Evening star., 1935-02-20
PRETTYMAN BACKS
MARRIAGE CLAUSE
Holds Advice to Education
Board on One Case Was
Misinterpreted.

Corporation Counsel E. Barrett
Prettyman today joined Representative
Cochran, Democrat, of Missouri, chair
man of the Committee on Expendi-
lures in the Executive Departments.
in the contention that the economy
act applies to married teachers in the
Washington public schools.
Prettyman explained that his ad-
vice to the Board of Education in one
specific case had been misinterpreted
to apply generally, and that, in fact, he
had not reversed the ruling of former
Corporation Counsel William w. Bride
on September %, 1888. upholding the
law applying to married teachers.
Wrote Board Yesterday.
Representative Cochran yesterday
wrote the Board of Education that he
disagreed with their recent action
holding married teachers may be en-
ployed regardless of whether their
husbands are in the Government
service.
In explaining his position today,
Prettyman traced the history Of the
economy act, particularly section 213,
which makes the married teacher pro-
visions. The section contains two
paragraphs, the first covering reduc-
tions in personnel and the second ap-
plying to new appointments.
The Civil Service Commission held
in May, 1884, that the second para
graph does not apply to the District.
since District employees do not have
civil service status. The first para
graph, however, specifically applies to
the District.
Prettyman said the specific case he
advised the board upon was that of
Mrs. Eva T. Honesty, a married
teacher who was the only person on
her particular eligibility list. The
board passed over her name, although
there were no other eligible teachers
in that classification at the time.
Mrs. Honesty sued and Prettyman
held that inaSmuch as the board had
no preference among eligible teachers,
Mrs. Honesty was entitled to her
place.
Opinion Not Reversed.
"I have not given formal opinion
on the law" the corporation counsel
said, land I have not reversed Mr..
Brides opinion"
He added that as matter of policy
he would advise the board to give
preference in all cases to single per-
sons or to married teachers whose
husband or wife is not employed by
the Federal Government.
Cochran in his letter to the Board
of Education said: THE committee
is now investigating this subject, not
with a view of repeating the law. but
with a view of putting teeth in the
law. When the matter was taken up
before the committee there was not
a dissenting voice, but all insisted that
reports be secured as to how the law
was working.
II am going to bring this situation
to the attention of the committee
when the section is taken up. As
author Of the law, I feel that it ap-
plies to the teachers of the District
of Columbia as well as other Govern
ment employees and that Mr.. Brides
ruling should stand"
Seek Reinstatement.
In 1898, seven teachers and two
clerks resigned their positions in the
schools under the belief they were not
eligible since their married partners
were also employed by the Govern
menr. These people have already
made applications to the board for
reinstatement. They are: Mrs. lola
r. Clark, Mrs. B. L. Brandon, Mrs.
Sylvia P. Patterson, Mrs. L. w. Smith,
Mrs. M. E. Miltner, Mrs. Madeline c.
Lilly and Mrs. Alice D. B. Sinder, all
teachers; the following clerks also
asked for reinstatement: Mrs. Bu-
nita Y. Taylor and Mrs. Leona M.
Cobb.
AS author of the economy act, Mr..
Cochran, school officials believe, Is in
position to straighten out what has
been a troublesome question. For
some time past school officials have
been in a quandary over the status OF
married woman teachers whose hus-
bands work in the Government. The
letter from the Missouri Representa-
tive goes a long way toward showing
which way the problem will be solved.