Evening star., 1920-04-05

Mt the Brooklyn navy yard, N. ", and
ever talked to Dr. Van Schaick about
the schools
The witness said he had not done so
until after DR.. Van Schaick had been
appointed to the board. He said that
and they talked for half an hour. but
that was the only time.
W. T. GalIiher's Testimony.
William T. Galliher, who served as
member of the school board from
June. 1913, to June. 1917. then took
the stand.
why were you not reappointed a
member of the board-were you an
applicant?" asked Senator Harrison.
Il do not know why I was not
reappointed.' replied the witness. He
said that activity among citizens as
sociations to have both him and
Ernest H. Daniel reappointed in 1917
may have had some influence with
the appointing power. He said this
activity on the part of the citizens
associations had considerably en-
barraSsed.
Il was willing to serve again. if
reappOinted," said Mr.. Galliher. but
in no sense did l seek reappointment.
went to Chief Justice Covington and
told him how I felt. and said that in
considering the appointment of any
not be embarrassed by the actions of
the citizens associations, which were
supporting me. l asked him to tell
his associates the same thing"
The witness said the fact that he
was not reappointed was a matter of
some disappointment to him. and of
some surprise. though he added that
he ought not to have been surprised
after he had talked with Judge
Covington.
WAS there any opposition to your
reappointment? asked Senator Har-
rison.
Il knew of none," said Gailiher.
After saying that he had voted for
Mr.. Thurston for superintendent in
1917. Mr. Galliher said:
Il had the impression, only partly
formed, that DR. Van Schaick from the
time he came on the board was OPP
posed to Mr.. Thurston, because of his
general attitude toward the super
intendent so much SO that was
constrained to seek an interview with
DR.. Van Schaick to ask him about his
attitude and to suggest that his gen.
erat bearing toward Mr.. Thurston was
not only embarrassing to the super
intendent. but also hurtful to the
school system"
What did he say in reply?" asked
senator Harrison.
He said his mind was open on the
matter of Mr.. Thurston's incumbency
OF his office. but that Mr.. Thurston. in
his judgment, was not big enough
man for the place" said the witness.
We had very heated interview"
Recites Bitter Argument.
Mr.. Galliher showed great reluct-
ance to tell all that passed between
him and the president of the board
at the interview in question, and sew
eral times asked to be excused, say
ing it had no bearing on the case. 1t
was only after being pressed by SEN
ators Harrison. and Dillingham;. who
said they believed the committee was
entitled to the facts, that the witness
repeated his conversation with DR..
Van Schaick substantially follows:
Il asked him if he came on the board
with an open mind, or to do the bid
ding of some one else. 1t may have
been a coarse question. but his atti-
tude was such that | could stand 1t
no longer.
He said, ! came with an open
mind, but suppose you are not willing
to accept that statement, and that
you consider me eonsummate ass.
But your interest in Mr.. Thurston
ter on it's merits This attack of
yours is so violent that | think / will
report it to the appointing power
ITO that l replied: am respen-
sible for what ! say, and you NAV
hear it to the appointing power il
you so elect. But you may recall that
those who have the appointing power
have not the right to terminate the
service of their appointees. If this
attack is so violent you might have
me disciplined by the board Or If
you will ring for your stenographer /
will go over this conversation so it
can be taken down and copies handed
to the press, and the justices of the
Supreme Court may read it in the
papers,.
Before recounting the foregoing
conversation MI. Galliher said he an
preciated that DR.. Van Schaick might
have been in a peculiar mood and
that he had forgiven the president Of
the board for some of the statements
and had charged it to temper.
Just before the hearing ended SEN
ator Dillingham; questioned the wit
ness further about his interview with
DE- Van Sehaick. and Mr.. Galliher sup
saying:
referred to Mr. Thurston's record
prior to DR.. Van Echaick's coming on
the board, and urged not so much a
continuation of Mr.. Thurston in Office
as different attitude toward him.
saw Wv superintendent reputation
should not be attacked by any un-
toward bearing on the part Of the
president of the board DIR. Van
Sohaiek said he had no feeling against
Mr. Thurston. but at the same time
did not think he was a big enough
man for the job. We separated with
out any conclusion having been
reached. l told him that If he thought
Mr. Ihurston was not a big enough
man the hoard ought to give him its
support and develop him. and not re-
tard him in his work.
Did DIR. Van Schaick do it?" asked
Senator Dillingham;.
never observed any change in his
demeanor or attitude toward the
superintendent" replied the witness.
Says He Voted for Mr.. Daniel.
Mr.. Galliher said he had voted for
Mr.. Daniel for president of the school
board in 1916, at which time DR.. Van
Schaick was elected, and that he had
been surprised to learn that DR.. Van
Schaick had voted for himself at that
time.
''He came on the board the first
Wednesday of July. 1876 said the
witness, land in less than an heur
I.:,I h..