Toward the New Education 
 
 THE CASE AGAINST AUTOCRACY 
 IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
 
 (Being a reply to a pamphlet issued by The School- 
 masters' Association of New York and Vicinity and 
 The American Defense Society, entitled, "Unpatriotic 
 Teaching in Public Schools/') 
 
 TEACHERS' UNION OF THE 
 
 CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 70 Fifth Avenue 
 
LABOR AND LOYALTY 
 
 Even before this number of The American Teacher is printed our 
 country may be at war with the government of the German people. Should 
 war come, the workers of this country stand ready to support the gov- 
 ernment m every possible way, to the end that the democratic and humani- 
 tar,an prmciples that are at tlie foundation of this nation may be pre- 
 served in the world. 
 
 The readers and supporters of The American Teacher are in large 
 part among the great body of citizen workers who have fought, relent- 
 lessly, the idea of war upon any nation. They know who bear the bur- 
 dens of war and they know who profit by its fury. The representatives 
 ot orgamzed labor who met in Washington in March, had a great re- 
 sponsibility, the President of our American Federation of Teachers among 
 them. Even at the time of the conference in Washington the outbreak of 
 war seemed a certainty. The great question was what should be the 
 course of labor? As we face the great crisis we can see no alternative 
 i-abor must stand ready to give its service. 
 
 The loyalty thus pledged in the name 'of the cotrmion people is not 
 to be confused with the hysterical shouting and gesticulating that pass 
 in many quarters as manifestations of "patriotism.- It is not that un- 
 qualified and unquestioned submission to the dictates and whims of men 
 who happen to be in authority, under all circumstances. It is a sincere 
 devotion to the ostensible purpose of the government in promoting the 
 aims and ideals of the American people, in the interests of wider liberties 
 more hrm security of human rights, and further extension of the es- 
 sentials of civilization. 
 
 We shall make our prayers or our propaganda to avoid the stupidities 
 as well as the brutalities of war, up to the very moment that may at last 
 find us at war. But when war comes, if it comes, we shall have responsi- 
 
 wT T ?u"' '"^'' "' ^"'"^^'"' "P°" "^ ^^ *he responsibilities of 
 oyalty to the government and its major purpose. Upon us will rest 
 the responsib.lity to guard those fundamental attainments of such civili- 
 zation as we have against the ruthless assaults of privilege and greed 
 and reaction^ Upon us will rest the resposibility to resist the temptatLn 
 o exploit chidren and other defenseless members of the community on 
 the pretext of necessity; the temptation to deprive the workers of fheir 
 protection against conditions that rob of health and sanity. fVe shall be 
 respond for keeprng alive those ideals of justice and liberty and hi 
 mamty that are the most serious victims of every war 
 
 We shall be loyal. We shaU not, however, permit our loyalty to 
 the government' to blind us to our loyalty to the heart of the nafion 
 Nor shall we let it blind us to the loyalties that this nation still owe to 
 manlcmd today and tomorrow. We shall be loyal, but we shall not be 
 
 (From 'The American Teacher," April, 1917.) 
 

 
 CAN WE TRUST THE KEEPING OF OUR AMERICAN 
 DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF ORGANIZA- 
 TIONS WHOSE ACTIVITIES INSPIRE 
 MOB MADNESS? 
 
 A Letter which the American Defense Society should 
 have repudiated when it knew of its existence. 
 
 W. C. MOORE 
 
 Market Expert 
 
 STOCKS, GRAINS, COTTON 
 
 52 Wall Street 
 
 New York 
 
 April 22, 1918. 
 
 Dear Doc : 
 
 I note from a reading of the newspaper that you and your mis- 
 guided followers are about to open a soap-box campaign in the 
 interests of Bill the Kaiser. 
 
 I am credibly informed there are five hundred teachers in the 
 city schools who are in sympathy and who are working in harmony 
 with the German propaganda. I have reason to believe that ninety- 
 nine percent of these poor deluded and incompetent teachers are 
 disloyal and that a very large percent of them are traitors, you 
 among them. 
 
 Now let me tell you Doc, that the good teyal people of the City 
 of New York have about exhausted their patience with you and 
 your ilk and that the day of retribution is not far ofif. Personally 
 I would like to take a hand in administering a coat of tar and 
 feathers and a hemp rope in your case and in ninety percent of the 
 others whose names are connected with your own in this intended 
 disloyal soap-box campaign. I believe that every person identified 
 with you in this movement is a yellow bird and an enemy of our 
 country. I believe you are all without patriotism and that ninety- 
 five percent of you are abject cravens. 
 
 Now Doc, there is not one of your flock of yellow birds that 
 dares to come and face me and make in my presence the observa- 
 tions and accusations that I make against j^ou and other foul birds. 
 Keep in mind the fact that I am an American of the genuine kind 
 and cannot and will not tolerate disloyalty or treason in my native 
 land. 
 
 Not one member of your Teachers' Association should be per- 
 mitted to t'-ch in the Public Schools of N. Y. and I shall do my 
 part toward . -ing that this policy I herein advocate is carried out. 
 
In conclusion, Doc, if you have any of the good red blood in 
 your veins which you should have, you will come to my office at an 
 earlj^ date and resent what T am saying to you. If you do not 
 come I shall brand you as a COWARD. 
 Yours truly, 
 WCM/FE W. C. MOORE 
 
 To Doctor Henry R. Linville, Member of the 
 
 Jamaica High School, AM. DEFENSE SOCIETY 
 
 Jamaica, L. I. 
 
 * Connecting reference in the New York Sun. 
 
 LOYALTY OF MORE TEACHERS ASSAILED 
 
 Schoolmasters' Association Report Attacks Leaders of 
 Teachers' Union. 
 
 LINVILLE HEADS GROUP 
 
 Educators to Start Counter Offensive Against SociaHst 
 Propaganda. 
 
 The decision of a number of school teachers yesterday 
 to take to the soap box in a joint campaign of the National 
 Security League and the American Defence Society to coun- 
 teract German and Socialist propaganda followed directly 
 a meeting of the Schoolmasters' Association of New York 
 and Vicinity, at which the loyalty of teachers in the New 
 York school system was discussed. At that meeting Cleve- 
 land Moffett, author and member of the defence society, de- 
 clared that there are still 500 teachers in this city who are 
 not heart and soul in sympathy with the war. * * " * * 
 
 Established 1908 P. O. Box 60 
 
 Wall Street Station 
 
 Letter from Henry R. Linville to American Defense Society : 
 
 April 23, 1918. 
 Mr. H. D. Craig, 
 
 Secretary, American Defense Society, 
 44 East 23rd St., New York. 
 Dear Sir : — 
 
 It may be a matter of surprise to you that one of your members 
 has forwarded to me a letter of extremely threatening nature ap- 
 parently based on a report of a committee which was published 
 in the Sunday issue of the New York Sun. The committee's report 
 appears to be published uniler the auspices of your Society. We 
 
 By Tr^sfpr 
 Buraau of investigation 
 March 17,1933 
 
are leaving to our lawyer the determination of responsibility for 
 the situation that has now developed. 
 
 In the meantime, our organization believes that a basis for com- 
 mon understanding on the matter of loyalty or dislo>-alty in the 
 school system may be worked out by means of a calm consideration 
 in public of your point of view and of ours. Apparently, we diflfer 
 y very greatly now. We are therefore proposing to you that a joint 
 
 meeting be held in the ver>- near future, under the direction of a 
 Chairman outside either organization, and that the issue of loj^alty 
 be discussed there frankly by the representatives. Your organiza- 
 tion and the Schoolmasters' Association have made charges against 
 us which can now be fairly met only in a public meeting, and we 
 trust you will see the situation in this light. 
 
 We should be glad if a representative of the Schoolmasters were 
 one of the speakers. 
 
 Very truly j'ours, 
 
 HENRY R. LINVILLE, 
 President Teachers' Union 
 
 Letter from American Defense Society to Teachers' 
 Union : 
 
 Here appears a cut of 
 the National Emblem 
 with the words, 
 "These Colors Will 
 Not Run." 
 
 AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY, Inc. 
 National Headquarters — 44 East 23rd St., 
 
 New York. 
 May 10, 1918. 
 
 The Teachers' Union, 
 70 Fifth Avenue, 
 New York City. 
 Henrj' R. Linville, Esq., President 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 Referring to your letter of April 2oth regarding a debate upon a 
 basis for a common understanding on the matter of disloyalty in 
 the school system, we have only to say that we stand firmly on the 
 proposition that the question of loyalty is not debatable, and we 
 reject your proposition in every respect. Yours truly, 
 
 HENRY C QUINBY, Chairman Executive Committee 
 
 Comment on their failure to meet the issue : 
 
 The self-appointed champions of the flag have accused the Teachers' 
 Union of dislo3^alty, and when the Union challenges their organiza- 
 tion to join the issue, the American Defense Society evades and 
 runs awa)-. If the A. D. S. is without courage, then it is not a 
 proper champion for the flag whose "colors will not run." The 
 A. D. S. has been accused publicly by a former Chairman of its 
 Executive Committee, Dr. Ward C. Crampton, of being a "self- 
 advertising organization." The Teachers' Union submits that to 
 use the flag on letter-heads for advertising purposes is shamefully 
 illegal. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 ON OR about April 25, 1918, a pamphlet published by 
 the American Defense Society, called Pamphlet Series, 
 No. 24, was circulated in the schools of the City of 
 New York. The statements of this pamphlet were pre- 
 pared by a committee of the Schoolmasters' Association, an 
 organization composed of principals and teachers of public 
 and private schools in New York City and vicinity. The 
 title of the pamphlet is "Unpatriotic Teaching in Public 
 Schools," and the sub-title is "The Facts Concerning the 
 Transfer and Dismissal of certain Teachers of the DeWitt 
 Clinton High School, New York City." 
 
 Inasmuch as the pamphlet is a sustained attack on the 
 work and the ideals of the officers and the members of the 
 Teachers' Union of the City of New York, it becomes the 
 duty of the Teachers' Union to meet the attack. But if the 
 reply of the Teachers' Union should stop at merely answer- 
 ing the attack point by point, or at indicating the false 
 statements of which the report is full, or at showing the 
 personal motives for the participation of active members of 
 the responsible committee of teachers, or at demonstrating 
 the narrow mindedness and the absence of social under- 
 standing of presumably all the members of the Schoolmas- 
 ters' Association, then the Teachers' Union would fail to 
 meet a far more important responsibility than any or all of 
 these. This responsibility is the justification of its con- 
 structive democratic program in an educational system 
 where democracy has been an unused word and autocracy 
 for years has dominated the acts and the thinking of officials 
 and teachers alike. 
 
 It will be recalled that on December 19, 1917, three 
 teachers were dismissed from the school system of New 
 York City on the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher." 
 On April 8, 1918, the appeal of the teachers was heard 
 before the State Department of Education, At the time of 
 writing this pamphlet, May, 1918, no decision had as yet 
 been rendered. Meanwhile, during the month of April, 
 ivhile decision was pending, a committee of the Schoolmas- 
 ters' Association, under the auspices of the American De- 
 
fense Society, issued a pamphlet untruthfully entitled "Un- 
 patriotic Teaching in the Public Schools," which concludes 
 with the following : 
 
 SUMMARY 
 "Your committee finds unanimously that Messrs. Schmalhausen, 
 Mufson and Schneer were justly dismissed from the service of the 
 Board of Education of the City of New York; that such other 
 teachers in the service as express like views should be dismissed ; 
 and that the pica of the dismissed teachers to the State Commis 
 sioner of Education for reinstatement should be denied." (our 
 italics) 
 
 May we ask the impartial reader what he thinks of this 
 attempt to influence by unfair and undue pressure the State 
 Department of Education? For it is plainly an attempt to 
 corrupt the higher court. Is this the kind of ethics which 
 the representatives of the Schoolmasters' Association and 
 of the American Defense Society consider a proper back- 
 ground for fair dealing and patriotism ? What kind of fair- 
 mindedness can we expect from gentlemen who are guilty 
 of so obvious a breach of legal ethics ? 
 
 In addition, it is well worth noting at the verj'" outset, 
 that the Schoolmasters' report is full of one-sided, inade- 
 quate, untruthful and sometimes even malicious assertions. 
 For example, what do they mean by "unpatriotic" teaching, 
 when they themselves admit (on page 8) "the committee 
 was unable to find any proof that any of these teachers had 
 even been suspected, much less accused, of disloyalty by 
 any school official or any teacher. In fact all the evidence 
 tends to prove the negative of this claim." Does this ad- 
 mission mean that the teachers referred to are not disloyal 
 but that they are unpatriotic? The logic of this concession 
 to truth clearly implies that the three teachers, though ad- 
 mittedly loyal, are yet somehow or other to be stigmatized 
 as unpatriotic. Where is their evidence of unpatriotism ? 
 Assuming their illogical attitude of admitting a person can 
 be loyal and unpatriotic, what evidence have they presented 
 to show the teachers are unpatriotic ? 
 
 Is it conceivable that teachers who are "guilty" of "un- 
 patriotic teaching" are somehow or other not guilty of dis- 
 loyalty ? But since the authors of the pamphlet are at some 
 pains to admit that the three dismissed teachers are not 
 guilty of disloyalty, how can they, in one and the same 
 breath, be declared innocent of disloyalty and guilty of un- 
 
patriotism? A nice dilemma for the Schoolmasters' logi- 
 cians to unravel ! Indeed, throughout the pamphlet the con- 
 cepts "loyalty" and "patriotism" are used interchangeably 
 — which is the normal usage. Of course, the truth is that 
 the teachers were not accused of disloyalty; they were not 
 accused of unpatriotism. What they were honestly accused 
 of will appear in our reply. 
 
 There is a real basis for the fierce opposition of the 
 Committee of the Schoolmasters' Association. But it is not 
 even remotely connected with the problems of loyalty and 
 patriotism. The authors of the pamphlet let the cat out of 
 the bag when in their "Preliminary Statement" they say 
 (page 4) "the committee finds that there exists in the teach- 
 ing staff of the New York City schools a group of teachers 
 who continually oppose any act or policy in educational af- 
 fairs, and, likewise, in municipal, state and national affairs 
 which is not in accord with their individualistic notions with 
 reference to that act or policy." This statement is so sig- 
 nificant in what it reveals as to the underlying intentions of 
 the Committee that it will be analyzed in detail in our an- 
 swer to Charge I. 
 
 The method of the educational enemy is to quote as 
 authentic and authoritative a fragment of an assertion 
 which is vouched for by no one in particular. This farcical 
 method reaches its height of absurdity in those unbeliev- 
 able bits of "evidence" where statement after statement is 
 introduced with the startlingly authentic phrase, "another 
 said," "another report is," "another is quoted as saying," 
 "one exclaimed," "one said." If this be authentic evidence, 
 let's frankly go back to the days of the inquisition. 
 
 If the reader will take the trouble to consult the volume 
 of testimony taken at the trial of the three teachers, he will 
 be surprised to discover that all this so-called evidence of 
 the Schoolmasters' Committee is nowhere to be found re- 
 corded. We wonder that the Board of Education failed to 
 include so much overwhelming evidence. Or, shall we 
 rather assume that the Board had too much good sense to 
 include such flimsy fragmentary material? 
 
 There are many citizens of New York City who are 
 acquainted with the facts and the unprofessional methods 
 of inquiry brought out by the trial and the dismissal of the 
 three teachers of DeWitt Clinton High School. These and 
 
other friends of the Teachers' Union should not dismiss the 
 accusations contained in the pamphlet of the American De- 
 fense Society because of their obviously prejudiced char- 
 acter. But they should be patient until we disclose the 
 community of interest of those who prosecuted and those 
 who now defend the prosecutors. To those enlightened citi- 
 zens who are unacquainted with the facts of this particular 
 controversy, but are acquainted with the social blindness 
 and the mental helplessness of the forces of reaction, there 
 will be much in our recital of facts and interpretations that 
 will be of consuming interest. We trust, however, that if 
 the child-like psychology of our adversaries amuses, there 
 will be no indifference to the dire social menace of continu- 
 ing in office in the schools these dwarfed mentalities and 
 thousands of others like them. 
 
 The Teachers' Union does not pretend to conceal its 
 satisfaction at the prospect the Schoolmasters' Association 
 has opened up for our movement for democracy in educa- 
 tion and human justice in its administration. It is alto- 
 gether probable that we might have waited for years for 
 the opportunity which our reactionary adversaries have 
 thoughtlessly afforded us. 
 
 The American Defense Society pamphlet which con- 
 tains the accusations against the Teachers' Union is very 
 badly organized editorially. The Union's committee fimds 
 it extremely difficult to arrange the items in the charges in 
 satisfactory categories. The best that can be done seems 
 to be to make a division in which shall be placed all the 
 charges that are made against the Union or against an ill- 
 defined "group" which to our adversaries seem.s to repre- 
 sent the Union. In this first division the reader will find 
 items, the statement of which is given in words quoted 
 from the pamphlet "Unpatriotic Teaching in Public 
 Schools", or in a paraphrase. Each item is followed by 
 our answer. The second division of our pamphlet is given 
 over to particular charges against individual members of 
 the Teachers' Union, and to our replies, including a great 
 deal of interesting history in educational administration 
 upon which the reader may build important generalizations 
 of a social nature. Our pamphlet closes with a Summary. 
 
PART I. 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE ITEMS IN THE CHARGES OF THE SCHOOLMAS- 
 TERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE ANSWERS BY 
 THE TEACHERS' UNION. 
 
 Item I. (a) "There exists in the teaching staff of the 
 New York City schools a group of teachers who continually 
 oppose any act or policy in educational affairs and likewise in 
 municipal, state and national affairs which is not in accord 
 with their individualistic notions with reference to that act 
 or policy." (Page 4.) 
 
 Our Answer — The context of this item indicates plainly 
 that the authors of it believe it to be descriptive of the atti- 
 tude of the Teachers' Union, or of some responsible officers 
 in that organization. But nothing could be further from the 
 truth. The Teachers' Union is a local in The American 
 Federation of Teachers and thru that organization in the 
 American Federation of Labor, and is in honor bound to 
 work for the best interests of the schools and the commun- 
 ity. The Teachers' Union never has worked in accordance 
 with "individualistic notions", although it will admit that 
 it has striven to discredit policies which appeared to be con- 
 ceived on lines of personal interest rather than in the in- 
 terest of the people. 
 
 The Schoolmasters present no evidence whatever to 
 support the first part of the above charge, but content them- 
 selves with charging the Union with being "individualistic" 
 here, and "socialistic" later on, showing that they do not 
 understand the meanings of political terms. Thus they 
 bring humiliation on our common profession. 
 
 But precisely who are a "group of teachers" referred to 
 in Item I? Why this mystifying vagueness? Why the 
 sinister and dishonest use of the phrase "continually op- 
 pose"? We defy the authors to point out specifically any 
 statement in the pamphlet of any act or policy either in 
 educational or in municipal, state or national affairs that 
 this so-called group has opposed. If the gentlemen who use 
 the term "opposition" mean criticism, we should like to 
 know exactly when and by whose authority the right of 
 criticism has been abrogated in America? How can a group 
 
 8 
 
of persons who are supposed to be so intimately united in 
 thought and purpose be charged with individualistic no- 
 tions? This conception of individuahsm becomes the more 
 ludicrous in the light of the very next statement in the same 
 paragraph charging this "group" with being socialistic. 
 
