Evening star., 1923-03-22
HEARINGS SLATED
ON SCHOOL HISTORY
Board of Education to Hear
All Sides Before Barring
Muzzey's Books.

Public hearings, at which critics and
supporters of Muzzeys American history
will be given an opportunity to testify.
will be held by q special committee Of
the board of education before that body
takes definite and final action on the
question Of withdrawing 1t FROM use In
the Washington high schools The COM
mittee is composed of Daniel ]. Gala
han, William l.. Houston and Mrs. How
ard l.. Hodgkins.
Although the school board a month
ago decided to make the consideration
of Prof. Muzzey's book the special or
der of business at its meeting yester-
day afternoon. it readily agreed to defer
action until the special committee had
sounded out public opinion and submit
ted its report. This Is too important a
Ito determine without serious investiga-
ton
Ready to Defend History.
George j. Jones, head Of the history
department of the high schools. was
present at the meeting prepared to
submit a report in defense of the hiss
tory. Mr.. Jones already has sub
mitted TO the board a comprehensive
report defending the charges that the
history is un-American and un-.
patriotic.
The contention of Corporation
Counsel Francis H. Stephens that the
Commissioners have the constituted
authority to determine the necessity
pendtures was denied in an opinion
adopted by the board. The opniion
was framed by James T. Lloyd and
Mr.. Houston, the attorneys on the
board, as a result of the recent de-
cision of the corporation counsel
which followed the controversy be-
tween the board and the Commits
sioners over requisition for supplies
for the so-called beauty culture course
al the O. Street Vocational School.
THE contention of the board OF
education is that the law is plain
and of easy construction with ref
erence to school expenditures" the
opinion stated There is no conflict
in the authority given as we see it.
The board of education must direct
the expenditures; ii must make re-
ouisitions which direct the commits
sioners to pay. This direction is
complete and is solely the function
of the board of education. After
payment has been ordered by the
board of education its authrity
commissioners to make payments
ordered by the BOARD of education
and to account for the same. The
only INJURY that the commissioners
are authorized to make is as to the
appropriations made by congress and
whether there are funds appropriated
from which they may legally draw.
but the commissioners have no power
TO determine the necessity or wisdom
of the proposed expenditures.
"The corporation counsel. aside
from the merits of this case. argues
that since the members of the board
of education receive no salary and
because they are not required to give
a bond. they should have nothing
10 do with expenditures Certainly
the corporation counsel would not Sc
riously contend that because the
board of education performs the
onerouS duties imposed upon it as a
public duty without remuneration.
that it should be penalized for so
ouired of the board of education?
Under no construction of the law can
the board handle any money, nor does
1t make any expenditures. The re-
sponsibility for making the payments
and accounting for the same is vested
in the Commissioners.
Trying to Serve People.
at is contended that the board OF
education is not responsive to the
people of the District because it is
appointed by the Supreme Court.
The board of education answers that
by the same reasoning the Commits
sionerS are not responsive to the
people because they are named by
the President: The board Of educa-
tion is using its best endeavor to di-
rect the schools in the interest Of the
people and is generous enough to
assert its confident bell that the
Commissioners are trying to serve
the same people in the administra-
tion of municipal affairs.
1T is our opinion. and we recon-
mend that in order to make clear
the corporation counsel should be
asked to state his opinion as to the
relation of the board to expenditures
and what, under the law, it is re-
qured to do in this regard, so that
the statute, as d whole. may be un-
derstood and the obligations of both
he board of education and the Com
iissoners may be clearly denned' so
lat no questions of conflict of au-
lority may hereafter arise.
In presenting the opinion Mr.. Lloyd
Emphasized that the board Is not
,eking a quarrel WITH i the Com,s 90 ntste
Disapproval of the names selected
by the board for the new schools
Under construction and the two
nigh schools in September was voiced
by the Commissioners In a communi-
cation to the board. The Commis-
sioners objected to the names on the
government authorities were respected
by having schools named In their
honor. Alexander T. Stuart, director
Of intermediate instruction and for
mer superintendent Of schools, told
the board that there has never been
a uniform practice in selecting
names for schools. but that the pro-
cedure in the past has been for the
board to choose the names and have
the Commissioners approve them.
He also read his annual report OF
1911, in which he recommended that
teachers should be recognized in the
naming of schools, and which showed
that up to that year twenty three
schools had been named for loca-
tion, three for relative location, one
for the nature of its curriculum,
~ a VY- ~- -