Evening star., 1920-03-11

Gr. Reyton had done exactly what he
lad pHomised not to do. The letter
1as written by Dir. Van 6ehAtck ~
he conclusion of an tnvesttgafaon ~
Bruce case. In explanation DR.. Van
&chaick saad:
4 II had aaked Peyton 70 divestt him.
1elf of the lighting qualities OF a
Awyer and to act in judicial ca
{acity and to see IL he could not act
harmony with the other members
n the committee. / saw. however,
hat he had acted as an advocate i"r
HE Colored Parents League. IT was
8ith reference to that request that !
4rote."
4Dr. Van SchaSek denied that he had
attempted to extract promise from
Ar. Peyton that the latter WOufo
$ote with the others.
Elm a conversation with me ne
1bade no promise to find any sueh
Herdict," said DIR. Van Schaick Ar.
Reyton did himself an inJuStfce IN
aging that he had made sucn
promise to me, even temporarily.
4 Dsuee Case Minority Report.
Hit was brought out that Mr.. Peyton
Agned a minority report in the Bruce
Ease. and that he went out or the
Nearing before the investigation was
completed.
T"I came to the conclusi on that he
Had acted as an advocate TOT one
ode" continued DIR. Van Schalck.
EEenstor Harrison asked II there was
0y feeling between him and Mr.
eyton now.
III meet him courteously rs mem
r of the board" replied Dr. van
haick, hut he turned on me SO
vagely and so suddenly that l can
feel toward him "a did. Had
ID such a conversation with him as
described in the hearings on my
Summation as District Commissioned
would have been justified IN turn
Wg on me-
HSeferring to DR.. Van Schaick's tes-
nony Yesterday that he made 1t
actice to lean on strong miho
Vhen one was available. Senator Har-
Ion asked the witness II he had not
FUND that Mr.. Galliher had strohs
ni4nd upon which he might lean
br. Van Schaick replied that while
= did lean on a strong mind, Il do
Ut abdicate from my own 1udg ment,
I'D l did not do so after talking
eth him about Mr.. Thurston
ouotes Other MeMbers.
9che witness then told the COM
Attee what various members OF the
Eerd had said to him about hMr.
Dturaton when he came mp lor re-.
e1sction as superintendent in 1871.
EMr. Hamilton told me that Mr..
3Aurston was not fit man for sn-
rtrintendent," he said. He said that
was a good man. but weak. and
tat he had to be bolstered up by
a5pfesident of the board of education.
=. Daniel said that he did not think
Mr. Thurston was just the man TOT
the place. but that he was the pest
man obtainable at .that time ana
that Mr.. Thurston was not a strong,
man, but safe; that he had had only
q Few years as superintendent and
that q longer time should be given
him in which to make good. MT.
Galiiher-said substantially the same
Is Ne. Larner.
~I agreed with their diagnosis. but
on the basis Of their diagnosis could
not agree ito their remedy.
The witness testified that there has
never been any friction between the
superintendent and the board over:
The purchase of textbooks.
Reading collected paragraphs from
the statement recently made by Mr..
Thprston regarding his controversy.
with the board of education. Senator.
Harrison questioned DIR. Van Sehaick
- to his ideas regarding the atu-
tude which should be maintained by
the board OF education toward the
superintendent Of schools Mr. Thurs
ton in one place said that the board
should be advisory and not sdictatortai
in technical matters. DR.. Van Schaicks
agreei to this, but he insisted that
foreed the board to act IN some cases.
osssettaa - 0nA1tesa
Senator Harrison called etNention to.
the fact that -1ff. Thurston charged
that Dr. Van Schatck had established
N ONCE right next to his and had
auuaneH 3urisdictton over matteFs
Which Should have been left to the
THE witness replied that he had No
other Office down town. as other pre9f-
aentat&Hk&e board had. and that ~
h4me<UqS being overrun with peopfe.s
He saiA*tha there was a desk in the
yHHu&iin School building which had,
been u66d sometimes in the past by
nsmbes1- Of the board and that he
I'D taken II. /
Senator Harrison asked Df. Vons
Uchafck what he thought Abouf mem.
bers Of the board trying to .f1nluenoei
the superintendent in 11easd to 4p-
sentiments of teachers. aud whothar
attempts to influence the supeein-,
tendent had been made by members
-of the hoard. .
have to be answered Yes" said nr.
Van Schaick. He then sugGested tfatr
he ,shonld DISCUSS privately the case
he had in mind with Senator Harrison.
Aefore pntting It into the record-
nars Private Diseansasa.
"T don't want to discuss anything
pfiyatsly." replied Senator Harrison.
IT members of the board are trying
to put in teachers and attempting to;
influence the superintendent and the.
superintendent opposed them that
might head TO members Of the board
voting against him.
DR. Van Schaick said that he con-
sidered 1t extremely improper for
members Of the board to press upon
the superintendent appointments of
teachers. -.
Senator Walsh pointed out that the,
board can elect teachers only ON the
recommendation Of the superintendent
Senator Harrison asked:
Have you. with personal interest
in any teacher. pressed claimson the
superintendent for an appointment 90
ssNever," was the reply.
DIR. Van Schaick testified that when
the appointment of nine new matrons
for schools was authorised one hoard
member suggested that they divide
the nominations among the nine mem
beers Of the board. 1t was not done,
however. he said.
did you suggest that this be done?"
aalEed Senator Harrison.
IT did not"
"You saw that il was loaded with
dyn9mite!" suggested Senator Harri-
son. amid q general laugh.
Diansissals Up to School Head.
: Il was brought out that the board
OF education cannot dismiss a SUP
ordinate school official except on the
recommendation of the superintend-
ent Of schools.
Senator Walsh suggested that II
the board decided an ofhcial should be
discharged and the superintendent
refused to recommend sucn q dis
missal. the only recourse would he
to discharge the superinte ndent. Dr.
Van SChaick agreed that slich WINS