 The charge of the Schoolmasters that the "group", ap- 
 parently meaning the Teachers' Union' "opposes any act or 
 policy not in accord with its individualistic notions," evi- 
 dently is to be taken as an indication that the tory element 
 in education has at last recognized officially the existence of 
 a radical movement which threatens the peace and comfort 
 of those who want things educational to remain as they are. 
 Let us quote from our Intellectual Allies, and incidentally 
 demonstrate whither education is moving. 
 
 On the occasion of a mass meeting called by the Ameri- 
 can Federation of Teachers at New York during the N. E. 
 A. Convention, July 6, 1916, in protest against the arbi- 
 trary dismissal of Chicago teachers, because they belonged 
 to a union, Professor John Dewey spoke on "The Profes- 
 sional Organization of Teachers." 
 
 We quote these paragraphs from Professor Dewey's ad- 
 dress : 
 
 "We have lacked a sense of loyalty to our calling and to one 
 another, and on that account have not accepted to the full our re- 
 sponsibilities as citizens of the community. 
 
 "To my mind, that is the great reason for forming organizations 
 of this kind, and organizations which are affiliated with other work- 
 ing organizations that have power and attempt to exercise the power 
 like the American Federation of Labor, namely, the reflex effect 
 upon the body of the teachers themselves in strengthening their 
 courage, their faith in one another, and the recognition that they are 
 servants of the community, and not persons hired by a certain 
 transitory set of persons to do a certain job at their beck and call." 
 And again, 
 
 "Upon the whole, we have two kinds of teachers' associations. 
 There are the purely pedagogical associations, those that discuss 
 methods of teaching and alphabet and penmanship, and the muhi- 
 plication table. Nobody ever heard of those associations getting 
 into any trouble, so far as I know. They are a very good thing. 
 They serve a very useful purpose. There isn't a sinister interest 
 in the United States that isn't perfectly willing to leave in the hands 
 of the teaching body the ultimate decision on points of that particu- 
 lar kind, which come to be known as "pedagogy" and "pedagagical 
 methods." There is no certainty, there is no likelihood, however, 
 that the views of the body of teachers, in most of the cities and 
 
towns of the United Slates will at the present time have any real, 
 positive, constnictivc inlluencc in determining the hasic educational 
 policy of the schools of their communities, so far as a more general 
 aspect of education is concerned. As to things that in the long run 
 affect the life of the community, that affect the relations of capital 
 and labor and so on, the discussions and deliberations of these 
 purely pedagogical bodies are, as we all know, practically impotent. 
 "On the other hand, there are organizations which do not call 
 themselves unions, which do not in any way afliliate themselves 
 with labor unions and federations, which have performed a needed 
 and a useful task in protecting certain personal interests of teachers, 
 in protecting their salarj^ interests, the tenure and security of ofitice. 
 Strangely enough, some of the leaders of these organizations who 
 have done this purely personal work of looking after the personal 
 interests of a teacher, seem to look with considerable horror upon 
 a federation which shall actually come into relation with a labor 
 imion. I don't know why. But there we have had the situation on 
 the one hand of organizations of teachers dealing with purely peda- 
 gogical subjects and on the other hand of organizations which are 
 really of a protective nature looking after the personal interests of 
 a body of teachers. 
 
 "Now, as I see it, organizations such as are represented here 
 tonight must attempt to get those two things together, to bring to- 
 gether the educational interests which now are discussed in a purely 
 theoretical way, and these other more practical concerns. We 
 should have an organization which shall not on the one hand merely 
 discuss somewhat minute and remote subjects of pedagogy with no 
 certainty as to how their conclusions are going to take effect in 
 practice, nor simply look after the personal and more or less selfish 
 interests of teachers on the other hand. But we should have a 
 body of self-respecting teachers and educators who will see to it 
 that their ideas and their experience in educational matters shall 
 really count in the community, and who, in order that these may 
 count, will identify themselves with the interests of the community: 
 who will conceive of themselves as citizens and as servants of the 
 public, and not merely as hired employees of a certain body of men. 
 It is because I hope to see the teaching bodj'^ occupy that position of 
 social leadership which it ought to occupy, and which to our shame 
 it must be said we have not occupied in the past, that T welcome 
 every movement of this sort. 
 
 "Objections are frequently made— generally, I think, of a snob- 
 l)is]i character— against these federations, because of their affiliation 
 with labor unions. T won't slop even to argue against the merelv 
 snobbish features of that matter. T would like to point out that 
 these labor unions are engaged in useful service: thai they also 
 are servants of the public and it may be that if the more enlight- 
 ened, more instructed— that is to .say, the more lettered portions 
 of the community like the teachers— put themselves fairly and 
 squarely on a level with these other bodies of people who are doing 
 needed and useful service, that they will ha.stcn the time when all 
 
 10 
 
of these unions will look at all of their work and labor, not merely 
 from the standpoint of their personal interests and the protection 
 of these personal interests, important as that is; but also from the 
 standpoint of service to the general public' 
 
 "There is one other thing I want to say. Why is it that teachers 
 — who have not had to live bj' the labor of their hands and suffered 
 the privations and difficulties of many of the members of the trades 
 unions — have found it necessary in the time of need and extremity 
 to turn for active support, not to manufacturers' associations and 
 bankers' association and lawyers' associations, and the so-called re- 
 spectable elements of the community, but have had to turn to these 
 bodies of organized labor? I think that is cause for shame and 
 humiliation on the part of the so-called respectable classes ; but, I 
 think on the other hand, it is a source of pride and self-respect for 
 the members of these labor unions and is a reason why every teacher 
 should feel proud to be affiliated with the labor unions." — The 
 American Teacher for September, 1916. 
 
 Will our readers note how Professor Dewey's analysis 
 of the natural function of a self-respecting teachers' organ- 
 ization is followed up in point of view and in practise by 
 the union teachers themselves? 
 
 We quote from the address of Charles B. Stillman, 
 President of the American Federation of Teachers, deliv- 
 ered at the meeting of July 6, 1916: 
 
 "Now, just a word of what we do and do not stand for. We 
 do not stand for the protection of incompetents. That the unions 
 do stand for such protection is one of the most frequent charges 
 against us. No one suffers as much as we do from the incompetent 
 teachers^ — not even the Board of Education. The associates of that 
 incompetent teacher pay the price of her incompetence; and we 
 have never yet defended an incompetent teacher and never expect 
 to. In fact, we have refused to take up the cases of incompetent 
 teachers. But v.'e do insist that a profession — that empty term they 
 are so fond of handing to us in lieu of something to live on, altho 
 we can hardly blame them when we see so many teachers greedily 
 swallow it — we maintain that a genuine profession must have a 
 voice in the determination and application of the standards of its 
 own efficiency. The lawyers have such a voice, and the doctors also; 
 and the teachers alone, among the professions, remain inarticulate, 
 without any chance for a hearing."- — The American Teacher for 
 September, 1916. 
 
 Somewhere in the following may appear the reason for 
 a suspected fear in the hearts of the educational tories. The 
 union movement has "teeth", but they are used only in the 
 defense of the public interest. This extract from The Amer- 
 ican Teacher for June, 1917, tells something of the past 
 and future of the New York Teachers' Union : 
 
 11 
 
"The Teachers' Union has agreed to the principle of dismiss- 
 ing incompetent teachers, but it has insisted upon the right of 
 teachers to participate in determining what constitutes incompetence. 
 In the final judgment of a teacher's incompetence the Union demands 
 a public trial as against the method of star-chamber proceedings. 
 
 "The Union has defended several teachers thru its legal staff 
 against oppression and inhuman supervision. It has brought charges 
 against a principal for abusing her powers, and has been instru- 
 mental in placing abused teachers in schools where they are treated 
 with courtesy and respect. Thru its able lawyer, Mr. John E. 
 O'Brien, whose services are free to the members of the Union, the 
 Union is preparing to question by legal procedure certain policies 
 of the Department of Education which are regarded as detrimental 
 to the welfare of the teachers and to the progress of the schools. 
 
 "The Union has aided the Chicago teachers in their splendid 
 fight for the right to organize. It stands ready to support any other 
 body of teachers that is struggling for its professional rights. In 
 the struggle of any individual teacher against unfavorable conditions 
 and against invasions of professional privilege the Union card bids 
 fair soon to be a "don't-worry" insurance worth having. 
 
 "A long struggle is being made against the imminence of an 
 increase to a 210-day year, and against the lengthening of the school 
 day. This activity of the Union is in line with its purpose of im- 
 proving the conditions under which teaching is done." 
 
 And again from the same article : 
 
 "As a recent indication of official good will President Willcox 
 of the Board of Education said to the president of the Teachers' 
 Union and to the writer that he believed a system of co-poreation 
 l)etween the Board of Superintendents, the principal of the several 
 schools, and committees of teachers could work out on practical 
 lines the problem of improving the teaching. This is democ- 
 racy of the kind the Union wants. Thus, the battle for profes- 
 sional rights is far from being hopeless. Victory will crown our 
 efforts if the teachers will come to the support of the Union in 
 such numbers as will give conviction of the importance of our de- 
 mands. 
 
 "The Union proposes under any circumstances to continue its 
 fight for the protection of teachers against injustice of all kinds, 
 to fight for the elimination of the rating system, to fight for sound 
 and just pension principles, for scientific salary adjustment, for the 
 democratization of schooLs, for the reform of the psycho-phj-sical 
 examination of children, for a scientific evaluation of the Gary and 
 other special administrative experiments, for a modern course of 
 stud}', for making the Board of Superintendents a body of spe- 
 cialists, for a small, paid and elective Board of Education, and for 
 the general and fundamental improvement of the .schools and their 
 government. 
 
 "The members of the Union, united in their opposition to at- 
 tempts to curtail the intellectual freedom of the teachers, are fighting 
 for the maintenance of the ideals of democracy, for the principles 
 
 12 
 
which our glorious flag symbolizes. They, as other teachers of the 
 embryonic citizens, realize that they must continue their struggle if 
 democracy is to triumph and autocracy to perish. You teachers, in 
 a sense, are the last line of trenches betwen fighting democracy and 
 fortified autocracy. Whether you realize it or not, on you the fate 
 of the worker and the nation depends. Great is your responsibility 
 and glorious the burden you are called upon to shoulder. Do you 
 fell yourself ready for the batt'e as the champion of humanity 
 and democracy? If so, join us and help us to win a glorious 
 victory." 
 
 Has the Schoolmasters' Association at any time pro- 
 posed a set of principles like these which were presented by 
 The American Federation of Teachers, and endorsed by 
 The American Federation of Labor in National Convention, 
 Baltimore, November 24, 1916? 
 
 1. The right of teachers to organize and affiliate with labor must 
 be recognized. 
 
 2. If our children during their most impressionable years are to 
 have the benefit of daily contact with examples of upstanding American 
 manhood and womanhood, and not to be exposed to an atmosphere of 
 servility in the schoolroom, teachers must be given warning and a hearing 
 before being separated from the service. 
 
 3. The teacher must be guaranteed the opportunity to make his 
 due influence felt in the community, working thru the school chiefly, 
 but free to work thru all the avenues of citizenship. 
 
 4. The control of the teaching staff should be removed from the 
 Board of Education, and placed in the hands of the professional expert, 
 the Superintendent of Schools. 
 
 5. If our democracy is not to be crippled at its source, democratic 
 school administration must be secured by insuring to the teacher an 
 effective voice in that administration. 
 
 6. The schools must be removed from politics by the application 
 of the merit principle of civil service to the employment, advancement, 
 and dismissal of teachers, thus securing tenure during efficiency. 
 
 7. The work of the teacher, now notoriously ill-paid, determines 
 the quality of our future citizenship, and should receive financial recog- 
 nition more nearly commensurate with its importance to the community. 
 
 8. Vocational education should be encouraged, but only under a 
 'unit system.' 
 
 9. The people should directly control educational policies thru the 
 popular election of boards of education. 
 
 10. A system of free textboods is an essential of genuinely free 
 and democratic public schools. 
 
 11. Enlightened public policy demands adequate pension provisions 
 for public school teachers. 
 
 Item I. (b) The members of this group "feel under no 
 obligation to respect the opinions of their superior officers; 
 and they view any official act as 'autocratic', and out of har- 
 
 13 
 
mony with the spirit of 'democracy' unless it meets with their 
 complete intellectual approval." (Page 13.) 
 
 In support of the second part of the charge 
 Our Answer: (lb) the Schoolmasters say the organ of the 
 
 Teachers' Union, the American Teacher, has 
 published "scurrilous attacks" upon school officials, and has 
 held them up to ridicule. The Schoolmasters might have 
 said truly that The American Teacher " respects neither the 
 opinions' nor the feeling of that particular kind of superior 
 officer that defies the regulations oi common decency as be- 
 tween men and women, or browbeats or covertly insults 
 teachers under his supervision, or wrongly and viciously 
 accuses teachers or pupils under his power". The maga- 
 zine may criticise the policy of other and respectable su- 
 periors, but that is a civic right which apparently the 
 Schoolmasters do not question! ■ 
 
 This charge of the Schoolmasters refers to a partially 
 successful campaign started by The American Teacher in 
 November, 1916. It was only partially successful, because 
 the rank and file of the teachers are not yet ready to rise 
 against the imposition of incompetent or immoral supervis- 
 ing officers. Besides, there are many honest and high- 
 minded teachers v\^ho still have conventional notions of what 
 is "proper" in methods of improving conditions. These no- 
 tions operate frequently to permit rascals to maintain their 
 places at the public crib. Thus, the persons who profit by 
 the persistence of conventions are the rascals themselves. 
 The plan of The American Teacher was referred to edi- 
 torially in the December, 1916, number, as follows: 
 
 "The special evil that afflicts the educational system of New 
 York City is what we have designated as 'wasteful, unfair, in- 
 competent and inhuman supervision.' The teachers of New York 
 have submitted to this evil in its numerous forms until the ability 
 to realize the conditions under which it affects every teacher has 
 become well-nigh rudimentary. There is widespread dissatisfaction 
 among the teachers in that city, but it has not been clear just how 
 we were to begin on the gigantic undertaking of creating livable 
 conditions free from inhuman supervision. One thing that has al- 
 ways operated to hinder improvement is the fear of the teachers to 
 say or do anything that would give us a good start. Fear is the 
 weapon by which the oppressors keep their power. 
 
 "It thus appears that successful campaign against the forces that 
 are responsible for oppressive supervision (and certain forces em- 
 bodied in human beings are certainly responsible for its maintenance) 
 
 14 
 
must be inaugurated either indirectly \vith the slow-moving aid of 
 the oppressed, or directly by some method that will undermine the 
 credit and standing of the oppressors more quickly. The latter 
 method has already been inaugurated, and the experiment is being 
 observed by us close!}-. If our readers will watch the 'Fluoroscope' 
 series they will be interested in our new attempt to 'get under the 
 skin' of the 'System.' " 
 
 The first Fluoroscope article appeared in November, 
 1916, and began as follows : 
 
 The Fluoroscope* 
 
 On numerous occasions The American Teacher has called at- 
 tention to the fact that educational systems, especially the educa- 
 tional system of the City of New York, have given slight attention 
 to the matter of expressing in definite terms the standards of quali- 
 fication for the highest positions on the technical staff. The sad 
 result of this indifference to the public welfare is the continuation 
 in office of many principals and superintendents who are far from 
 being fit representatives of an important public service. From time 
 to time we shall stand up some sample characters before the fluoro- 
 scope to show what an educational system acting without intelligence 
 and social understanding can reallj^ do to us. Our readers will 
 fully understand that years of submission to what outsiders would 
 instantly call intolerable conditions tends to make it difficult for 
 teachers to tell the wholesome truth about their superior officers. 
 That fact operates to protect many officials who should be kicked 
 out of the service summarily. If teachers do not show signs of 
 wanting to rid themselves of so ominous a burden, they wall soon 
 be fighting an uphill fight to hold the respect of the public and of 
 the children themselves. 
 
 We are asked frequently how such and such a person could be 
 appointed to the position of principal or of superintendent. The 
 answer is either that the appointee is the personal friend of a 
 person already in power, or one known to be ready lo carry out 
 the will of that person in power or of the group he represents. 
 There is seldom a thought of a duty to the public, and the ap- 
 pointing power cares nothing for your "mushy" talk about ideals. 
 
 The schools of New York City suffer more from the evils aris- 
 mg out of a w^asteful, unfair, incompetent and inhuman supervision 
 than from all other causes. We propose to do something to dis- 
 credit and punish wrong doing in our branch of the public service. 
 
 * The Fluoroscope, as many of our readers do not know, is an 
 instrument that makes visible the shadowings of the X-rays, and is 
 thus a convenient means for discovering what goes on inside an 
 organic body, or for locating hardware swallowed by a baby. 
 
 15 
 
To his associates on the teaching staff years ago he was a con- 
 ceited and ill-mannered ass; so is he yet. But it is supposed that 
 the City Superintendent knew he could be relied on to do his per- 
 sonal bidding, and the man who could not command the respect 
 of his fellows while a teacher was appointed to the principalship of 
 a high school. There his subordinates find it advisable to conceal 
 their contempt. "You can't change him," they say, "so what is the 
 us of making a fuss about it?' 
 
 The nearer by a tyrant is, the more he can oppress. A principal 
 has only to stride down the corridor and he is on you, while the City 
 Superintendent is miles away, and you may never see him at all. 
 In a system that invites tyranny nothing is more natural than that 
 the principal should slam his fist on the table at teachers' meeting 
 and yell, "That's an order!" "We'll not discuss that; that's my 
 order!" Thus our principal gives us a sample of his temperament 
 and of his executive ability. We submit to the insult, for ''What's 
 the use of kicking; we can't change him?" 
 
 Our principal is so good an administrator that he can turn over 
 to willing hands the many tasks that would otherwise swamp him. 
 This system of administration besides being followed by our princi- 
 pal is followed by administrators who use the time thus given them 
 for general constructive thinking and planning. But instead of 
 thinking and planning, outside of spasm.odic imitations, our superior 
 spends part of his time rushing into the lime-light of the business 
 activity of the school and out again, storming, yelling and stamping 
 hardest at the beginning or at the end of the term when there is 
 most doing. This output of energy on the part of the principal 
 increases the confusion, causes the weary teachers to become more 
 weary, makes the children laugh and gives the village barber more 
 to gossip about. 
 
 Between times our principal storms into the general office where 
 a thoughtless boy who "has broken his pledged word" has sat in 
 silent uselessness for an hour or more waiting his turn to be in- 
 sulted by the superior officer of us all. We hear the loud, harsh 
 voice, we see the straining neck muscles, and the angry face, black 
 with surcharged blood vessels, and we feel the nervous jar set up 
 in our bodies, and still we sa)% "Oh what's the use of kicking 
 against it all?" "You can't change him." And there we sit and 
 wait stupidly for the storm to pass. 
 
 And it does pass, for a pretty girl pupil goes by the window 
 with her physical training class that is marching in the yard. Off 
 the principal rushes to the window, and looking out exclaims to 
 everybody in the room, "My, but that girl has a wonderful com- 
 plexion! What remarkable hair! And what beautiful eyes and 
 statuesque shoulders." And still, everybody said, "What's the use 
 of kicking? You can't change an old dog like him. Forget about it." 
 
