacher can
defy the superintendent and the pupil
can defy the teacher.
"I was at irst rather inclined to
oppose the dismissal of Thurston, but
/ realized that it was bound to bring
about disruption in the schools and
an aftermath of public clamor. Now
this board is on trial before this COM
mission and the vital principle is at
stake"
DR.. Neill declared that speaking for
himself he would not be found as a
member of the board to follow the
Recommendations OF the investiga-
ton committee, even IL they were
supported by a vote Of the Senate.
Against Rule By "Pubuc Clamor."
1.-The board is intrusted with GER
tain administrative functions" he
said. Congress can take these func-
tions away only in a legal and orderly
manner. I will not be q party to es-
tablishing a rule by public clamor in
the District and l think that the Sem
ate should take no action which would
tend to interfere with the orderly pro-
cesses Of law. Congress can legislate
the Board of Education out of ex-
tstence II 1t so desires"
DR.. Neill said that he did not believe
majority Of the citizens of Wash
inRton were opposed to the Board of
Education The only way to deter
mine that was by referendum. he said.
AZ q matter of principle, however, he
WAS against suffrage as a means of
determining school questions.
In his discussion Of the needs of tho
public school system here DR.. Neill
stated that the financial requirements
of the schools should be kept entirely
separate from the other items in the
District budget, to assure DEFINITE
income from year to year. He de-
clared that a separate school tax
should be levied on the citizens Of the
District
II don't suppose that suggestion