The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1924-02-21
STATE SUPERINTENDENT
COOK And GOV. RITCHIE
Contention Over Public School
Budget Has Become VitriOlic

lished in these columns last week
called attention to the fact that I'M
less Governor Richie experienced
change of heart with reference to his
budget calling for certain amounts
for public school purposes in various
counties Of the State that Garrett
county would stand to lose sum ap-
proXimating $4,000 from her public
school appropriation for the next
three years. The Governors attitude
with very few exceptions, has been
assailed in almost every county Of the
State. The press, almost as q unit,
has been against him and has given
State Superintendent Cook it's sup
port in his contention that if the pub
lie school system of thecommonwealth
is to go forward and not retrogress,
then it was up to the Governor to
change his policy This he has done
in recent days and it is now unlikely
that Garrett county's State apportion-
ment will be reduced.
In Sundays edition of the Balti-
more Sun, Ezekiel Cheever, a staff
writer, contributed the following bear
ING upon the school situation:
Charge to the Jury.
CHEEVER, j.:
Jurors and Jureresses-You have
heard the evidence presented in this
friendly action between the Hon. Al
bert Cabell Richie, Governor, and
DR.. Albert Samuel Cook, Superinten-
dent of Schools, both of the State of
Maryland.
You are to judge what are facts
| offered My duty is merely to point
out how the law is to be applied to
| such facts as you may find.
AS fellow-jurist, Judge F. A.
Breezy, once very aptly expressed it;
Claw, after ALL is common sense.
People think there is great deal of
mystery about law, but it tries to be
common sense and absolute impartial
justice between man and man."
My purpose, then, is to show you
how to apply common sense to the
facts that have reached you through
the testimony presented in order that
you may do absolute impartial JUS
tee to both principals.
PROPAGANDA.
You have heard a lot of wild talk
during this case about DR.. Cook hav-
ing engaged in campaign of prOpa-
ganda because certain vital appropria-
tions for education were threatened.
What is propaganda? Recently
Edward W. Box, the renowned good
angel Of peace-program makers, ad-
mitted he did not know. Hon. Jim A.
Reed, the fire-eating arch enemy of
the League Of Nations, confessed that
he does not know.
But one thing is self evident. If
what Dr.. Cook did was propaganda,
then it is apparent that he is EN-
ployed by the State in the dual role
of superintendent Of propaganda.
The Public School Laws of the State
of Maryland, under which DR.. Cook
is employed, set forth (1916, Oh. SOC,
sec 12):
The State Board of Education
shall through the State
Superintendent of Schools and his
professional assistants
seek in every way to direct and
! develope public sentiment in sup
port of public education.
And again (1916, ch. SOC, sec. 1879:
The State Superintendent of
| Schools shall prepare and
publish such pamphlets as will
stimulate public interest.
! You cannot try man in this court
! for having complied with the laws;
therefore the jury is instructed to ig-
more the count regarding propaganda.
SCHOOL BUDGET.
! From the evidence it appears that
/ Dr.. Cook was asked by Governor
Richie to prepare budget for the
three years, 1925, 1926 and 1927. He
was urged to practice all possible &C.
onomy. The question then becomes
what was possible or reasonable econ
Omy.
/ At public meeting during the first
year of the first administration of
! Governor Richie the wretched show
/ ing of the State school systems was
being discussed. Governor Richie
! properly asked the then Superinten-
dent of Schools why the showing was
so discreditable. The answer was that
sufficient funds were not available for
maintaining schools at their previous
standard, much less to improve them.
And the response of Governor Richie
to the Superintendent was in effect, as
follows:
Il put into your budget all YOU
asked for. | can't know what is re-
quired for the schools. That is the
Superintendent business. If YOU
didn't ask for enough to support the
schools adequately, then the fault is
yours entirely, since l gave all you
asked for and would have given what
ever you had reported as necessary"
( When the 1925-1927 budget was
presented the amount appeared more
than the State could pay. After
conference this budget was pared
down.
But, subsequently, and not with
conference, a further pairing was
done. A second pairing may have
been necessary. That is not the point
at issue. The evidence shows that the
pairing touched certain items that
were essential to the life of a pro-
gressive school program that today