 16 
 
The identity of this principal was promptly recognized 
 by everyone who knew the high school principals, and of 
 course by the teachers in the particular school. But most 
 of the teachers there strongly disapproved, and some wanted 
 to start a protest, but there was nothing to protest, since 
 the characterization was known to be correct. The article 
 was indirectly responsible for starting an official inquiry. 
 Serious charges of an immoral nature were lodged against 
 the principal, but nothing came of them. A Responsible 
 Superintendent said to a member of The American Teacher 
 staff that an important member of the Board of Education 
 believed the man should be transferred, but that he tvoulcl 
 not stand for seeing him punished. (Italics ours, for the 
 purpose of emphasizing the social insolence of such a state- 
 ment.) Meanwhile, the school stands discredited and in- 
 effective in its community. 
 
 In the case of another principal described by us in 
 April, 1917, the results were more satisfactory, since his 
 promotion to another school was prevented as a direct result 
 of our agitation. Instead, he was sent to a less important 
 school, in spite of the protest of his political sponsor who 
 complained that the man was being demoted. 
 
 The Schoolmasters take us to task for all this, and say 
 that we hold "this attitude of mental and moral superiority, 
 and feel under no obligation to respect the opinions of su- 
 perior officers" (p. 13). And all the support they give for 
 this opinion is the fact that we have attacked certain "su- 
 periors" in the manner indicated. But we have turned our 
 attention to other mehods of social correction which on the 
 whole pay better. 
 
 The Schoolmasters' Association that complains so bit- 
 terly because the Teachers' Union and The American 
 Teacher are essentially critical-minded organs of public 
 opinion may be a little dismayed to find that no less a per- 
 sonage than a District Superintendent of Schools, Dr. 
 Arthur C. Perry, Jr. (who has been in the service of the 
 Department of Education for twenty-five years) , as recently 
 as December, 1917, wrote in a pamphlet entitled "The Prob- 
 lem Confronting the New Board of Education" : 
 
 " Teachers have a cynical attitude as regards the ad- 
 ministration of the schools. There is no enthusiasm for their im- 
 
 17 
 
mediate emplojers, the Board of Education. Their feeling is wide- 
 spread that they must protect themselves against unfriendl}' adminis- 
 tration, that their employers have little interest in their welfare, 
 and that to gain ordinary consideration they are obliged to use the 
 pressure of legislative enactment or public opinion. 
 
 " Teachers have a skeptical attitude as to recognition of 
 
 professional merit. They indorse the civil service idea in theory, 
 but have little confidence in the Board of Examiners. Eligible 
 lists for higher positions so far vary from common knowledge as to 
 relative merit that teachers fall back upon the rather uninspiring 
 maxim that virtue is its own reward. The teachers see cases of 
 faithful service and unusual ability overruled by meticulous tests. 
 They note solemn official rulings by the Board of Examiners that 
 a teacher is unqualified to do work that he has already been doing 
 with official recognition of approval. 
 
 "Teachers feel, too, that much of the supervision of their w^ork 
 is of a hypercritical rather than of a constructive nature. They 
 feel that in many cases originality and initiative are less desired 
 than conformity with the particular crotchets of official superiors. 
 It is pointless to deny intention to foster this spirit among teachers 
 and supervisors; the fact is that there is abroad an attitude of 
 subservience on the part of many and of disgust on the part of 
 others because often sycophancy seems to be rewarded. In sheer 
 pity, one sometimes wishes that a law might be enacted compelling 
 'band wagons' to carry destination signs in plain sight, so that those 
 scrambling to get aboard might avoid accident."' 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Item (a) "A meeting of DeWitt Clinton teachers was 
 hell at the Peg Woffington Coffee House, April 21, 1917, 
 under the auspices of the Teachers' Council of DeWitt Clin- 
 ton High School, at which 'many teachers expressed their 
 opinions of the requirement that all teachers sign the loyalty 
 pledge.' " (Page 5.) 
 
 There were three purposes that animated 
 Answer 2 (a) : the speakers at the Peg Woffington meet- 
 ing. The most important was the organ- 
 ization of a public opinion among the Clinton teachers in 
 favor of the eradication of Mr. Dotey's infamous spying 
 system conducted by himself and the Dotey Squad. (Mr. 
 Dotey is a member of the Schoolmasters' Committee which 
 is engaging our attention.) A committee of teachers was ap- 
 pointed to investigate the whole situation. The investiga- 
 tion never came to fruition only because the speedy ap- 
 proach of the vacation interrupted school activities. 
 
 18 
 
The second animating purpose was the organization 
 among the Clinton teachers of a democratic movement, the 
 main object of which was to democratize Principal Paul's 
 conduct, especially in relation to the Teachers' Council and 
 the monthly teachers' meeting. 
 
 The third purpose of the meeting was a discussion of 
 the free-minded teacher's attitude toward loyalty pledges 
 exacted under the humiliating incentive of compulsion and 
 official bull-dozing. 
 
 Item 2 (b) "The attitude of this group toward the war 
 is regarded as unpatriotic by fellow-teachers, by pupils and by 
 the parents of pupils" (p. 5), 
 
 No evidence is offered to prove this start- 
 Answer 2 (b) : ling assertion. 
 
 Why haven't they the courage to enumer- 
 ate by name the teachers who regard "the attitude of this 
 group as unpatriotic"? Are they afraid to reveal the sin- 
 ister fact that at Clinton High School the faculty is sharply 
 divided into two groups: the small but evilly influential 
 clique of manipulators and reactionaries on the one hand 
 and the large group of liberal minded teachers, exponents 
 of open diplomacy and democracy in education, on the other 
 hand? • 
 
 The teachers know that Clinton High has the largest 
 number of members in the Teachers' Union of any school 
 in New York City. Does the educational enemy refer to 
 them as unpatriotic? Why has not the Schoolmasters' Com- 
 mittee the courage to mention them by name that charges 
 of "conduct unbecoming a teacher" may be brought against 
 them? The failure to specify by name who the unpatriotic 
 teachers are is, in our opinion, a shamefully disloyal act, 
 for which the authors of the pamphlet deserve to be pun- 
 ished. It is a very feeble patriotism that is afraid to come 
 out into the open. 
 
 Which pupils do the gentlemen refer to? 
 
 The members of the Dotey squad? Which parents do 
 they refer to? The parents of the members of the Dotey 
 squad ? 
 
 Item 2 (c) Certain teachers in this group signed a pro- 
 test against signing the Board of Education's loyalty pledge, 
 under date of April 23, 1917 (p. 5). 
 
 19 
 
It is the evident purpose of the Schoolmas- 
 Answer 2 (c) : ters, and for many months has "been the 
 more violent determination of their zeal- 
 ous sponsor, the American Defense Society, to put the 
 brand of disloyalty upon those teachers who objected to the 
 compulsory signing of a pledge of loyalty. Apparently, it 
 made no difference to the American Defense Society 
 whether the protesting teachers actually signed the pledge 
 or not. It is fair to assume this because a responsible mem- 
 ber of the executive committee of the American Defense 
 Society circulated a petition calling upon the Board of Edu- 
 cation to dismiss all those teachers who had signed the pro- 
 test, although a very small number had not signed the 
 pledge. The A.D.S. would deny the right of protest. 
 
 The Board of Education's pledge was the second pledge 
 that had been presented to the teachers for signing. The 
 earlier one was called the "Mayor's Loyalty Pledge", and 
 had been formulated by the Defense Committee appointed 
 by Mayor John Purroy Mitchel. Reports came to the 
 Teachers' Union that many principals were compelling 
 teachers and pupils to sign this pledge. The usual form of 
 compulsion which members of an autocratic system well 
 understand M^as being employed, as it had been employed 
 the year before in the pension bill fight. But a great many 
 teachers, and apparently some members of the Board of 
 Education itself declined to sign the Mayor's pledge, be- 
 cause they believed either that a pledge was unnecessary, or 
 that this movement was being carried out for the political 
 benefit of Mr. Mitchel. 
 
 In May, 1917, The American Teacher published the fol- 
 lowing article showing how the campaign for the signing 
 of the Mayor's loyalty pledge was carried on. This cam- 
 paign added to the state of irritation against official com- 
 pulsion in the educational system : 
 
 "In New York City, a group of self-constituted guardians of 
 loyalty have in their way helped to prevent their fellow-citizens 
 from appreciating to the fullest that the present is a war for De- 
 mocracy. Even hefore the war began, many felt a taste of their 
 guardianship. A pledge of loyalty drawn up by the Mayor's Com- 
 mittee on National Defense was circulated by the Board of Educa- 
 tion among the teachers of the city, with the distinct undeijstanding 
 that those who wished might sign. The Committe in its letter to 
 principals, however, said very curtly, "Have your teachers sign the 
 
 20 
 
enclosed pledge of loyalty." War at this time had not yet been 
 declared, and every citizen presumably might still decide for himself 
 whether he agreed with the sentiments of the pledge, which were 
 to all intents and purposes a declaration in favor of war. Many 
 refused to sign it on this grotmd; while others felt that it was silly 
 to question their loyalty to that government that they loved more 
 than any other. Among these were members of the Board of Edu- 
 cation and principals of elementary and high schools. 
 
 "In the majority of the schools of the city, however, the great- 
 est possible pressure was brought to bear upon those teachers who 
 did not feel that they could or cared to sign the pledge. One hun- 
 dred percent was demanded, and what a principal demands he 
 usually gets. This was the first step to impress upon the teachers 
 the essentially democratic purpose of this war. Sign or get out! 
 was the slogan uf the metropolitan press, which has so often and so 
 unmercifully condemned our President when he refused to do their 
 bidding. 
 
 "Some details will not be amiss. In the Boys' High School, 
 Brooklyn, four teachers refused to sign, one of them being a 
 Quaker. At a school assembly the principal, Mr. Janes, in address- 
 ing the boj-s told them that there were four teachers in his school 
 who were a disgrace to the school. In the Girls' High School, Dr. 
 Felter, in an excess of zeal forced every girl to sign, disregarding 
 the order that only those above eighteen be asked to sign. When 
 several girls refused, he ordered them to resign from the Arista, 
 the most important school society. Many of the girls, of course, 
 refused. The president of the Board of Education was informed 
 of this high-handed proceeding. His secretary was astounded when 
 told that many of the signatures had been secured under com- 
 pulsion, tie immediately ordered the principal to revoke his de- 
 mand, informing him that he had overstepped his authority. In 
 the Commercial High School, Brooklyn, Dr. Fairley took it upon 
 himself to decide that .only disloyal teachers would refuse to sign, 
 by sending around an order which read : 'All loyal teachers will 
 sign the pledge.' 
 
 "In the De Witt Clinton High School the word was passed 
 around that the names of all those who refused to sign would be 
 presented to the principal. More than twenty teachers publicly pro- 
 tested against this Prussian proceeding. Dr. Paul was slightly 
 taken aback, and in some trepidation, he posted a notice informing 
 the teachers that anyone desiring to withdraw his name from the 
 pledge, or to add his name, might do so. 
 
 "If teachers were to be compelled to sign the pledge, one might 
 inquire why the Mayor's Committee should have taken the trouble 
 to call the document in question, a pledge.' A pledge connotes 
 agreement and willingness. If doubt and unwillingness to sign are 
 to be brushed aside as being unworthy of consideration, then let 
 us frankly call the Mayor's document, an article of compulsion — 
 indeed, a draft of the teachers' conscience." 
 
 21 
 
The campaign for the signing of the Mayor's pledge not 
 being altogether satisfactory, it seems to have occurred to 
 the Board of Education that a special pledge should be 
 formulated and sent out to the teachers for signatures. The 
 discussion at the Board meeting in which the form of the 
 pledge was adopted indicated clearly that teachers who re- 
 fused to sign the pledge should be dismissed. Responsi- 
 bility for these threats has since been disavowed by the 
 High School Committee of the Board of Education in pri- 
 vate inquisition with the President of the Teachers' Union 
 as guest (December, 1917). The official action as inter- 
 preted by this committee was that the teachers were invited 
 to join with the Board of Education in an expression of 
 loyalty to the President. If the friendly spirit implied in 
 the phrase "The Board of Education invites" had been ex- 
 pressed clearly at the time the form of the pledge was sent 
 to the teachers, it is inconceivable that a protest would have 
 been prepared. And it is altogether probable that the sig- 
 natures would have been given with enthusiasm, in spite of 
 the fact that the teachers or their representatives had no 
 part in formulating the pledge. It is possible that the 
 pledge would have been improved. 
 
 However, as matters stood at the time in the under- 
 standing of the teachers, there was deep resentment in the 
 minds probably of hundreds of teachers against this addi- 
 tional act of unauthorized compulsion on the part of educa- 
 tional authorities. The chief reason why more did not sign 
 the protest was fear of the same authorities whom bitter 
 experience has taught us to guard against. The teachers 
 for a long time have been growing restive in the face of the 
 continued assumption on the part of officials that commands 
 have only to be made to be obeyed. 
 
 The members of the American Defense Society may 
 possibly be excused for holding an opinion which is com- 
 mon, that teachers like children should do whatever they 
 are told. Our fellow-teachers of the Schoolmasters' Asso- 
 ciation doubtless also hold this view, and in fact most 
 teachers will agree that submission is a necessary virtue. 
 But the radical movement among teachers is a movement 
 toward professional self-respect. 
 
 The protest against the compulsory signing of the 
 Board of Education's loyalty pledge was signed by eighty- 
 
 22 
 
seven teachers. The Teachers' Union had nothing whatever 
 to do with the formulation or the circulation of the protest. 
 Many of the signers are not known to those persons who 
 are particularly attacked by the Schoolmasters. It is there- 
 fore only as a professional obligation that the Union takes 
 up the defense of individuals whose sincerity in protesting, 
 it has every reason to suppose is genuine. The protest was 
 addressed and sent to the Board of Education about April 
 21, 1917. It reads as follows : 
 
 ''Mr. A, Emerson Palmer, 
 
 Secretary of the Board of Education, 
 500 Park Ave., New York City. 
 Sir: 
 
 The public press announces that the following loyalty 
 pledge has been approved by the Board of Education, and is 
 to be exacted of teachers in the public schools of New York 
 City: 'We, the undersigned teachers in the public schools 
 of the City of New York, declare our unqualified allegiance 
 to the Government of the United States of America, and 
 pledge ourselves by word and example to teach and impress 
 upon our pupils the duty of loyal obedience and patriotic 
 service as the highest ideal of American citizenship'. 
 
 Repeated reference to the pledge by members in meet- 
 ings of the Board of Education indicates that it is the in- 
 tention of the Board to submit the pledge to teachers in 
 such manner as will practically compel the teachers to sign. 
 
 In anticipation of w^hat we understand to be the pur- 
 pose in this matter, we, the undersigned, teachers in the 
 public schools of the City of New York, desire to offer the 
 following reasons for protesting against signing any pledge 
 under compulsion. 
 
 1. We are unable to understand why a pledge of loy- 
 alty should be exacted of teachers, unless a considerable 
 number of them are known to have engaged in treasonable 
 activities, or to have given utterance to treasonable state- 
 ments. Otherwise, to subject 22,000 teachers to the hu- 
 miliation of being coerced into signing a document, which 
 impliedly questions the loyalty of everyone, is unwarranted 
 and unjust. 
 
 2. We do not believe that treasonable acts or utter- 
 ances have been witnessed in the schools of the City of New 
 
 . 23 
 
York. If any have been so witnessed, we submit that it is 
 the duty of the witnesses, or of the officers of the Depart- 
 ment of Education, to call the facts to the attention of the 
 authorities of the United States. 
 
 3. None of the public speeches of the President of the 
 United States, our most responsible national officer, have 
 expressed suspicion of any group of citizens. On the con- 
 trary, his latest address to the people, under date of April 
 15, 1917, is a dignified appeal to a free people *to speak, act, 
 and serve together' in the interests of 'democracy and hu- 
 man rights*. Neither he nor the Congress has threatened 
 coercion of the minds of our citizens. 
 
 4. Therefore, as teachers hitherto deemed faithful and 
 worthy employes of the City of New York, and as citizens 
 of the United States, we demand the same freedom from 
 implied suspicion of wrongdoing that is guaranteed to other 
 employes of the City, and to other citizens of our country 
 until charges specifying acts of disloyalty have been made 
 and proved against us. 
 
 In presenting this formal protest against an act of 
 compulsion, we withhold nothing in our allegiance to the 
 spirit and the principles of our American Republic". 
 
 Many newspapers accused the protesting teachers of 
 being disloyal, but the Evening Post interpreted the situa- 
 tion correctly : 
 
 Fountain Pen Patriotism 
 
 Teachers in the high schools and the elementary schools who 
 are protesting to the Board of Education against the compulsory 
 signing of a "loj^alty pledge" are justified in their statement that "the 
 humiliation of being coerced into signing a document which impli- 
 edly questions the loyalty of every one is unwarranted and unjust." 
 No utterances or actions by members of the teaching force have, 
 since the declaration of war, supplied even an excuse for this 
 general imputation of disloyalty. And even if such instances oc- 
 curred here or there, it is senseless to forget that we are a com- 
 munity of five million people, and to attach greater importance to 
 an incident in New York than to similar occurrences here or there 
 in the entire State of Illinois. The procedure arouses irritation and 
 creates abroad a false impression of public sentiment. If we heard 
 that the school teachers of Berlin were being compelled to si:'n a 
 loyalty pledge, how speedily we should jump to the conclusion thr.; 
 the Berlin public schools are permeated with sedition. It is ;, 
 serious question whether the City Administration has not been ex- 
 
 24 
 
pending energies that might be more iisefullj' employed in the na- 
 tional cause on this fussy patriotism of the fountain-pen. The sign- 
 ing of petitions and pledges means nothing. The West and South 
 have chosen to show their loyalty by rallying to the recruiting offices 
 at a rate that the voluble East might well take to heart. — The New 
 York Evening Post, April 23, 1917. 
 
 Of those signers personally known to the Teachers' 
 Union committee having in charge the publication of this 
 reply, the following facts may be taken as an indication 
 that signers to the protest are not "pro-German", and that 
 they are pro-American. Mr. D. G. Krane is in the army in 
 France; Mr. A. M. Works is the son of Rear Admiral 
 Works ; Mr. H. Heller is in the Aviation Corps ; Mr. M. G. 
 Michaels is the most active worker for war interests in 
 DeWitt Clinton High School; Mr. L. Covello has enlisted 
 in the army; Mr. G. M. Lapolla has enlisted in a hospital 
 unit ; Miss A. Gertrude Jacob has been in the Friends' Re- 
 patriation Service for several months in France; (largely at 
 her own expense) ; Mrs. Mary J. Mochderffer has been lead- 
 ing important war work in churches ; Mr. Meyer Rosenblatt 
 (beyond the draft age) has enlisted in the Engineering 
 Corps, and is now in France. Israel Bludinger is in the 
 army; Mr. M. C. Opperman, over the draft age, has been 
 in service in a Plattsburg Corps, Several others have given 
 conspicuous service voluntarily in several of the kinds of 
 war work. 
 
