Evening journal., 1921-05-02
MIR. CURLEY and
new School LAW


a way decidedly against the in
terests of the pupils and Of good
education; and further that you
had been told that 1. whom you
credit with a large share in
drawing the new school law,
had stated that this was the pur-
pose for which the changes were
made.
l made no such statement:
such statement, under the cir
cumstances. would have been
idle and ill-judged. The changes
themselves warrant the infer
ence that the Legislature in
tended corresponding variations
from the present administration
of school affairs. II such in
ference was all you intended to
establish, your use of my name
to support it, especially when
such was based on mere report,
is not readily ineligible. and in
its context. is apt to be confus-
ing. To guard against such con-
fusion, allow me to suggest the
following facts.
At the request OF the House of
Representatives, l went to Dover
some six days before the ses-
sion's adjournment date. Both
Senate and House were fixed in
their view that new school legis-
lation should be enacted. as the
members had been chosen at an
election, in which these school
matters were material issues at
least in the lower counties. but
there had been and was much
discussion as to the form IL
should take. The bill which af-
ter some months deliberation,
had been prepared by the Citi-
zens' Committee, Ca sub-com-
mittee comprising Mr.. r. G.
Houston, Mr.. J. II. Hughes, and
DR.. r. w. Cooper having draft
ed it for the larger committee)
had been rejected by the House,
and later, with some amend
ments, passed by the Senate.
The Senate later passed the
Palmer bill, which substantially
directed a return to the old
school conditions existing before
the first school code. There
was much sentiment in the
House in favor of the Palmer
bill. In my judgment. the un-
scrambling process which would
have been made necessary by the
Palmer bill, wuold have placed
school affairs in very unfort-
unate condition. My endeavOr
was not to advise or attempt to
direct what school legislation
should be had, (for my study of
conditions would not then and
does not now warrant such ad-
vice. much less djrection), but
was to find some common
ground between the Citizens
Committee bill rejected by the
House, and the Palmer bill later
passed by the Senate. The new
school law furnished such COM
mon ground. Save in four par
ticulars. namely. % the substi-
tuition of an appointive bi-par-
tisan State Board in place of an
elective State Board, CD the
elimination OF County boards,
exchanging the required school
attendance from nine months to
eight months in every year, and
(D authorizing the individual
school district, without reduc-
ing the required school attend
ance, TO vary the time of attend
ance to meet the conditions in
such particular district. the new
school law is substantially and
almost in detail, the Citizens
Committee bill as it passed the
Senate. / understood that the
amendments made by the Senate
were acquiesced in by the repre-
sentatives Of that Committee.
This was made entirely clear
TO the Legislature. What merit
it has must be largely credited
TO that committee. certainly to
the gentlemen who drafted the
law for that committee, and not
to me. In so far as your letter
would imply otherwise, it is in
correct.
1t is not necessary for me,
were I qualified. to advance an
opinion on the comparative
merits Of the new school law
and OF the present one. Pre-
sumably at least, the members
of the Legislature were inform
ed Of their constituents desires.
and acted accordingly.
/ trust the above will correct
the impression which you with
some others seem TO have ac-
quired. namely, that 1 was per-
sonally, except as above recited.
concerned in the enactment Of
any particular school legislation.
Since the publication Of your
letter must have been with your
consent. l take the liberty of
sending a copy of this to the
local papers.
Yours very truly