Evening star., 1920-04-01
BOARD LEADERSHIP
ASKED IN 1916, SAYS
- SCHOOL WITNESS

SCHUUI WI NESS
| Continued from First Page.)
spoken to him earlier, because Mr..
Bruce had brought a lady around in
kthe morning. and after giving her an
examination Mr.. Thurston had given
her the place. l then inferred who
the bouncing young widow was 70
was the first instance which showed
me that there might be cause for the
charges against Bruce"
| Insisted on Examination.
| The witness said that he had insisted
in the board that for the purpose of
permanently filling this place a COM
petitive examination be held. When the
examination was held there were a
number of competitors, but the "bounc-
ing young widow" eclpsed them all. The
board Of examiners consisted of A. II.
| Glenn. head OF the department of Ian
guages at the Dunbar High School;
Miss Harriet +. Riggs. head of the de-
partment OF English at Dunbar. and
Supt. Thurston.
| "What interest had this board of ex-
aminers in the bouncing young widow"
\ asked Senator Harrison.
| The witness admitted that he did not
] Know OF any interest.
l
she was entitled to it,
| Yes" said Mr.. Peyton. but my
| point is that she was not entitled TO
it in the first instance"
Mr.. Peyton mentioned another in
stance where he thought Assistant
| favorites. He said that the same
teacher had gotten up night school
class in Hillsdale and had taught it
| for three weeks gratis. The night
| school director recommended the APP
| pointment of a teacher for that class
Instead of appointing the teacher who
/ had gotten up the class, he said Mr..
| Bruce selected a "favorite' to go over
there and take the class. He said he
protested to the board against this.
| Conditions in 1015-IG.
| In reply to a question by Senator
| Harrison, MIR. Peyton said that he
| thought that until recently Mr.. Thurs
ton and Mr.. Bruce had worked har-
moniously together. He said that the
change apparently had come since the
| fight started against the reelection
| of Thurston. In 1915-16. he told the
| committee, when Mr.. Blair was presi-
| dent of the board of education. the
situation in the colored schools. owing
to faetional fights had been bad. He
| said that he had heard no complaint
| about the white schools.
Did you vote for Or. Van Schaick
! for president of the board in 1862
asked Senator Harrison.
Yes"
Why" .ts'
Mr. Blair had retired. and DR.. Van
Schaick seemed to me a progressive
man with push and dash. never
knew him before he was appointed TO
the board. He called on me, however,
before he took his place on the board
and before the election of president
a n RI
What was his object" asked Sena-
tor Harrison.
Would support DR.. VAN sehaick.
Il understood he wanted to be presi-
dent of the board. He. did not say so
in SO many words, but / inferred that
was what he desired. L told him /
would support him. He did not ask
| that there were reforms to be made
and that he wished the schools put on
| a progressive basis. l was for that"
The witness said that the converse
tion was brief; that his clerk was
present.
Senator Harrison asked the wit
ness about Ernest II. Daniel. who
also was a candidate for president
of the board. The witness replied
! that he was a man of splendid mind
and integrity, and that it was un-
| fortunate that he went off the board.
TT was unfortunate that he was
mot elected" suggested Senator Har-
| rison.
| Mr.. Peyton said that it was well
known that Mr.. Daniel was a warm
| and for that reason he had not sup
ported him.
What did DIR. Van Schaick tell
you about Bruce?" asked Senator Har-
| rison.
Nothing" was the reply. but if
a n
| thought that Mr.. Bruce was good
| place to Begin
In reply to a question about the
superintendent of schools. the wit
| ness said:
! 81 saw no reason at that time to
! disturb Mr.. Thurston. The white
people and the colored people both
| seemed to be satisfied with him."
| He said that he did not gather that
| DR.. Van Schaick was opposed to Mr..
| Thurston then.
| Needed Vote "to Get BY"
| 1.-The witness told the committee
that he felt DR.. Van Schaick need
! ed his vote badly to get by" He said
| that he had no doubt who would vote
| for Mr.. Daniel and who would vote
| for DR.. Van Schaick. Going into de-
tail. he said he had no doubt about Mrs.
Rhodes.
| "She had been willing to accept a
| place as director of primary schools
| while a member of the board. Both
1 Mr. Daniel and Mr.. Thurston were
/ strongly opposed to this and I op-
| posed it. Neither one of them could
| have gotten Mrs. Rhodes vote for
anything"
| Regarding Mrs. Cook. the witness
said that he felt that she would vote
for Mr.. Daniel. because by so doing
she could support Mr.. Bruce. He said
he did not remember how she voted
however. Mrs. Gerry, he said, came
into the board with DR.. Van Schaick
He felt they would stand together. He
said that DR.. Johnson came with DIR
Van Schaick once to see him at his
! office before the election. and that he
| thought Dr. Johnson also would sup
I port Dr. Van Schaick. He said he
| thought that John B. Larner would
vote against DR.. Van Schaick and also
that Mr. Galliher would. He said that
DIR. Van Schaick voted for himself
| How did Mr.. Daniel vote?" asked
| the senator.
| The witness said he did not remem.
| ber.
| Only Two at Conference.
| Mr.. Peyton said that things ran
| along smoothly until 1917 when DR.
| Van Schaick got busy to oust Mr.
| Thurston. He said that Dr. Van
| Schaick held several conferences
| with board members at his home. The
| first one he attended. he said, there
was no one present but DIR. Van
Schaick and himself. He said that DR.
Van Schaick urged that Mr.. Thurston
1 should not be retained because he
| was not strong enough for the place
In reply to a question. he said that he