 Item 2 (d) "The American Teacher in an editorial (June, 
 1917) says 'The (loyalty) pledge has some points of interest, 
 albeit narrow and primitive in its idealism' and that 'it may 
 be well not to be over-anxious to yield or teach loyal obedi- 
 ence yet awhile' " (p. 38), 
 
 The Schoolmasters have here deliberately 
 Answer 2 (d) : picked out from an editorial two sentences 
 
 that suited their purpose of making The 
 American Teacher appear disloyal, without directly saying 
 it, which of course they were afraid to do. 
 
 They did not quote the first paragraphs which pointed 
 out the futility of a pledge as a means of distinguishing the 
 loyal from the disloyal, because they knevj that was true, 
 and would be recognized quickly as being true. They were 
 not fair enough, and did not mean to be fair enough, to 
 quote the paragraph which discussed the situation in which 
 unscrupulous interests might conceivably secure power in 
 
 25 
 
our national government as they have in times past and 
 would gain much if they could depend upon the pledged 
 'loyal obedience' of the citizens. Two of our adversaries on 
 the Committee of the Schoolmasters we understand are li- 
 censed to teach the subject of history, and they ought to 
 know that in a country that creates its own government, 
 loyal obedience seems as much out of place as it is unneces- 
 sary. Since our government is founded on the presupposed 
 agreement to abide by the laws passed by our representa- 
 tives, it should not be wondered at if thoughtful persons 
 look with suspicion on the proposal to be loyally obedient to 
 their own elected representatives. In war as in peace the 
 laws hold. There is no standing for anyone on any other 
 footing a democratic government. 
 
 Section 3. "An article appeared in the New Republic 
 of May 26, 1917, entitled, "The Religion of Free Men", and 
 signed by members of this group as Conscientious Objectors 
 and their Champions' ". 
 
 As an indication of the dishonest methods prac- 
 Answer : tised by the Schoolmasters' committee one of the 
 quotations given in the pamphlet makes the 
 teachers say that "military participation in war is tanta- 
 mount to committing murder". 
 
 The article itself contains the following complete state- 
 ment: "The one ineradicable fact which no amount of offi- 
 cial intimidation can pulverize out of existence is that there 
 is a type of man to whom (military) participation in war is 
 tantamount to committing murder." Isn't this complete 
 statement a statement of fact, pure and simple? Hasn't 
 the government officially recognized the existence of that 
 fact in its large grant of tolerance to Quakers and conscien- 
 tious objectors? Are the Quakers taken to task by any sane 
 patriotic American because they represent the type to whom 
 military participation in war is tantamount to committing 
 murder? 
 
 Incidentally, it may be interesting to know that of the 
 twelve teachers who signed the article in question there 
 is not one whose loyalty has ever been questioned; on the 
 contrary several of the signers have been elevated to higher 
 positions in the school system ; every one of these persons is 
 rendering faithful service in co-operation with govern- 
 mental activities. In fact, one of the signers has enlisted. 
 
 26 
 
What shall we say of the ignorant impudence of that 
 Schoolmasters' committee which attacks an article admitted 
 into a journal often referred to as the "semi-official organ 
 of the Administration"? We fear that those gentlemen 
 somehow or other managed to miss the point of the article. 
 The key to the "Religion of Free Men" is contained in the 
 following sentence: "Hence the philosophic value of tol- 
 erance. To keep alive genuine tolerance in war time is the 
 greatest single achievement to which rationalists can dedi- 
 cate themselves." 
 
 Professor Lovejoy, whom they rather triumphantly 
 quote as a hostile critic, himself gladly admits : "From the 
 conclusion that genuinely 'conscientious' objectors should 
 be given non-combatant duties to perform, few, I take it, 
 will dissent. Your number appears to be small ; and of 
 your scruples, the country may well be generously consid- 
 erate." (New Republic, June 16, 1917.) 
 
 The Schoolmasters' committee may not have read the 
 famous Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom in 
 War Time, in which the following illuminating sentence ap- 
 pears: (p. 35) "In framing the draft law of 1917 Congress 
 adopted the principle that persons whose objections to such 
 service are unquestionably due to moral or religious scruples 
 should be exempt. ..." 
 
 The chairman of the committee that issued this liberal- 
 minded report is Prof. Lovejoy. 
 
 Item 3 (a) "The leaders of this group are active sup- 
 porters of the Hillquit-Berger branch of the Socialist Party" 
 (p. 4). 
 
 Neither the Teachers' Union nor The 
 Our Answer 3 (a) : American Teacher has any connection 
 with the Socialist Party. Furthermore, 
 not a single person connected with the Union or The Amer- 
 ican Teacher who has voted the Socialist ticket, whether a 
 member of the Party or not, has been permitted to influence 
 the actions of the Teachers Union or the magazine in the 
 partisan interests of the Socialist Party. 
 
 What does the committee mean by the Hillquit-Berger 
 branch of the Socialist Party? If the phrase is intended 
 to imply the endorsement by party members of the St. Louis 
 resolutions, passed by the Emergency Convention of the 
 Socialist Party, opposing America's entrance into the war, 
 
 27 
 
there are several vexing problems for the gentlemen to 
 face : (a) What if they are informed that the majority of 
 the persons under attack are not members of the Socialist 
 party? What if they are informed that those members 
 of the Socialist Party w^ho are under attack did not en- 
 dorse the St. Louis resolution, but on the contrary exer- 
 cised their right as Socialists to oppose it? There is no 
 foundation in the "suspicion" that more than one member of 
 the group under attack endorsed the St. Louis resolution. 
 The most vital question involved, which some of us thought 
 had been settled by the Constitution long ago, is whether a 
 teacher's political beliefs shall be construed as a basis for 
 the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher? Shall a citi- 
 zen be required to relinquish his inalienable rights when he 
 enters the teaching profession? What a grotesquely un- 
 American doctrine! Imagine a committee of lawyers -or 
 physicians or engineers daring to abridge the rights of their 
 colleagues by reference to their private political beliefs ! 
 
 It may surprise our adversaries, the Schoolmasters' As- 
 sociation, to be informed that in well-informed quarters 
 outside the Socialist Party there is a considerable body of 
 intellectual public opinion which recognizes the right of 
 citizens to differ from the current conviction on issues con- 
 nected with the war. For example. Judge Hand, in his 
 charge to the jury that heard the case of the Masses editors, 
 said: 
 
 It is the constitutional right of the citizen to express such 
 opinion about the war, the participation of the United States in it, 
 about the desirability of peace, about the merits or demerits of the 
 system of conscription, and about the moral rights or claims of 
 conscientious objectors to be exempt from conscription. 
 
 It is the constitutional right of the citizen to express such 
 opinions, even though they are opposed to the opinions or policies 
 of the administration, and even though the expression of such 
 opinions may unintentionally or indirectly discourage enlistment or 
 recruiting. 
 
 Every citizen has a right, without intent to obstruct the re- 
 cruiting or enlistment service, to think, feel and express : 
 
 (a) Disapproval or abhorrence of any law or policy or pro- 
 posed law or policy, including the declaration of war, the conscrip- 
 tion act, and the so-called sedition clauses of the espionage act. 
 
 (b) Belief that the war is not or was not a war for democracy. 
 
 (c) Belief that our participation in it was forced or induced 
 by powers with selfish interests to be served thereby. 
 
 28 
 
(d) Belief that our participation was against the will of the 
 majority of the citizens or voters of the country. 
 
 (e) Belief that the self-sacrifice of persons who elect to suffer 
 for freedom of conscience is admirable. 
 
 (f) Belief that war is horrible. 
 
 (g) Belief that the allies' war aims were or are selfish and 
 undemocratic. 
 
 Item 3 (b) "The American Teacher, the official organ 
 of the Teachers' Union, in the November, 1917, number, ad- 
 vocated the election of Morris Hillquit for Mayor" (p. 14). 
 
 We challenge any person to find a line 
 Our Answer 3 (b) : in the November, 1917, American 
 
 Teacher which advocates the election 
 of Morris Hillquit for mayor. The statement that The 
 American Teacher advocated the election of Morris Hillquit 
 for mayor is certainly not true in the form stated, and be- 
 comes true only by inference when the committee of the 
 Schoolmasters manifests that degree of intellectual hon- 
 esty necessary to get along amicably with honest-minded 
 persons. The article in question is entitled "The School in 
 Politics". It received much favorable comment and some 
 unfavorable comment from various parts of the country. 
 The article was not intended to serve as partisan propa- 
 r-anda for the socialists, but was intended at a time when 
 the political campaign was much in the public mind to 
 bring some pertinent social points of view before the minds 
 of teachers. Our critics would scarcely have the effrontery 
 to take the magazine to task for seeming to stand for "the 
 principle that the city is to be conducted for the people who 
 live in the city, not for the people who make a business of 
 dealing with those who live in the city." They would not 
 dare attack The American Teacher, because the magazine 
 indicates its passing, though definite, interest in the pro- 
 gram of a political party, more or less successfully man- 
 aged, that is primarily concerned with the welfare of hu- 
 man beings rather than with the question of profits or per- 
 sonal favors. 
 
 But these critics do dare to ignore what they certainly 
 must know is the main point, the human issue, and en- 
 deavor to turn the feeling of the great public against any 
 group that seems to agree in any way with a political party 
 that is credited with having certain reservations of policy 
 on the conduct of the war. In that our critics are dishonest. 
 
 29 
 
Nowhere in the files of The American Teacher, and no- 
 where in the actions of the Teachers' Union is there any 
 statement which can be made to signify an agreement with 
 the SociaHst platform on the war adopted by the Emer- 
 gency Convention at St. Louis, in August, 1917. 
 
 Since the Schoolmasters seem to. have given consider- 
 able attention to the views of the President of the Teachers' 
 Union, it may be worth while to state that this person does 
 not now, and never has, agreed with the majority report 
 of the St. Louis convention. He has also recognized from 
 the first that the challenge of Germany in connection with 
 the submarine boat policy made inevitable our participa- 
 tion in the war. Furthermore, he interpreted the war as an 
 actual war of defense for our country, in view of the policy 
 of world domination long ago entered upon by Germany, 
 and demonstrated to us concretely by the German admiral 
 in Manila Bay twenty years ago. 
 
 Apparently the Schoolmasters are unable to under- 
 stand the psychology of minds that are organized differently 
 from their own. To them as well as to most of our educa- 
 tional officials, our press and the general run of plain citi- 
 zens who acclaim Democracy but do not understand its 
 methods, there is only one attitude of mind that a true 
 patriot can have. That attitude is one of impatience and 
 even of accusation against all persons who do not reach the 
 same aggressive conclusion with reference to the war at a 
 given time. Consonant with this state of mind is violence 
 of temper and an ostentatious striking out against anybody 
 and everybody who in any conceivable waj^ objects to the 
 methods by which individuals charged with authority are 
 trying to win the war. These are the persons who de- 
 nounce as disloyal all who resist illegal compulsion, such as 
 uncalled-for loyalty pledges, and demand that the purposes 
 of the war shall be made clear as essential phases are en- 
 tered upon. 
 
 In this connection it may not be amiss to quote from 
 an editorial by Dr. Frank Crane, appearing in the N. Y. 
 Globe of May 4, 1918. The editorial reads in part: 
 
 "There are certain glowing patriots, with a double row 
 of front teeth, who imagine that their loyalty can be best 
 exhibited by turning occasionally and taking a bite at some 
 
 30 
 
one of the rest of us who according to our lights, are also 
 hunting the Hun." 
 
 "These seem to be ticklish times. You not only have to 
 be a patriot, but you have to agree in every detail of ex- 
 pediency with each red hot gentleman who thinks he knows 
 just how to win the war." 
 
 "It's all right to be a patriot, but it is not necessary also 
 to be an ass." 
 
 The Schoolmasters may have forgotten that many 
 Americans thought after the destruction of the Lusitania 
 that our place was beside the Allies fighting the menace to 
 civilization. But the great mass of American people still 
 did not want the war. If President Wilson had been a 
 weaker and a less intelligent statesman America might have 
 been in the war in 1913. But he was re-elected in 1916 on 
 a platform of having kept the nation out of war. When 
 war actually appeared to the great majority of Americans 
 to be inevitable, the act declaring war won overwhelming 
 approval. However, there was a considerable body who 
 were not yet convinced that this war was necessary. There 
 M^ere tvv'o ways of handling this situation. One was to hunt 
 down all war opponents and drive them to the trenches, just 
 as wouM be done in any autocracy. The other step was to 
 keep our democratic ideals clean, and trust to the logic of 
 events and of conviction to work out the national unity of 
 purpose. Happily, the latter has prevailed. 
 
 The following authoritative statement by the Executive 
 Council of the American Federation of Teachers was over- 
 looked by the Schoolmasters comm.ittee when it was search- 
 ing for information dealing with the position of the 
 Teachers' Union on the war. Incidentally, it may be im- 
 portant to state to our readers that the Union was one of 
 the very first organizations of teachers in New York to 
 pledge voluntary support to the National government. 
 
 A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 
 
 By the Executive Council of the American Federation 
 of Teachers 
 
 "Believing liial: explicit statements of position on national and in- 
 ternational problems will make for the unity of national purpose which 
 is essential both for winning the war, and for reconstruction of a new 
 
 31 
 
world after the war; and being aroused by the disquieting symptoms 
 of the threatening cross-currents of purpose, even among those equally 
 determined to win the war the Executive Council of the American 
 Federation of Teachers sets forth the following: 
 
 "1 Undivided support is pledged to President Woodrow Wilson, not 
 alone as the constitutional national leader during a national crisis, but 
 as the proved spokesman and interpreter of American spirit and thought- 
 ful opinion. 
 
 "2 Without discussing the immediate causes of the World War, 
 it is clear that the world is being remade, and that more democratic 
 forms of society are to replace the old. Powerful constructive forces 
 are at work thruout the war's grim tragedy. Peace when it comes will 
 witness a readjustment of every form of human activity to conform to 
 a higher standard of justice and freedom. In all this, Woodrow Wilson 
 stands preeminently as the prophet in a high place. 
 
 "3 The campaign for Universal Military Service seems to us a 
 peculiarly dangerous attack on the policy of the administration. If 
 universal military service proves necessary to win the war, that will 
 be another question, but that is not the contention of its present ad- 
 vocates. 
 
 "If the power and desire of Germany for military aggression are 
 not broken, then indeed the world becomes an armed camp, and America 
 must adopt drastic militaristic measures. But we are confidently and 
 grimly determined to win, and to establish a league of nations which 
 will free all peoples from the waste and burden of competitive arma- 
 ments. We must even then take measures to supply our full quota of 
 an international police force, but the necessary strength of that force 
 cannot be prejudged before the terms of peace, the temper of peoples, 
 and the degree of responsibility of governments to peoples after the war 
 are known. To adopt universal military service now is to discredit our 
 President's demands for disarmament, anti-imperialism, and a league 
 of nations, and we fear that reactionary hostility to our President's 
 liberal policy is the real motive actuating many of the powerful interests 
 behind the campaign for universal military service. Let us utilize our 
 cantonments for universal training for civic service after the war so that 
 we may permanently achieve a sense of social solidarity. But let us 
 prepare for the reconstruction of a new world after victor}-, and not 
 deliberately offer to America a foretaste of the bitter fruits of defeat 
 before she has begun to fight. 
 
 "4 Democracy is the goal. There must be no diversion from its 
 pathwaj'. All who believe in it, every organization favoring it, every 
 forward-looking person must rally in the campaign for its attainment. 
 Enemies there are, even in our very midst, who would betray us — those 
 who seek Privilege, or would conserve everything of the past, those 
 who would derive gain in the midst of immeasurable sacrifice, those 
 who oppose the advance of Democracy anywhere, those who would bring 
 confusion by setting up class, racial or religious prejudices, those who 
 inject doubt and fear into the public mind — all for personal advantage, 
 not as alien enemies, but as Americans, not those desirous of American 
 military defeat, but of the defeat of American and world democracy. 
 
 32 
 
"5 In Labor's hands rest both the decisiveness of our victory and 
 the kind of world we shall live in. and the kind of hfe we shall live 
 .L the wa^ The line between producer and parasite is daily being 
 dl^n ITe deftnitely. and those who work with ^^nd and bra- - 
 \r. .11 democracies aligning themselves with Labor. The British l^aDor 
 Part h rm he challenge of leadership in the reconstruction with a 
 caref'u% formulated program that reassures by its samty a. muc as 
 by its radicalism. For in these days of the passing and ^ rth of c ^^^ 
 zations while all radicals are not sane, all sane *"^" "^^^1 Pf.'^*^^', ^'^ 
 radic"; And American Labor even now handicapped as British Labo 
 I?as nt been for fifty years, is proving the most effective democratic 
 
 '-''^^T^L Taf beln'Slled a schoolmaster's war. And certainly the 
 super patrio ism and 'regimented docility' of the German people could 
 Tave berdeveloped onfy by the German school system, carefully de^ 
 sfgned o make unthinking obedience implicit in the ^^^^^^l^^ 
 o train the remaining ten per cent in a ^--l-^^;-f ^^ .^^d and 
 subordinate to authority. Without this ^"^version of childhood and 
 youth even Prussian universal military traming could not have 
 formed the German masses into brutalized automata. 
 
 "'The German object lesson should force America to focus her a - 
 tention on her schools. To make the world safe for democracy ou 
 
 schools are secondary only to the winning of the war. if they are not 
 schools are seco y y ^^ ^^^.^^^^ .^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ 
 
 ChinVo^f a strident na:i:nalism' as opposed to internationalism, rather 
 than of a sane nationalism as the basis of the mternationahsm which 
 s the hope of the world. The generations may grow up actuated b> 
 a sympathetic understanding of other peoples, or by an embittered hatred 
 !-tr!choo will decide, and on their decision hangs future peace or wan 
 The schools must also consciously speciahze m training for ^ha 
 most complex and difficult of all human -^-^^-^'. ;f I^^^^^^J^^^ ,i,f ^.^ 
 
 because we are b compensations for the sacrifices 
 
 them as communities. Purely one o the c p ^^^^^^ ^^^.^^ 
 
 •■^cy- CHAS. B. STILLMAN, President 
 
 C. C. WILLARD, Secretary 
 Chicago, 111., March 13, 1918. 
 
 "THE AMERICAN TEACHER" NEEDS NO DEFENSE 
 How meaningless becomes the charge framed by the 
 Schoolmasters' Association against The American Teacher 
 when it is known that among its contributors have been men 
 and women cherished by the thoughtful younger generation 
 
 33 
 
as the great exponents of true democracy in education, 
 among educators, and in life's daily intercourse. Our 
 friends and contrihutors include : John Dewey, James Har- 
 vey Robinson, William P. Montague, Harry Allen Over- 
 street, Morris R. Cohen, Stephen P. Duggan, Paul Klapper, 
 Louis S. Friedland, Sydney Mezes, Felix Grendon, Herman 
 H. Home (all distinguished professors) ; Charlotte P. Gil- 
 man, Florence Kelley, Winthrop D. Lane, Randolph Bourne, 
 Charles Zueblin, Robert W. Bruere, Ira S. Wile, John Col- 
 lier, Mrs. Amos Pinchot, Mrs. Agnes Warbasse, Judge Sam- 
 uel D. Levy, Leonora O'Reilly, Mrs. Ida Fursman, Chas. B. 
 Stillman, Ella Flagg Young (all distinguished publicists and 
 social workers), . . . Could any magazine ask for more 
 democratic and more sincerely progressive supporters ? The 
 following are but a very few of the articles chosen from 
 the files of The American Teacher as indicative of the uni- 
 versality of its sentiments and the adequacy and sanity of 
 its educational philosophy: 
 
 AMERICA FIRST! 
 
 In Justice to all, in protecting the weak from abuses — 
 
 America First ! 
 In Freedom for all, in destroying privilege and persecution — 
 
 America First ! 
 In Opportunity for all, in training for service and devotion — 
 
 America First ! 
 In Brotherhood for all, in aspiring toward generous co-operation — 
 
 America First ! 
 In Democracy for all, in leading the world forward — 
 
 America First ! 
 
 (Front Page American Teacher, J\Iay, 1916. 
 
 ONE YEAR 
 
 A year of war has brought with it many changes in the temper of 
 our people. Not all of the changes are altogether desirable; nor are 
 they all deplorable. They are the changes that will make for a closer 
 unity of national spirit, for a better understanding between sections and 
 classes, for a clearer visualization of ideals. There is evident, despite 
 frequent outbursts of violence and low emotionalism, a mellowing of 
 the militarist thru contact with the physical and spiritual sufferings en- 
 tailed by the war. There is evident also a gradual acceptance of the 
 necessity for the war on the part of many whose sentiments revolted 
 against the elemental resort to phj-sical force for the adjustment of 
 twentieth century disputes. Many of those who appeared at first hostile 
 
 34 
 
to the national purpose we have come to recognize as being opposed 
 merely to the means adopted ; and of these many are becoming not only 
 reconciled to the means, but active, enthusiastic supporters of the admin- 
 istration's v\'ar measures. In view of these changes we may be encouraged 
 to hope for a progressive dominance of reason in human relations; and 
 we may be rebuked for our intolerance and our impatience when con- 
 fronted with antagonistic opinions and viewpoints. 
 
 We have the utmost confidence in the statesmanship and in the sin- 
 cerity of our, of the world's great schoolmaster, Woodrow Wilson. We 
 are with him and with the sound, if not always articulate, sentiment of 
 the great masses of our people, in fighting for universal peace and justice. 
 We realize that these blessings are attainable only when nations like 
 individuals, are honest in their dealings with one another, only when 
 nations, like individuals, seek to live in a way that does not cause harm 
 to o thers, when each seeks to gain no advantage at the expense of others. 
 We have learned that within the nation we cannot look for peace and 
 justice so long as aggression and exploitation are accepted as the normal 
 and legitimate prerogatives of the powerful and the unscrupulous. And 
 we are learning that democracy means more than being let alone to 
 pursue our private gains, to mind our own business. We are learning 
 that it means a new way of life, a way for all people and all nations 
 to thrive together in mutual helpfulness and considerateness in honor 
 and justice. 
 
 We must fight the war through because at its conclusion will be 
 determined whether the ideals of human brotherhood and democracy and 
 justice for all will prevail, or the ancient rule of autocratic brutality and 
 domination. We wish the triumph of the new way of life." 
 
 (From The American Teacher, April, 1918) 
 
 TO DEKAISERIZE EDUCATION 
 
 Political democracy is making tremendous strides abroad. Even in 
 industry, where the spirit of kaiserism and Divine-Right-Baer, is so 
 strongly intrenched, the workers are asserting themselves to an unusual 
 extent, industrial democracy being their goal. This democratic trend 
 is manifesting itself everywhere except where it should manifest itself 
 most — that is, in our educational system. Democracy cannot flourish in 
 the schools if the teacher "is too often the serf at the bottom of the 
 feudal system without power of initiation, the victim of threats that are 
 often ignorant and sometimes brutal. Truly there will remain a fight 
 against kaiserism when its manifestations in Europe are properly crushed." 
 
 The death struggle between kaiserism and democracy is on. The 
 educational exponents of kaiserism are trying to crush the champions 
 of democracy thru the inauguration of a reign of terror under the guise 
 of "inquisitions," dismissal for "conduct unbecoming a teacher" and by 
 transfers "for the good of the service." These punishments are not 
 meted out upon evidence that would hold in any court of law, but upon 
 the mere assertions or inferences of official superiors who are interested 
 in crushing their outspoken opponents because they fear the undermining 
 of their power and "leadership." Kaiserism answers its heroic critics 
 
 36 
 
liy piling charge upon charge, suspension upon suspension, dismissal upon 
 dismissal. Subserviency and sycophancy are becoming more and more 
 prevalent. The tenure law is dead. Kaiserism, thru autocratic interpre- 
 tation, has given it its death blov^. Democracy is tottering. Will it fall? 
 
 The Teachers' Union is now fighting the battle of democracy against 
 the educational kaisers. Its members want to respect their superiors 
 not because they are ordered to, but because those superiors have earned 
 and deserved respect. To get the respect of their subordinates their 
 acts must stand the light of day. The lips of every teacher in the sys- 
 ten must be free to utter what his conscience dictates. Criticism must 
 be encouraged and rewarded. Democracy is synonymous with truth and 
 truth stands naked but unashamed ! Truth and democracy flourish with 
 publicity but autocracy and kaiserism with duplicity. School officials 
 who cannot stand criticism of their acts are dangerous kaisers who fear 
 democracy and hate the truth. Democracy means freedom of thought, 
 freedom of action. The attack upon teachers for holding views is an 
 an attack upon criticism, upon democracy by autocracy, and can have but 
 one result if successful — intellectual subserviency! The Union is im- 
 alterably opposed to the autocratic ideal in education, and in industry 
 as well as in government. 
 
 The Union proposes to prevent the crowning of autocracy by bring- 
 ing about the triumph of democracy. Democracy can triumph thru the 
 efforts of the teachers themselves. He who cannot rule himself is 
 unfit to rule or to train others. The teacher must assert himself; he 
 must aid in establishing educational democracy. He should oppose 
 every attack upon freedom of expression. He must insist upon intelli- 
 gent co-operation of teachers in school administration. Teachers, your 
 efforts may prove abortive but failure is the key to success as the ills 
 of democratic assertion will be cured by still stronger assertion. Today 
 we are living thru an educational nightmare, the product of autocracy. 
 Courageous and respectful self-assertion will usher in the new era of 
 educational democracy and freedom. Join the ermy of educational de- 
 mocracy and help dethrone educational autocracy. 
 
 PRUSSIA 
 
 From you too we have learned. 
 But your Militarism is obnoxious to us — 
 we'll none of it, nor of any other brand. 
 
 We must have Freedom of Thought — 
 
 and mean to have it. 
 We must have Freedom of Speech — 
 
 and will insist upon it. 
 
 We cannot thrive on Compulsion — 
 
 we will resist it. 
 We cannot tolerate Autocracy — 
 
 and we will overthrow it. 
 
 We love Liberty — and mean to fight for it 
 : (Front Page American Teacher, May, 1917.) 
 
 36 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 We salute you in the name of the New Day 
 
 You have arisen in your might 
 
 You have overthrown your autocrats 
 
 You have struck off your chains 
 
 You have moved near to liberty and civilization 
 
 You have taken a long step toward democracy 
 
 You have taught us a lesson 
 
 (Front Page American Teacher, April, 1917.) 
 
 NOW 
 
 Now we shall convert our Natural Resources into Foundations for the 
 General Welfare, 
 
 Not sources of private advantage. 
 Now we shall make the Public Needs the Occasion for Public Service, 
 
 Not sources of private advantage. 
 Now we shall make Scientific Discoveries the INIeans of Life More 
 Abundant, 
 
 Not sources of private advantage. 
 Now we shall make the Learning of the Ages the Cherished Posses- 
 sion of all. 
 
 Not sources of private advantage. 
 Now we shall make the World into an unfenced Garden for Men, 
 Women and Children, 
 
 Not a Jungle surrounded by Waste. 
 (Front Page American Teacher, Ja., 1917.) 
 
 NATIONAL HONOR 
 
 Let us then so conduct our affairs that those of tomorrow may say : 
 We have used our powers to protect rights and liberties; we have used 
 
 our forces to promote justice among men. 
 We have shielded the helpless from aggression ; we have dealt fairly 
 
 with all 
 We have insured opportunity to every child, and have guarded from 
 
 hunger and disease 
 We have grown and prospered without infringing on our neighbors; 
 
 we have conquered ignorance and greed 
 We have omitted no word or deed demanded by the welfare of our 
 
 fellow men; we have shared our abundance for the enrichment of life 
 (Front Page American Teacher, Mar., 1917) 
 Item 3 (c) "A number of teachers from this group, 
 among them Gabriel R. Mason, the President of the American 
 Teacher Company, give courses of instruction in the Rand 
 School of Socialism, 7 East 15th Street, New York City" 
 (p. 4). 
 
 37 
 
In relation to the third assertion con- 
 Our Answer 3 (c) : cerning the Rand School), it need only 
 
 be stated that as every honest-minded 
 person knows, the Rand School was created for the purpose 
 of encouraging the study of Social Science. It is not called 
 the Rand School of Socialism. The Teachers' Union is glad 
 to call the attention of the Schoolmasters to the fact that 
 some of its most distinguished lecturers have been chosen 
 from among non-Socialists. Some of the courses, w^e learn, 
 have included the study of anthropology, world literature, 
 history, English, public speaking, dramatics, music, art, 
 physical science, philosophy, etc. These courses have been 
 given to mixed classes consisting of Socialists and non-So- 
 cialists. The subject matter of the majority of these 
 courses can in no way be construed to be Socialistic. The 
 lecturers have included such distinguished non-Socialists 
 as Prof. Giddings, Prof. Montague, Prof. Goldenweiser, 
 Mary Shaw, Frederick C. Howe, Padraic Colum, Prof. Over- 
 street and a host of others well known to those who are 
 acquainted with the Rand School of Social Science. 
 
 We cannot let the opportunity pass, but we must call 
 the Schoolmasters to their class in modern economics and 
 sociology. As an introductory chapter let them study a 
 letter written by President Wilson, March 20, 1918, to the 
 Conference of New Jersey Democrats. 
 
 "A time of grave crisis has come in the hfe of the Democratic 
 Party in New Jersey. . . . Every sign of these terrible days of war 
 and revohitionary change, when economic and social forces are 
 being released upon the world whose efifect no political seer dare 
 venture to conjecture, bids us search our hearts through and 
 through and make them ready for the birth of a new day — a day, 
 we hope and believe, of greater opportunity and greater prosperity 
 for the average mass of struggling men and women, and of greater 
 safety and opportunity for children. . . . 
 
 "The men in the trenches, who have been freed from the 
 economic serfdom to which some of them had been accustomed, 
 will, it is likely, return to their homes with a new view and a new 
 impatience of all mere political phrases, and will demand real think- 
 ing and sincere action." 
 
 Sociologically speaking, the age in which we live is 
 deeply characterized by a tendency towards socialization. 
 To forward-looking persons, the liberals and the radicals, 
 this tendency is deemed to be historically inevitable, social 
 evolution in a truly progressive direction. To the back- 
 
 38 
 
ward-looking folk, the conservatives and the reactionaries, 
 the impetus to socialization is viewed with trepidation as 
 a tendency that will make for the unsettling of age-old 
 values and sanctions. The conflict between these two types 
 is the most significant, dramatic situation of our time. It 
 causes no surprise in the radical mind to discover that the 
 reactionaries' unanalyzed opposition to this universal ten- 
 dency-toward-socialization is embodied in the denunciatory 
 phrase, "It is socialistic". Why it should be assumed that 
 a socialistic reform is by its very nature something to be 
 abhorred has never been intelligently explained. Surely 
 it is common knowledge that many of the accepted 
 changes in our political and industrial world, now consid- 
 ered part and parcel of the management of a complex state, 
 were only a decade ago irrationally opposed and futilely de- 
 nounced as "socialistic". As if a mere epithet were an argu- 
 ment! The reactionary intelligence, in its eff'ort to sim- 
 plify its case against social progress, contents itself with 
 labeling as "socialistic" (and therefore undesirable!) every 
 fundamental modification in the status quo. However, ob- 
 structionists are playing a losing game. They are in the 
 plight of the touchingly naive character in Bernard Shaw's 
 "Fanny's First Play", who ultimately and to his overwhelm- 
 ing chagrin confesses "the world has passed me by". The 
 world cannot stop progressing, no, not even to please the 
 static intelligence of the Schoolmasters' Association. How 
 can teachers consider themselves competent to prepare the 
 youth of our great land for the duties of enlightened citi- 
 zenship if they themselves shut out the most inspiring and 
 far-reaching propositions and programs invented by liberal- 
 minded thinkers? Whatever happens to be one's private 
 intellectual slant, it becomes a moral duty, an intellectual 
 .responsibility, to be deeply acquainted with every vital move- 
 ment making for the socialization and emancipation of the 
 workers. The Nonpartisan League, the I. W. W. propa- 
 ganda, the newly organized labor movement in Canada, the 
 President's letter of appreciation and sympathy to the Sov 
 lets, the meaning and direction of the Russian Revolution — 
 these are all important and interesting subjects of analysis 
 for the enlightened American citizen. The teacher who 
 taboos as of no importance these various powerful move- 
 ments for social uplift, stamps himself as bourbon and 
 
 39 
 
reactionary, unworthy of the inspiring tradition of free 
 men. We trust that the Schoolmasters' Association and the 
 American Defense Society are not interlocked in a con- 
 spiracy to perpetuate a reign of intellectual darkness in our 
 school system. Their suggestions and criticisms reveal them 
 as coming perilously close to approving mediaevalism in 
 education. 
 
 Recently, Senator Sherman of Illinois, in a fit of con- 
 servative indignation, cried out against the Administration 
 that it was "socialistic." He pointed out thinking that he 
 was contributing to intelligence when he was only contrib- 
 uting to rhetoric) that President Wilson's chief assistants, 
 Mr. Baker, Mr. Creel, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Burleson, are all 
 Socialists. Why doesn't it occur to these futile critics to 
 spend some of their twitching energies in a careful study 
 of the sociological tendencies of our age ? Perhaps they will 
 discover that the public school is itself an interesting illus- 
 tration of "pure socialism", — as Dr. Wm. H. Maxwell once 
 called it. Perhaps they will discover that there are certain 
 profound socio-political reasons that make inevitably for 
 that reconstruction of society which they are pleased to 
 call "socialistic." We recommend to the Schoolmasters' As- 
 sociation the thoughtful perusal of the great works of Nor- 
 man Angell, Noel Brailsford, John Hobson, Sidney Webb, 
 Thorstein Veblen, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey. 
 
 The Schoolmasters have given a proof of their hatred 
 of internationalism in an effort to connect some ill-defined 
 persons in the Teachers' Union with that kind of doctrine. 
 It will be sufficient to quote from the ally of the Schoolmas- 
 ters' Association, Dr. William T. Hornaday, of the American 
 Defense Society, who has written a remarkable pamphlet 
 called "A Searchlight on Germany". As a suggestion of 
 Dr. Hornaday's "nationalism" we quote: 
 
 "The only logical conclusion of Germany's career of crime and 
 dirty fighting is, a^ the close of the war, the contempt, the aversion 
 and the loathing of the civilized world, and a universal policy of 
 non-intercourse. Let Germany go and live with Austria, and the 
 loathsome Turk, in a hell of their own. Can any American not 
 of German birth ever again desire to visit and travel in the land of 
 the criminal Kaiser who started the war, the land of the murderers, 
 ravishers and traitors whom the war brought to the surface? We 
 cannot conceive it possible. 
 
 "And after the war is over, the less we hear in America of the 
 German language and of German literature, music, art and science, 
 
 40 
 
the better for all concerned. The German idols one and all lie 
 in the mud, in fragments, — cast down and smashed by the mad-dogs 
 of Germany, and no one else! Americans of German descent 
 may build monuments to their memory but never again can they be 
 set up for Americans to worship." 
 
 From a pamphlet called "American and Allied Ideals", 
 written by Prof. Stuart P. Sherman, University of Illinois, 
 and published by The Committee on Public Information, we 
 quote : 
 
 "The Allies are not fighting for French or English or Ameri- 
 can law, justice, truth, and honor, but for international law, inter- 
 national truth, international justice, international honor. 
 
 "The new national pride and patriotism developed by this con- 
 flict finds its basis in the service which each nation renders to the 
 cause above all nations, the cause of civilized society, the cause of 
 civilized man. The new type of patriot no longer cries, 'my country 
 against the world,' but 'my country for the world.' 
 
 "Humanity is not safe while any nation professes inhumanity. 
 We are not fighting to put the Germans out but to get them in. 
 
 "Where shall we look for the ideals of the Allies? Primarily, 
 perhaps, in the utterances of the Allied statesmen at the present 
 time and in the vast literature of the conflict. Take, if you like, 
 Siam's statement of its reasons for entering the war, to 'uphold the 
 sanctity of international rights against nations showing a contempt 
 of humanity.' Or take Mr. Wilson's statement that our motive is 
 not 'revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of 
 the nation, but only the vindicatiton of right, of human right, of 
 which we are only a single champion' ; or his other statement that 
 we fight 'for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of 
 free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make 
 the world itself at last free.' " 
 
 PART II. - 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Schoolmasters have attacked with particular bit- 
 rerness the professional careers of four members of the 
 Teachers' Union, Mr. Henry R. Linville, the President of 
 the Teachers' Union, and the three teachers who were dis- 
 missed from the educational system in December, 1917, for 
 alleged "conduct unbecoming a teacher". The object of 
 these personal attacks is clearly to discredit the individuals 
 in the eyes of the teaching staff, and ultimately to bring 
 about the downfall of the movement for which thase men, 
 with others, have stood. 
 
 41 
 
As we proceed to the consideration of the detailed 
 statements of the committee of the Schoolmasters, concern- 
 ing the four teachers, we shall ask our readers to take note 
 of the inaccurate and misleading charges uttered and of the 
 rash dishonesty of its methods. In many instances also 
 we shall show that if the Schoolmasters really wanted to 
 try the case frankly with the public as observers, all in 
 what they assume to be the interests of the public, they 
 might have proved their sincerity and might have learned 
 more about the facts by asking us. Since they have not done 
 so, we shall not have mercy. 
 
 Thruout the analysis of their charges and our replies 
 to them we respectfully urge upon our readers that they 
 maintain a judicial attitude toward what we believe is a 
 clear demonstration of what Professor John Dewey called 
 in the New Republic of December 29, 1917, "two opposed 
 systems of educational philosophy". If the characterization 
 meets with the approval of the readers, we urge further 
 that the apparent point of view of our adversaries be con- 
 sidered in relation to its bearing on the work of the schools 
 and on the purpose of the schools. The decision of this 
 matter transcends the consequences of an academic discus- 
 sion ; it will ultimately mean the crippling or the develop- 
 ment of the school as a social institution. 
 
 THE CASE OF HENRY R. LINVILLE 
 
 Item 1. "The committee finds that Mr. Linville's first 
 public attack upon what he designates as "official oppression" 
 was made about tv/elve years ago, when he filed a list of 
 charges against his principal, Dr. John T. Buchanan, a man 
 who was idolized by every boy in DeWitt Clinton High School 
 who really knew him. The authorities, after giving Mr. Lin- 
 ville full opportunity to prove his charges, did not sustain a 
 single charge. Soon after, he was transferred to the Jamaica 
 High School: but this transfer was not a case of "official op- 
 pression", for, under the by-laws at that time, such transfer 
 was impossible without his consent." 
 
 The case referred to in the charge was men- 
 Our Answer: tioned without the names of the persons 
 concerned, or the school at which the in- 
 cidents took place, at the meeting of the Teachers' Union 
 
 42 
 
held on December 15, 1917. For reasons of consideration 
 for the names of the dead we are reluctant to go into the 
 detailed history of the case. However, the committee falsely 
 interprets the purpose of the living, and must be held re- 
 sponsible for the consequences. 
 
 Our interest in the case is not a personal one. Nor 
 shall we enter upon a description of some of its features for 
 any other reason than that of calling public attention to 
 jyractices still in vogue in educational administration which 
 we believe to be fraught with grave danger to the schools as 
 agencies in a democracy. The following account is taken 
 from documents, such as copies of letters, originals of let- 
 ters, and copies of testimony given at an official hearing, 
 that are still in the possession of Mr. Henry R. Linville. 
 
 In December, 1904, Dr. Frederick Monteser, Teacher- 
 in-charge of the annex of DeWitt Clinton High School at 240 
 West 109th St., New York, was subjected to a gross per- 
 sonal insult by the Principal of the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School, on the occasion of a conference of the teachers-in- 
 charge of all the annexes of the school. Word of the per- 
 petration of the insult coming to Mr. Linville the next day, 
 he wrote a note to Dr. Monteser expressing sympathy and 
 offering support partly on the ground of friendship, but 
 chiefly for the reason that the outbursts and the insulting 
 conduct of the Principal toward teachers had been so fre- 
 quent as to constitute an unbearable condition of affairs. 
 It was agreed between Mr. Monteser and Mr. Linville that 
 they should together call on Mr. Henry N. Tifft, then Presi- 
 dent of the Board of Education, and relate to him the facts 
 coi!cerning the conduct of the school. 
 
 After hearing the stories of the two teachers, Mr. Tifft, 
 requested Mr. Linville to prepare a statement of the points 
 that had been made, and direct it to Mr. Frank L. Babbott, 
 then Chairman of the High School Committee of the Board 
 of Education, saying also to Mr. Babbott that the statement 
 was being made at the request of the President of the Board. 
 The conference with Mr. Tifft took place on Saturday, De- 
 cember 24, 1904. The statement to Mr. Babbott was pre- 
 pared and forwarded to him on Monday, December 26, 1904. 
 
 Within about three weeks word came to the two 
 teachers that they were to be transferred to "The Black- 
 hole of Calcutta", a euphemistic title at "Fifty-ninth Street" 
 
 43 
 
for the Girls Technical High School, later to be known as 
 the Washington Irving High School. The teachers imme- 
 diately went to the Board of Education building, and suc- 
 ceeded in conferring with the President of the Board. They 
 found him non-committal, however, and apparently unwill- 
 ing to be of assistance. Thereupon, Mr. Linville called on 
 the City Superintendent in his ofRce, and there learned that 
 the City Superintendent had ordered the transfer on the 
 basis of a verbal report of the statement written to Mr. Bab- 
 bott. This interview took place on Saturday, January 21, 
 1905. On the following day an account of the conversation 
 was prepared by Mr. Linville from memory. An illuminat- 
 ing portion of this conference reads thus : 
 
 *'W. H. M. (Dr. Maxwell) It makes no difference 
 whether the statements (in your letter) are true or not. 
 I do not believe they are true. Besides you did a very un- 
 professional thing in not coming to your superior officers, 
 Mr. Stevens or myself. 
 
 H. R. L. (Mr. Linville) Do you think that there are no 
 conditions which might justify a teacher in complaining of 
 his superior? 
 
 W. H. M. Absolutely none." 
 
 It being impossible to make headway in this quarter, 
 Dr. Monteser and Mr. Linville the next week started on a 
 tour of interviewing members of the Board of Education. 
 But everywhere they met with discouragement. No one 
 cared to discuss with them the justice of the arbitrary act 
 of transfer, or to consider the situation in the DeWitt Clin- 
 ton High School, some of the Board members saying that the 
 Principal of the school was a friend of theirs, and tliey 
 would not listen to the statements, others saying that they 
 knew the statements were true, but as one added, "What is 
 the use of proving what everybody knows about the man?*' 
 This statement was made by Mr. Abraham Stern, then the 
 leader of the Board, 
 
 This canvass also appeared hopeless until one of the 
 teachers thought of a Wall Street lawyer friend who knew a 
 former president of the Board of Education, also a lawj'-er 
 of considerable prominence. A brief conversation with the 
 Wall Street lawyer led to his telephyning the former presi- 
 dent, who gladly agreed to use his friendly offices and his 
 i;nfluence, altho no longer a member of the Board of Educa- 
 
 44 
 
tion. As the immediate result of this unofficial influence 
 the order for the transfer of the two teachers was rescinded. 
 However, Mr. Linville was called to the office of Mr. 
 Edward L. Stevens, Associate Superintendent in Charge of 
 High Schools, and informed that he would be required to 
 present evidence of the truth of his charges contained in the 
 letter to Mr. Babbott, or failing in that he ivould he severely 
 punished. Thereupon, Mr. Linville furnished Mr. Stevens 
 with the names of about thirty teachers in DeWitt Clinton 
 High School who were in positions to know- the important 
 facts about the conditions in the school. 
 
 Mr. Stevens accepted the list of names and officially 
 summoned the teachers to appear before him on February 
 24 and March 1, 1905. The record made at the time reads, 
 "The teachers were invited to attend by Supt. E. L. Stevens, 
 and upon being asked into the committee room singly were 
 instructed by Mr. Stevens as follows: 
 
 "This is not a trial, nor is it even an investigation, being 
 entirely ex parte, — but. merely a preliminary inquiry. You 
 are called here at the request of Mr. Linville to answer cer- 
 tain questions that he wants to ask you in our hearing. 
 
 "It is my duty to inform you that you are under no 
 constraint to answer. You may answer or not, as you wish. 
 Whatever you may say here will be considered as privi- 
 leged, at least for the present; but whatever you do say, 
 however, at some future time may be the basis of questions 
 before a committee of the Board of Education." 
 
 Mr. Linville made formal objection to this instruction 
 to the witnesses on the ground that it was practically an 
 invitation to them not to testify. The majority of the 
 teachers preferred to accept the intimation of Supt. Stevens. 
 They evaded urgent issues. However, several of the wit- 
 nesses made their statements frankly and with a consider- 
 able degree of fullness. The testimony as classified subse- 
 quently showed positive statements referring to the Prin- 
 cipal of the School under these headings : 
 
 I Lack of Interest in the Scholarship of the School. 
 TI Low Ideals of a Teacher's Position. 
 
 III Vulgarity. 
 
 IV Untruthfulness. 
 
 V The Use of Humiliating Epithets against Teachers. 
 
 VI Loose Criticism. 
 
 45 
 
VII The Manifestation of Race Prejudice. 
 
 VIII Failure to Support Teachers in Discipline. 
 
 IX . Unfavorable Influence on the Boys. 
 
 X Acts technically contrary to By-laws, or to statu- 
 tory law. 
 
 XI Advice given to Teachers to do Dishonest Acts. 
 
 XII Professional Dishonesty. 
 
 No. X was supported by the testimony of a District 
 Superintendent still in the service, who testfiied that he had 
 preferred charges against the principal, and that the prin- 
 cipal had never been brought to trial. 
 
 No. X was also supported by evidence showing that 
 the Principal had been party to a criminal conspiracy by 
 M'hich a new teacher, a personal friend of the Principal, in 
 the first month of the teacher's appointment to DeWitt Clin- 
 ton High School, had taught in a neighboring endowed 
 school, and that while thus teaching had come to the DeWitt 
 Clinton High School each morning, entered the time of his 
 arrival on the "time-book", and upon leaving the endowed 
 school after teaching there all day had returned in the 
 afternoon to DeWitt Clinton to enter the time of departure 
 from the school. Thus the new teacher was enabled to re- 
 ceive two salaries for the same month, one from the en- 
 dowed school and one from the City of New York. It ap- 
 pears that after the exposure of the conspiracy the money 
 for this month's work was returned to the endowed school, 
 but the City of New York never received hack the money, 
 so far as the payroll in the office of the City Controller in- 
 dicated at the time. 
 
 No. XII was supported by proof that the Principal had 
 claimed falsely for years to be the holder of the degrees 
 "A.B." and "A.M." from a small college in the middle West. 
 Telegrams and letters from the President of the college in 
 question were submitted at the "inquiry" which stated that 
 John T. Buchanan had been a student at the college in the 
 early "seventies", but had never received any degree what- 
 ever. Associate Superintendent Stevens wrote to the Presi- 
 dent of the college on his own account, and received verify- 
 ing statements. The original letters and telegrams sent by 
 the President to Mr. Linville concerning this matter are 
 still available for examination, if the committee of the 
 
 46 
 
Schoolmasters still persists in giving the false impression 
 that none of the charges in that case was proven. 
 
 The school authorities now had more evidence than 
 they knew what to do with. Consequently, one might say, 
 they did nothing. In this way the statement of the School- 
 masters that the authorities "did not sustain a single 
 charge" becomes technically true. They did not sustain a 
 single charge, because in general the New York educational 
 system has been intent upon maintaining its autocracy in- 
 tact, and upon punishing those who attempt to break it 
 down. 
 
 In this particular instance, however, the authorities 
 seemed to be satisfied with the condition of stalemate, for 
 neither Principal nor the two complaining teachers were 
 disturbed. All three continued to maintain official relations 
 in the same school building until the month of May, 1907. 
 Then in a morning assembly of that month the Principal 
 told the boys he had just received from an angry parent a 
 letter complaining that his boy had failed in mathematics 
 at the examination of the previous term, and that some 
 teacher of that subject had intimated to the boy to employ 
 him as his tutor. The Principal became very sarcastic, and 
 said of course he could understand why teachers should 
 cause boys to fail and thereby create chances for making 
 some extra money. There was considerable resentment at 
 this among the teachers, and a few made protests to the 
 Principal orally or in writing against his sweeping im- 
 putations. Among those who wrote notes was Mr. Linville, 
 and his protest was made the basis of immediate charges 
 by the Principal. The charges were based in part upon the 
 fact that Mr. Linville had prepared and circulated among 
 the teachers of the school a paper which might be called an 
 appeal to the self-respect of teacher's. It reads as follows: 
 
 "To the Teachers of the DeWitt CHnton High School: — 
 
 "I am addressing this circular letter to you because I believe 
 there is pretty general conviction in the school that there are certain 
 definite limits beyond which a principal may not go in his treat- 
 ment of teachers. 
 
 "Those of you who heard the Principal's remarks in assembly 
 yesterday morning probably understand that some one or more of 
 our number had been engaged in recommending to parents that 
 their sons should employ tutors. The inference which the Princi- 
 pal in his remarks drew was that these teachers were trying to 
 use their positions and opportunity for illegitimate private gain. 
 
 47 
 
I believe you will agree with me when I say that the effect of the 
 Principal's remarks was that of an indiscriminate attack upon the 
 honor and conscientious attention to duty of everyone of us. 
 Doubtless the great majority of the pupils know nothing of the cir- 
 cumstances, but we can be certain that nearly everyone of us has 
 been or will be subjected to discussion by the pupils at home as 
 well as in the school, and that some will be condemned unjustly 
 by them. 
 
 "It is of no avail for the Principal to say, as he has said to me 
 since the event, that of course he did not mean to include those 
 persons who are not guilty. How do the pupils know who are 
 'guilty,' and who are not? The incontestable fact is that the thing 
 has been said, and childish minds will associate the charges in their 
 own way with whomever they please. 
 
 "Aside from the serious nature of this occurrence, I believe 
 that the practice of rebuking teachers in the presence of pupils, 
 no matter how slight the charge, is one that superintendents and 
 authorities in school management would unite in condemning in 
 unmeasured terms. There can be no discipline if teachers are hu- 
 miliated in the hearing of pupils. Moreover, I believe the time has 
 come for teachers to maintain as a principle that superior officials 
 are under the same obligation to treat subordinates with respect, 
 as subordinates are to treat them with respect. And further, that 
 in all the relations of principal and teacher there shall be neither 
 officious pretense of superior right, nor subservient yielding to im- 
 position. 
 
 "If our school proves itself a power for good citizenship, as 
 it has not yet done, we have got to get together and develop some 
 common basis for mutual confidence. Personal imposition, evasion 
 and dishonesty must stop. I say this with the full conviction that 
 the present awful waste of opportunity in the school is a matter of 
 far more serious concern, than is the personal welfare of any in- 
 dividual connected with it. 
 May 17, 1907. (Signed) HENRY R. LINVILLE." 
 
 The hearing on these charges was held in May, 1907, 
 before a joint committee of the Board of Superintendents 
 and a sub-committee of the High School Committee of the 
 Board of Education. The Chairman of the sub-committee 
 made the astonishing statement to the defendant that what- 
 ever the Principal had said to the boys it was the duty of 
 teachers to accept without question. No formal charges 
 were ever served, and no judgment was ever rendered, so 
 far as the accused was informed. Mr. Linville asked for a 
 transcript of the testimony. This was promised, but was 
 never furnished. 
 
 In October, 1907, Mr. Linvillle was surprised to note 
 that his salary increase for the fifth year of service as first 
 
 48 
 
assistant did not appear in the check. Upon inquiring at 
 the Board of Education building, he learned from Asso- 
 ciate Superintendent Stevens that the trouble of May was 
 probably responsible for the holding up of the increase. 
 Mr. Stevens advised "sitting tight", and it would all come 
 out right. But Mr. Linville declined to sit tight. He in- 
 terviewed other members of the Board of Superintendents, 
 and from one learned that the Board had taken no action 
 on approving or disapproving the fourth year of service, 
 which they were required to do by law. 
 
 As late as December, 1907, no action had been taken 
 on approving or disapproving the service, and the salary 
 remained the same as in the preceding year. In that month 
 during an interview Mr. Linville had with the Chairman of 
 the High School Committee of the Board of Education, it 
 was tentatively suggested by the Chairman that the matter 
 might be adjusted by a transfer outside the Borough. This 
 was agreed to, and Mr. Linville's services were immediately 
 approved by the Board of Superintendents as "fit and meri- 
 . torious for the completion of the fourth year of service as 
 first assistant". The increase was allowed, and on Feb- 
 ruary 1, 1908, Mr. Linville began service in the Jamaica 
 High School. 
 
 Mr. Linville regrets that this history cannot be told 
 without referring in unfavorable light to those who have 
 passed beyond. Very few of the officials who were re- 
 sponsible for the slack management of this case, not to say 
 the indifference to situations that involved points of an un- 
 professional or criminal nature, are now alive and in serv- 
 ice. But the ideals which the officials of a half -generation 
 ago apparently held to are conceived to be proper bj^ many 
 in power today. What these ideals are will appear more 
 definitely in the discussion of the cases of the three teachers 
 who were dismissed from DeWitt Clinton High School in 
 December, 1907, for alleged "conduct unbecoming a 
 teacher". 
 
 The Teachers' Union believes that the Schoolmasters' 
 Association contains in its membership many individuals 
 who will defend at all times the practises of the educational 
 autocracy which the Union is doing its best to transform 
 into a democracy. In fact, the Schoolmasters have gone 
 on record as approving the report of their committee on 
 
 49 
 
"unpatriotic teaching". If this committee itself has been 
 misled by unscrupulous members, the Union trusts that 
 some honorable and enlightened action will follow. 
 
 This section of the reply of the Teachers' Union may 
 be closed with the statement that Mr. A. I. Dotey, a mem- 
 ber of the Schoolmasters' committee, was a teacher in De 
 Witt Clinton High School at the time the charges were 
 brought against the Principal. In fact, the testimony 
 shows that Mr. Dotey testified to hearing the Principal use 
 abusive language in addressing a teacher in the presence of 
 other teachers. Mr. Dotey was in the position to know the 
 character of the Principal, and to know the nature of the 
 offenses with which the Principal was charged. The 
 Union may fairly suppose that Mr. Dotey prepared that 
 portion of the report which constituted the challenge that 
 has brought out the Union's reply. And the Union may 
 also fairly suppose that Mr. Dotey wilfully misstated the 
 case, or that he does not think it matters what a principal 
 does so long as he does not "hold any animosity" toward a 
 teacher whom he has insulted, (a proper inference from his 
 testimony given at the inquiry) , or that he is responsible 
 for both misstating the case and for holding a low profes- 
 sional ideal of self-respect. We submit that the employ- 
 ment of teachers of this kind for purposes of character- 
 building and for the development of ideals of citizenship is 
 dangerous to the social well-being. The support given to 
 views of this nature by an entire organization constitutes 
 a social menace of the greatest magnitude. 
 
 . . THE CASE OF SAMUEL D. SCHMALHAUSEN. 
 
 Specification 1. Of the Charges Preferred by Super- 
 intendent Tildsley: 
 
 "That the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen considers it not 
 to be his duty to develop in the students under his control 
 instinctive respect for the President of the United States, as 
 such. Governor of the State of New York, as such, and other 
 Federal, State and Municipal officers, as such." 
 
 The reader will observe that Mr. Schmalhausen is not 
 charged with having failed to inculcate respect; he is 
 charged with consiclering it not to be his duty to develop in 
 his students instinctive respect. The problem therefore 
 
 50 
 
arises whether a teacher who has rendered efficient and loyal 
 service for a period of eight years is to be dismissed from 
 the school system because his conception of the kind and 
 quality of respect to be developed in his students differs 
 from that of his Associate Superintendent. As a matter of 
 fact, — simple psychologic fact — it is a contradiction in 
 terms to speak of "teaching INSTINCTIVE respect" or in- 
 stinctive anything else. 
 
 As Prof. Dewey says in 'The Dial" (April 11, 1918), 
 in relation to the general subject of Education and Social 
 Direction : 
 
 "Only 'Bureaucratic surveillance and unremitted interference 
 in the private life' of subjects can, in the face of the disintegrating 
 tendencies of contemporary industry and trade, develop that 'pas- 
 sionate aspiration for subservience'- which is a marked feature of the 
 Prussian diathesis. If we look these facts in the face, we shall 
 quickly see the romanticism of any proposal to secure the German 
 type of disciplined efficiency and of patient and persistent 'industry' 
 by borrowing a few features of the personal relation of teacher 
 and pupil and installing them in the school. Only an occasional 
 pedagogical Dogberry can rise to the level of a New York School 
 Administrator who would secure permanent good, loyal citizenship 
 'teaching (sic) instinctive obedience' in the schools. 
 
 "Taken in this crude form, the desire to Prussianize the dis- 
 ciplinary methods of American schools is too incoherent and spas- 
 modic to constitute a serious danger. A serious danger there is, 
 however, and it lies in the confused thinking which such efforts 
 stimulate and strengthen. The danger lies not in any likelihood of 
 success. Save here and there and for a brief period, the attempts 
 run hopelessly counter to the trend of countless social forces. The 
 danger is that the vague desire and confused thought embodied in 
 them will cover up the real problems involved in securing an effec- 
 tively loyal democratic citizenship; and distract attention from the 
 constructive measures required to develop the kind of social unity 
 and social control required in a democracy." 
 
 Upon reflection. Dr. Tildsley must surely have realized 
 how untenable his proposition is. In fact, Prof. Giddings, 
 a member of the Board of Education, (himself a distin- 
 guished social psychologist) was at some pains to make 
 clear to Dr. Tildsley how unphilosophical his position as to 
 the teaching of instinctive respect was. At the trial, one 
 of the counsel for the prosecution having put the question 
 to Mr. Schmalhausen in the phraseology of Dr. Tildsley, 
 upon being reminded of the impossibility of his proposition, 
 conceded the point and withdrew the word "instinctive". 
 The really importanf point to bear in mind is that Mr. 
 
 51 
 
Schmalhausen was never charged with having failed to de- 
 velop in the students under his control a proper respect for 
 the President of the United States, et al. When the de- 
 fendant emphasized his belief in the unifying value of re- 
 flective respect, he pointed out the rational and utterly dem- 
 ocratic content of that truly appropriate respect which 
 springs from reflection. In referring to a hum.an action as 
 being "instinctive", we have in mind a reaction so deeply 
 rooted in biologic necessity as to be a universal inheritance 
 of the species ; a purely automatic or reflex action, an al- 
 most instantaneous response to a familiar stimulus. Evo- 
 lution has imbedded in the nervous system those strangely 
 immediate reactions to environmental stimuli which we call 
 instincts. To speak of teaching instinctive anything is to 
 talk foolishness. Of course, we may guide and cultivate in- 
 stinct; we may reflect upon it; we may rationalize its by- 
 products; but no one can speak with scientific legitimacy 
 of teaching what is, by its very nature, definition and func- 
 tion, presumed and known to be an inborn predisposition. 
 At any rate, we here enter upon a metaphysical problem. 
 The metaphysical nature of Specification I is made the more 
 apparent (and ludicrous) by the repeated insertion of the 
 quintessentially metaphysical phrase "as such". Only Im- 
 manuel Kant is competent to pass upon the baffling mean- 
 ing of "as such" ! 
 Specification 2 : 
 
 "That in making written criticisms of a certain letter, 
 dated Oct. 22, 1917, addressed to the President of the 
 United States, written by Hyman Herman, a pupil under 
 his instruction, the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen failed 
 to make such criticisms of the contents of said letter as 
 would lead the pupil to petceive the gross disloyalty in- 
 volved in his point of view as expressed in the said letter." 
 This "charge" as it stands is just plainly untrue. All 
 the facts surrounding this troublesome letter may well be 
 restated, for they bear momentously upon the whole case 
 against the defendant. The letter was not ioritte7i in class. 
 It was written at home, either by Herman himself or by 
 someone closely related to Herman. The letter was 7iot 
 read in class. It was first shown to Mr. Schmalhausen tiuo 
 tveeks after it had been collected •v\:ith all the other papers 
 by the head of the English Department. That was the first 
 
 52 
 
time that Mr. Schmalhausen was permitted to know that 
 one of his pupils had written this scurrilous letter. Out of 
 a total of s-eventy-six letters handed in to the head of de- 
 partment by the two seventh-term classes who had been 
 asked to write an open letter to the President, 07ily this one 
 was considered so reprehensible as to be chosen for the 
 basis of a "charge" against the defendant. In a communi- 
 cation to the Globe (Nov. 22, 1917), the head of the Eng- 
 lish Department admitted that the vast majority of the 
 compositions were thoroughly patriotic. In her testimony 
 at the trial, she alluded to the luke-warm patriotism of only 
 tw^o compositions. It therefore appears that a teacher is 
 to be dismissed from the school system because, out of a 
 total of seventy-six essays, one composition (written at 
 home) proves to be less than one hundred percent patriotic. 
 When it is borne in mind that the topic in question was ad- 
 mittedly the first political assignment given during that 
 term ; when it is borne in mind that the only utterly repre- 
 hensible essay had been written at home by a pupil who 
 had not been a member for more than four weeks in Mr. 
 Schmalhausen's class ; when it is further remembered that 
 on the day of trial, the offending pupil, upon examination 
 and cross-examination, admitted that the ideas contained 
 in that offensive letter had not been in any remotest way 
 inspired by the teacher, that, in fact, he would have written 
 exactly that sort of letter at that particular time no matter 
 in whose class he was being taught; — it becomes all the 
 more astounding and inexplicable how this specification 
 could have been included at all. When, finally, the actual 
 written criticisms made by the teacher, at Dr. Tildsley's 
 request, are carefully reviewed, the stark inaccuracy, not 
 to say, premeditated untruthfulness of Specification 2 is laid 
 bare. Those written criticisms reveal on the part of the 
 teacher so complete, so merciless a disagreement with and 
 disapproval of the sentiments expressed in the Herman 
 letter, that only a hopelessly prejudiced person could dare 
 to assert that the criticisms are only "technical". Do the 
 following incisive criticisms strike the reader as being 
 purely formal and technical?: 
 
 "Exaggerated, excessive emotionalism. 
 
 "Is there any sanity in this assertion? 
 
 "Do you take these remarks seriously? 
 
 53 
 
"For a thoughtful student this statement 
 sounds irrational. 
 
 "Recall President Wilson's differentiation be- 
 tween the German Government and the German 
 people. 
 
 "Not accurately presented. 
 
 "Foolish attitude historically. 
 
 "Do you believe in its sincerity? (peace offer 
 made by Germany). 
 
 "Sorry to find this unintelligent comment in 
 your work. 
 
 "Why did you write thi??" 
 
 ***** 
 
 At the "trial" Dr. Tildsley disclaimed that any conten- 
 tion was urged that Mr. Schmalhausen was in any way re- 
 sponsible for the sentiments contained in that letter (see 
 p. 90, Testimony). There was never anything said in the 
 classroom which could possibly have given the boy the ideas 
 contained in the letter. This fact was testified to by Her- 
 man himself (see p. 133-135, Testimony). Direct evidence 
 exonerating Mr. Schmalhausen in re the Herman letter : 
 (Volume of Testimony, Page 135) (Herman on stand) : 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Schmalhausen in class or out of class, 
 or in any way utter any sentiment that is responsible for your 
 writing that letter? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear him say anything that was against the Presi- 
 dent or against any officer of the government, or against any 
 policy of the government? 
 
 A. No, sir; never. 
 
 Q. Or against the attitude of the United States In the war? 
 
 A. I have never heard him discuss that question. 
 
 On the day of the "trial", in answer to Prof. Giddings' 
 question as to what the defendant thought of the letter, the 
 defendant answered: "I think the worst offensiveness lies 
 in the utterly brutal misconception of the President and his 
 attitude. It is a brutal misconception of the President as a 
 human being and the President as an official, and from that 
 flows all the other statements which imply his (Herman's) 
 tremendous discourtesy and his disloyalty." (Testimony 
 p. 132.) 
 
 It must not be forgotten (that as Dr. Paul himself 
 testified) Mr. Schmalhausen was suspended before any op- 
 
 54 
 
portunity was given him to correct in personal interview 
 with the pupil the reprehensible letter submitted by Her- 
 man. There is also an important psychological fact to note 
 in connection with the whole problem of criticism. As 
 Prof. Dewey pointed out, the public at large, unacquainted 
 with the rather limited, local and private nature of the class- 
 room work, expect the emotional reaction which would be 
 more appropriate if a critic were pronouncing his judg- 
 ment in the presence of a large audience. No doubt, if 
 Herman had read his letter to a crowd, and had his teacher 
 failed to communicate to that patriotic audience his utter 
 abhorrence of sentiments so brutally unfair, there might 
 indeed be some psychologic ground for the inference that 
 the teacher himself was but luke-warmly patriotic. But 
 when you think the matter over calmly, doesn't it strike 
 you that the written criticisms made by the teacher in the 
 presence, not of his offending pupil ; in the presence, not 
 of his whole class ; but in the presence of two persons both 
 occupying official positions and therefore unrelated to the 
 class experience as a whole, doesn't it strike the reader that 
 the criticisms, if anything, lean to the side of excessive 
 and too personal opposition on the part of the teacher? 
 Can't you imagine how intensely severe and direct would 
 have been the additional criticisms of the teacher, had he, 
 in all fairness, been permitted to criticise the boy and his 
 composition in the presence of the whole class? No such 
 fair opportunity was ever given. And why not? Obviously 
 because the gentlemen of the prosecution knew that such a 
 fair opportunity would have elicited from Mr. Schmal- 
 hausen and the pupils so deep and overwhelming a criti- 
 cism of that reprehensible letter as to forestall and render 
 impossible the execution of their prejudiced purpose against 
 the defendant. If Dr. Paul, the Principal of DeWitt Clin- 
 ton High School, had been sincere ; if Dr. Tildsley had been 
 honest, would they have kept an unbroken silence in rela- 
 tion to Herman's outrageous offense, would they have per- 
 mitted both the pupil and the teacher to remain innocent 
 of the mischievous contents of that letter until several weeks 
 after the day of assignment? Herman wasn't apprised of 
 the situation and his part in it until after the suspension 
 of his teacher ! Mr. Schmalhausen was not apprised of the 
 nature of the Herman letter until it had been in the per- 
 
 65 
 
sonal possession of Dr. Paul and Dr. Tildsley for fully two 
 weeks ! Why were these prosecutors so desperately anxious 
 to keep teacher and pupil so separated as to make it ini- 
 possible for the teacher to counteract the unpatriotic atti- 
 tude of the boy? How account for this sinister conduct on 
 the part of Dr. Paul and Dr. Tildsley? 
 
 The Herman Letter was written at the time of year 
 (late October, 1917), when the East Side boys,— Clinton 
 High is composed of this type, — were being swamped by 
 crude reiterations of all kinds of criticism of the Govern- 
 ment, especially in relation to the Conscription Act and the 
 threatened imposition of a rigorous censorship. To one of 
 the teachers whom he interviewed at Clinton High (Mr. 
 Jablonower), Dr. Tildsley, in his attempt to fathom the 
 sources of Herman's cutting point of view, failing to re- 
 ceive any helpful suggestions from the teacher, (who as a 
 teacher of mathematics was not altogether prepared for a 
 discussion of Herman's composition), finally admitted to 
 Mr. Jablonower that most likely the boy's statements were 
 merely an echo of yellow journalism and had undoubtedly 
 been influenced by some of the cheaper newspapers. 
 
 Since, as no one will deny, every pupil is essentially 
 the product of numerous antecedent social and personal 
 forces not at all intimately related to the classroom situa- 
 tion; since among these various forces the most conspicu- 
 ous are the home, the lecture center, the newspaper world, 
 the settlement, the "gang", not to mention all his previous 
 teachers, especially his teachers of English and Economics 
 and History; — according to what peculiar theory of fair 
 play or sane analysis shall we be asked to accept it as rea- 
 sonable that one teacher, — teacher of English, — who admit- 
 tedly had had the given pupil under his instruction for less 
 than four weeks, — according to what peculiar theory of fair 
 play, we ask again, shall this most recent teacher in only 
 one and that a minor branch of knowledge, be held respon- 
 sible for the viewpoints of a student who by his own testi- 
 mony admitted the overwhelming influence upon his think- 
 ing of social forces utterly outside the classroom? Why 
 should one teacher be singled out to be the scapegoat and 
 have to bear the burden of the inadequacies of years and 
 years of complex educational and social influences operat- 
 ing half unconsciously upon the youthful mentality ? 
 
 56 
 
Let's imagine this very plausible situation. Suppose 
 Prof. Giddings had assigned to a group of seventy-five of 
 his students a theme on the conduct of the war since Amer- 
 ica's entrance into the world struggle. Suppose that the 
 President of the University had been told by one of his per- 
 sonal spies (who in turn was informed by a pupil spy) 
 about the nature of the assignment, — which he deemed to 
 be umvise. Suppose, again, that all the essays were ordered 
 collected and were turned over to Dr. Butler. Suppose Dr. 
 Butler in the presence of one of the Head Professors, were 
 to blurt out: "Now, Fve got him." Suppose further that 
 a representative trustee, summoned for the occasion, and Dr. 
 Butler maintain a scrupulous silence for two whole weeks 
 in relation to those compositions, when without warning. 
 Prof. Giddings is summoned to the private office of Presi- 
 dent Butler and in the presence of the representative trustee 
 is confronted with one essay (about which he has had not 
 an iota of information or knowledge) ; suppose, to make a 
 long story short, Prof. Giddings was brought up on the 
 charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher". What would 
 any common-sense person say of the nature of the charge? 
 Would any one in his senses hold Prof. Giddings responsible 
 for what one of his pupils happened to write at home in re- 
 lation to President Wilson's conduct of the war ? And if it 
 is palpably unjust to hold a Professor of Social Science re- 
 sponsible for what one of his students may happen to think 
 in relation to a sociological theme, how absurd it is to at- 
 tempt to hold a teacher of English responsible for the wild 
 assertions of one student, whose views represented the men- 
 tal attitude of but one out of seventy-six pupils of the same 
 term under the guidance of the particular teacher. The 
 flimsiness of the charge becomes so evident as to make it 
 impossible for a fair-minded person to believe that the whole 
 affair had ever taken place. 
 
 If it be argued that the assignment itself reveals a cul- 
 pable attitude on the part of the teacher, the adequate reply 
 is (1) that the assignment itself was not made a basis for 
 any one of the four specifications charged against Mr. 
 Schmalhausen by Superintendent Tildsley and (2) that this 
 assignment is but typical of the nature of the socio-political 
 assignments given by various teachers including the head 
 of the English Department, to the Clinton student for years 
 
 57 
 
and years together. It is well to remind the reader that 
 while the "trial" was pending, the mid-term examinations at 
 Clinton High (Nov., 1917), contained among the questions 
 in English such debatable subjects as the following: 
 "Write brief proper, affirmative or negative : 
 We seek no selfish ends in this war. 
 Conscription is justifiable in a democracy. 
 "Write in outline form the brief proper : 
 Strikes. 
 
 Revenue by bond issue or taxation." 
 These questions are perfectly typical of the kind of 
 sociological theme which the History and English depart- 
 ments at Clinton High have emphasized for years. More to 
 the point is the fact that these examination questions had 
 already been assembled and prepared for printing by the 
 head of the English Department before Mr. Schmalhausen's 
 assignment became a basis for that inquisition at the school 
 which led to the suspension of the three teachers. The in- 
 ference is unavoidable that the true motive or cause for 
 making the Herman letter the basis of the case against Mr. 
 Schmalhausen was the certain knowledge on the part of the 
 prosecution that only by so doing could they arouse in the 
 uninformed public mind those suspicions and hysterical 
 fears upon which a teacher whose record was above sus- 
 picion could be brought into disrepute. There is undoubt- 
 edly a certain kind of "patriotism" which, far from being 
 the last, is in reality the very first, refuge of a certain kind 
 of scoundrel. 
 Specification 3 : 
 
 "That the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen stated that 
 as an instructor of the said pupil, he would cons'der it 
 proper to allow the said pupil to write and to read aloud 
 to his classmates similar seditious letters addressed to 
 the President of the United States." 
 
 This specification is worded rather unscrupulously. 
 The tricky and altogether illegal insertion of the word "sedi- 
 tious" is reprehensible from every point of view. Not only 
 did Pres. Willcox repudiate the implied accusation of dis- 
 loyalty so often maliciously repeated against the suspended 
 teachers, but Supt. Tildsley himself (even though it was 
 at the twelfth hour) disavowed the unfair insinuation of 
 disloyalty. If, therefore, there was no charge of disloyalty 
 
 58 
 
either stated or implied,-as the chief spokesmen for the 
 prosecution admit —what is the meaning of that kind ot 
 specification the vaUdity of which depends upon the clear 
 assumption of the existence of a disloyal attitude on the 
 part of the defendant? Then, too, the word "seditious is a 
 purely legal concept and cannot possibly be made to apply 
 to the letter of a sixteen year old schoolboy written for pri- 
 vate consumption. In no true sense can it be said that the 
 letter was "addressed" to the President of the United States. 
 No student, even when he writes a letter "to" a govern- 
 mental official, which however is to be read to his class- 
 mates, (if in truth he is called upon to recite at all) really 
 has in mind a direct communication between himself and 
 that official. Lastly, it is worth noting that the specification, 
 revealing as it does a prejudiced mind, contains at its worst 
 not the accusation of an act performed, not even the accusa- 
 tion of a declared point of view;— the specification merely 
 asserts that the defendant stated that "he tvould consider it 
 proper . ." There is no warranty in logic or m law for 
 the assumption that a teacher is a fit subject for suspension 
 or dismissal because of a mental attitude (supposedly) ex- 
 pressed in a purely private interview characterized by a 
 series of hypothetical questions and answers, a mental atti- 
 tude revealing what he would do in some imaginary future, 
 provided, that certain conditions arose in that future which 
 would call forth his hypothetical attitude! It must never 
 be lost to memory that all these specifications are built upon 
 half-remembered assertions supposedly made by teachers 
 who were called to a private interview by the Associate Su- 
 perintendent. No official minutes were taken, no care was 
 exerted to check up and state accurately on paper what the 
 teachers really said and believed. The unreliability of the 
 human memory, especially as it is reflected in the admit- 
 tedly interested and prejudiced mind, is too well known a 
 fact to require special attention. And yet, on nothing more 
 substantial than admittedly an inadequate recollection, the 
 chief witnesses for the prosecution managed to make it ap- 
 pear that they had very definite evidence against the de- 
 fendants If the reader will consult the volume of 
 testimony taken at the trial (page 110), he will discover 
 in relation to this specification 3 that the defendant in- 
 sisted (when he -was interviewed by Dr. Tildsley) "that a 
 
 59 
 
pupil as intelligent as Herman would never again repeat so 
 offensive a blunder after such serious corrections as were 
 contained in the revised essay. The records of Herman's 
 scholarship indicate the truth of the above statement. Her- 
 man's average record in English for six terms ivas 95%. 
 
 Just look back at that queer third specification and re- 
 consider how fundamentally preposterous it is* It asserts 
 that the teacher "would consider it proper to allow the said 
 pupil to write and to read aloud to his classmates similar 
 seditious letters. ..." How is the teacher, — unless he 
 be omniscient, — to know beforehand what the contents of 
 a pupil's letter might be? Surely not even the most stupid 
 pedagogue could expect a teacher to prevent a pupil from 
 uniting at home a letter which might, for all he knew, ex- 
 press sentiments not in accord with his own. if it be said 
 that the topic itself would provoke such unacceptable senti- 
 ments, the easy reply is that as a matter of fact, in the case 
 under consideration, seventy-five out of seventy-six pupils, 
 in response to that very same topic, did v^'rite satisfactorily 
 patriotic letters. As for permitting a pupil who had of- 
 fended for the first time in his career, — admittedly one of 
 the best pupils in the High School, — to read a second letter 
 (the contents of which had not yet been divulged) in class, — 
 only an autocrat, a prussianized pegagogue, would conceive 
 it to be his duty to prevent the reading of what might ul- 
 timately prove to be a reprehensible letter. No true demo- 
 crat, no honest student of modern education can stoop to the 
 low level of conduct implied in the proposition that a patri- 
 otic teacher would be willing to violate the right of free 
 speech in behalf of mere suspicion. This is the most 
 grossly un-American doctrine that a teacher can preach. 
 
 For the especial enlightenment of the self-righteous 
 patriots, we quote some very interesting lines and some 
 very good American doctrines written and approved by that 
 distinguished patriot, the Honorary President of The Amer- 
 ican Defense Society, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt. In 
 the May "Metropolitan," under the inspiring caption of 
 "Lincoln and Free Speech", the Honorary President of The 
 American Defense Society says : 
 
 "Patriotism means to stand by the coimtry. It does not mean 
 to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly 
 to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is 
 patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the 
 
 60 
 
country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent 
 that by inefficiency or otherwise, he fails in his duty to stand by 
 the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth — 
 whether about the President or about anyone else— save in the rare 
 cases where this would make known to the enemy information o£ 
 military value which would otherwise be unknown to him. 
 
 "Sedition in the legal sense means to betray the Government, 
 
 to give aid and comfort to the enemy; or to counsel resistance to 
 
 the laws or to measures of government having the force of law. . . 
 
 "A distinguished Federal Judge recently wrote me as follows: 
 
 '.... Sedition is different. Anyone who directly advises 
 
 or counsels resistance to measures of government is guilty of 
 sedition. That, however, ought to be clearly distinguished 
 from discussion of the wisdom or folly of measures of gov- 
 ernment, or the honesty or competency of public offices. That 
 is not sedition. It is within the protection of the first amend- 
 ment. The electorate cannot be qualified to perform its duty 
 in removing incompetent officers and securing the repeal of un- 
 wise laws, unless those questions may be freely discussed. 
 
 " 'The right to say wise things necessarily implies the right 
 to say foolish things. The answer to foolish speech is wise 
 speech and not force. The republic is founded upon the faith 
 that if the American people are permitted freely to hear fool- 
 ish and wise speech, a majority will choose the wise. If that 
 faith is not justified, the republic is based on sand. John 
 Milton said it- all in his defence of freedom of the press. 
 
 " 'Let truth and error grapple. Whoever knew truth to be 
 beaten in a fair fight ?' " 
 
 How can the Schoolmasters' Association, which avow- 
 edly accepts and enthusiastically endorses the leadership of 
 Mr. Roosevelt, commit the great blunder of perverting the 
 splendid definition of free speech in war time immortalized 
 by their patriotic leader? Let the Schoolmasters' Commit- 
 tee read and reread these fine sentences constituting Mr. 
 Roosevelt's patriotic creed in war time and then let them try 
 to find, if they can, even a shred of justification for the 
 specifications already considered in this survey. 
 Specification 4 : 
 
 "That the said Samuel D. Schmalhausen, as evidenced 
 by newspaper articles printed over his signature has a 
 concept of his function as teacher that renders him unfit 
 to be an instructor of high school students." 
 
 The articles in question (only one of which appeared in 
 a newspaper) refer to: (1) The Ethics of Wrongdoing, 
 published in May, 1914 {three and a half years BEFORE the 
 author of it was accused, partly because of it, of conduct un- 
 
 61 
 
becoming a teacher) was printed in the radical educational 
 magazine, "The American Teacher". It may illuminate 
 several dark points if the reader will bear in mind that the 
 reason-for-existence of The American Teacher has been its 
 telling and courageous opposition to all forms of autocracy 
 in education. It is a little amusing at this late date to have 
 to refer to Dr. Tildsley's attitude toward the article in ques- 
 tion. The article was originally written with the intention 
 of contributing it to the monthly conference, which in those 
 ancient days (1914), under the liberal leadership of the 
 then Dr. Tildsley, was the great source of frank inter- 
 change of opinion. The article never got itself read pri- 
 marily because several hours had already been consumed in 
 the reading and discussion of several other excellent essays 
 on the relation between school and life. However, the 
 writer, before submitting that elaborate essay containing 
 many radical sociological viewpoints (The American 
 Teacher version is a condensation) , for his Principal's judg- 
 ment, being admonished not to do so lest those opinions 
 antagonize the Principal, wrote a note to Dr. Tildsley ask- 
 ing for his attitude on the great problem of freedom of 
 thought and of speech. This is what Dr. John L. Tildsley 
 wrote : 
 
 "I certainly do believe in free thinking and free speech of well- 
 thought out conclusions. I shall be glad to read your paper. I 
 may not be in accord, but I shall be glad to discuss it with you." 
 
 It cannot therefore be asserted with any show of sin- 
 cerity that "The Ethics of Wrongdoing" was not thoroughly 
 familiar to the chief prosecutor at least three and a half 
 years before it occurred to him that it might be useful to 
 lug in, what he had once looked upon as, to say the least, 
 not an expression of opinion indicative of "conduct unbe- 
 coming a teacher". In fact, in the June, 1915 issue of The 
 American Teacher, there appears this bright little note of 
 appreciation, signed by the Principal of the High School of 
 Commerce, Dr. John L. Tildsley : 
 
 "Editors, The American Teacher : 
 
 Your paper is rendering a much needed service. It is desirable 
 for all of us to hear or read things which are not always in accord 
 with our set opinions. We teachers become set altogether too early 
 in our careers. Your paper has a tendency to crack our plaster 
 casts." 
 
 A bit of local history will not be out of place. Some- 
 time in the autumn of 1913, rumors filled the Clinton High 
 
 62 
 
concerning mal-conduct in office of several students who 
 had been employed by the General Organization as lunch- 
 room assistants. Inasmuch as the facts in the case were 
 never presented either to the faculty as a whole or to the 
 student body as a whole, the fragmentary reports that 
 reached the teachers and the pupils were in the nature of 
 the case saturated with suspicion. Some of the teachers be- 
 gan to realize the gravity of the situation only when several 
 of their students who had hitherto been trustworthy and 
 satisfactory, disappeared from heir classes. Rumor had it 
 that they had been either suspended or dismissed. The 
 teachers were not given the facts. Why not? Some of us felt 
 that the star-chamber proceedings, as a result of which some 
 very fine young fellows were driven out of school were not, 
 whatever their decent intention, the kind of judicial pro- 
 cedure which an American sense of fair play, open hearing, 
 trial by jury, demanded as the very minimum of justice. 
 It was as a reaction from the utterly secret and disreputable 
 practise of Mr. Dotey, the official in charge of the star-cham- 
 ber proceeding, (Mr. Dotey acting as witness, prosecuting 
 attorney, judge, jury and hangman, all in one), that it was 
 decided to discuss the whole subject of ethics in the high 
 schools at the monthly conference. Let it be clearly borne 
 in mind that The Ethics of Wrongdoing was written as a 
 vigorous protest against the spirit of mediaevalism that per- 
 vaded the Dotey star-chamber proceeding. It was a pas- 
 sionate protest against brutality and the inquisitorial at- 
 titude in relation to adolescent wrongdoing. Anyone famil- 
 iar with that disgraceful episode, — at the center of which 
 stood Mr. Dotey and his infamous spying squad, — will un- 
 derstand and deeply sympathise with the informal phil- 
 osophy of tolerance expressed in that article. The writer 
 of it has no apologies to offer. In fact, he is glad to re- 
 affirm his modest faith in the sanity and forcef ulness of that 
 plea, for social sympathy in behalf of detected wrongdoers. 
 As Thomas Mott Osborne said of the youthful offender: 
 "There is really nothing wrong with the preponderating 
 majority of the boys sent here. All that is needed is a 
 little common sense in treating them." The sentiments con- 
 tained in The Ethics of Wrongdoing are the familiar hu- 
 manitarian creed of our time. The reader is referred to 
 the liberalizing works of Professor Bury, Max Nordau, 
 
 63 
 
Francisco Ferrer, Maria Montessori, Thomas Mott Osborne, 
 for a fuller exposition of that humanitarian creed. 
 
 Will any humane person object seriously to the follow- 
 ing faithful summary of "The Ethics of Wrongdoing"? 
 
 "I have abundant faith in our power as teachers to eliminate 
 the petty cases of anti-social conduct flourishing in our midst, pro- 
 vided only that we make our students our comrades, our co-workers. 
 Those who laugh at this plan are the very ones who advocate the 
 mediaeval ethics of persecution, of getting 'even,' of 'Do as I Tell 
 You; in short, the ethics of vindictiveness. When our pupils shall 
 have become class-conscious, social-minded citizens, all the problems 
 of morality, now so conflicting, will be in the course of solution. 
 When the boys or girls under our care get to feel that we are 
 honestly their friends, their comrades, interested in the problems 
 that agitate their fathers, their mothers and themselves, social 
 solidarity will become the best guaranty of right social conduct. 
 
 "It is we teachers who are sorely in need of a larger, work- 
 ing-class ethics, a social philosophy that will set our minds aflame 
 with the desire to fight with our proletarian pupils against the 
 cunning exploiters in 'society.' It is we teachers who are in dire 
 need of a new social outlook; our students will learn their morality 
 from us, you may depend upon it. . . . 
 
 "The most conspicuous fact on earth is pain, and knowingly to 
 intensify, by public humiliation and punishment, the suffering of a 
 guilty comrade, man or woman, boy or girl, Is criminal, simply 
 criminal. 
 
 "Do not expect too much and you will be disappointed less 
 frequently. This world is deeply rooted in imperfections. Why not 
 be as tolerant with others who do wrong as you are with yourself? 
 It would do us all infinite spiritual good. Let's reminisce just a 
 wee bit more. We shall be able to judge the more wisely." 
 
 The second article referred to is "The Logic of Freest 
 Speech", printed in The American Teacher, November, 1915 
 (ttvo years BEFORE it occurred to Dr. Tildsley and Dr. Paul 
 that it might possibly be used as a basis for the charge of 
 "conduct unbecoming a teacher"). The motive that im- 
 pelled the prosecution to introduce this article was rankly 
 insincere. Not only is the article both as to date and con- 
 tent utterly unrelated to the nature of the charge drawn up 
 against Mr. Schmalhausen in November, 1917; the article 
 itself expresses a point of view that, as Professor Bury's 
 brilliant "History of Freedom of Thought" abundantly at- 
 tests, has been the basis of the philosophy of liberal-minded- 
 ness since the great and sincere days of the Greek philoso- 
 phers. The point of view expressed in that article has 
 been, if anything, even more deeply established by the mod- 
 
 64 
 
ern irresistible trend tov/ard intellectual frankness in all 
 affairs concerning the welfare of man. We know that the 
 most recent excursions into dramatic psychology, under the 
 inspiring leadership of the psycho-analysts, Freud, Jung, 
 Jones, Brill, Stanley Hall, have re-discovered and re-invig- 
 orated the doctrine of complete freedom of thought and of 
 expression. There are medical reasons, — reasons of psycho- 
 therapeutics, — why it is dangerous folly to choke off self- 
 expression, even when it violates conventional taboos and 
 the so-called "sacred" aspect of life. The truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth, — this is the deepest as- 
 piration of the emancipated soul. The key to "The Logic of 
 Freest Speech" is embodied in these excerpts : 
 
 "Do we all believe in freedom of speech? I doubt it. We 
 believe in what we approve. What we disapprove, we naturally 
 dislike to hear uttered. Uncongenial utterances irritate us. What 
 we call freedom is merely an accustomed routine: a system of ha-, 
 bitual j^eas and nays. Every system is a vicious circle. What we 
 oppose we loathe to hear, what we loathe to hear, all the more 
 spitefully do we oppose. Any sensible definition of freedom must 
 make way for exits from this vicious thraldom. I shall propose such 
 a definition of freedom. 
 
 "Why should speech be free? 
 
 "First — ^Because everyone at times wants it to be chained. Our 
 instincts are on the side of slavery, the slavery of complacency, 
 the complacency of habit. 
 
 "Second — Speech in bondage makes life duller. Dumb mutes 
 do not feel the manifold thrill of living. 'Silence is golden' was 
 spoken by a tactful, timid fool. Silence is usually evasion or 
 treachery. Crooked politicians are silent and their silence, ironically 
 enough, is worth its weight in gold. 
 
 "Third — The powerful possess income, the meek possess only 
 their tongues. Freedom of speech is the creation of the disin- 
 herited. 'Money talks* is a cynical truth. Lacking money, the 
 defeated must resort to tongues of fire. Freedom of speech is the 
 only telling weapon in the hands of those who struggle for a finer 
 standard of living. 
 
 "Fourth — Freedom of speech cuts athwart the barriers of caste 
 by endowing the mass with insights and prerogatives similar to 
 those possessed by the masters. Only free speech is competent to 
 betray and dethrone the fool in power. Only free speech can build 
 articulations and cohesions between those who suffer and those who 
 would understand them. 
 
 "Fifth — 'Freedom of speech is the visible and meritorious sign 
 of emancipation — emancipation from the tyranny of dogma and of 
 dogmatist. The freedom of speech is its right to be critical and 
 revolutionary. There are two types of people who oppose unlimited 
 freedom of speech; conservatives and radicals. Conservatives damn 
 
 65 
 
ths future and glorify the past. Radicals glorify their surmise of 
 future and damn the dream of all other radicals. 
 
 "You may count upon the fingers of one hand the advocates of 
 
 Freest Speech. Yet only freest speech is roomy enough to allow 
 
 standing space for all sorts and conditions of believers. Freest 
 
 speech fulfills my definition of comprehensive honorable freedom." 
 
 As to the third article under consideration, "The Trag- 
 edy of Mai-Education", published in the New York Call 
 (Oct. 28, 1917), the best defense the writer can make is to 
 repeat that it is scrupulously accurate and scorchingly true. 
 Its main ideas and attitudes are inspired by the educational 
 contributions of the English educator. Dr. Edmond Holmes ; 
 the distinguished medical psychologist, Prof. Boris Sidis; 
 the famous psycho-analyst. Dr. Ernest Jones ; the Harvard 
 educator, Prof. Paul Hanus; and finally by the works of 
 Prof. Dewey. Even if in places, the expression is rhetori- 
 cally a little too intense, the facts and observations under- 
 lying it are all nevertheless perfectly true: the experience 
 of every intellectually honest-minded teacher. The essence 
 of that "Confessional" is crystallized in the following repre- 
 sentative excerpt: 
 
 "In my moods of introspection everything becomes so clear to 
 me. I apprehend the large futility of my task. I see that school 
 education does not educate. The discipline of our educational bar- 
 racks makes children neither happier, nor wiser, nor better equipped 
 to anticipate, and with wisdom to confront life's emergencies. I 
 recall very vividly how William James, in his fine 'Talks to Teachers 
 on Life's Ideals,' said repeatedly that the function of education is 
 to prepare us for emergencies. He who could match life's vicissi- 
 tudes with the most ample resourcefulness was the most educated 
 person. Apply this wise precept to our school education and be- 
 hold the pathos, the disquieting mockery of it all. Taking our 
 pupils by and large, what crises will they have inevitably to en- 
 counter as aspirants in a world of struggle and change ?****Puberty 
 and the distracting dreams of sex ; unemployment and the vex- 
 atious dreams of ambition ; fellowship and the baffling task of rec- 
 onciling me and thee; citizenship and the bewildering loyalties of 
 Socialism and individualism ; humanism and the contradictory ap- 
 peals of impulse, instinct, reason, reflection, habit, custom and con- 
 science ! These are the deeper problems involved in the art of living 
 in a collectivity. What luminous insights into these perplexities 
 are teachers in the habit of opening out to their muddle-headed 
 studentship? Is it humanly surprising that disillusionment (of the 
 whining sort), cheap cynicism, moral quackery, success-clap-trap, 
 spiritual impotence, are the bj'-products of an education which de- 
 liberately, by act of criminal negligence, ignores the unsweet truths 
 about life?" 
 
 66 
 
It will enlighten even the well informed reader to re- 
 call some of the most famous pronouncements uttered by 
 our most sincere humanists in behalf of unfettered freedom 
 of thought and of expression. We append only a few be- 
 cause of lack of space. These few, however, epitomize the 
 historic tradition of all true lovers of freedom. 
 
 PROF. FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS: 
 
 "Our government is based on the agreement both tacit 
 and implied, that the minority shall always have the rights of 
 free speech, of free press, and of free agitation, in order to con- 
 vert itself if possible from a minority into a majority. As soon 
 as these rights of the minority are denied, it will inevitably 
 resort to secret meetings, conspiracies and finally force. In 
 times of stress, it may be extremely embarrassing for the ma- 
 jority to be hampered in quick, decisive action by an obstinate 
 minority; but nevertheless the recognition of the right of the 
 minority is our sole bond of unity. For this reason, I repeat 
 that any attempt to interfere with the rights of free speech and 
 free press is a blow at the very foundations of our government.'' 
 
 THEODORE PARKER (The Mexican War) : 
 
 "Your President tells us it is treason to talk so! Treason is 
 it? Treason to discuss a war which the government made and 
 which the people are made to pay for? Why, if the people cannot 
 discuss the war they have got to fight and to pay for, who under 
 heaven can? Whose business is it, if it is not yours and mine? 
 
 "I think lightly of what is called treason against a government. 
 That may be your duty today, or mine. But treason against the 
 people, against mankind, against God, is a great sin, not lightly 
 to be spoken of." 
 
 WENDELL PHILLIPS: 
 
 "No matter whose the lips that would speak, they must be 
 free and ungagged. Let us believe that the whole of truth can 
 never do harm to the whole of virtue; and remember that in order 
 to get the whole of truth you must allow every man, right or 
 wrong, freely to utter his conscience, and protect him in so doing. 
 Entire unshackled freedom for every man's life, no matter what his 
 doctrine — the safety of free discussion no matter how wide its 
 range. The community which dares not protect its humblest and 
 most hated member in the free utterance of his opinions, no matter 
 how falsely or hateful, is only a gang of slaves. 
 
 "If there is anything in the universe that can't stand discussion, 
 let it crack." 
 
 HENRY DAVID THOREAU: 
 
 "Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, 
 resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a 
 conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and. subjects 
 
 67 
 
afterwards. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, 
 so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right 
 to assume is to do at any time v/hat I think right. 
 
 "A free spoken man, of sound lungs, cannot draw a long 
 breath, without causing your rotten institutions to come toppling 
 down by the vacuum he makes. Freedom of speech! It hath not 
 entered into your hearts to conceive what those words mean. *** 
 The church, the state, the school, the magazines, think they are 
 liberal and free! It is the freedom of the prison yard." 
 
 WALT WHITMAN : 
 
 "I say discuss all and expose all — I am for every topic openly: 
 I say there can be no safety for These States without innovators — 
 without free tongues, and ears willing to hear the tongues. 
 
 "And I announce as a glory of These States that they respect- 
 fully listen to propositions, reforms, fresh views and doctrines 
 from successions of men and wogien. 
 
 "Each age wath its own growth !" 
 
 WOODROW WILSON: 
 
 "If there is one thing we love more than another in the 
 United States it is that every man should have the privilege, 
 unmolested and uncriticized, to utter the real convictions of 
 his mind. . . . 
 
 "I believe that the wreakness of the American character is 
 that there are so few^ growlers and kickers among us. . . . 
 
 "Difference of opinion is a sort of mandate of conscience. . . 
 . . "We have forgotten the very principle of our origin, if we 
 have forgotten how to object, how to resist, how to agitate, 
 how to pull down and build up, even to the extent of revolu- 
 tionary practices, if it be necessary to readjust matters. . . . 
 
 "For a long time this country has lacked one of the institu- 
 tions which free men have always and everywhere held fundamental. 
 For a long time there has been no sufficient opportunity of counsel 
 among the people; no place and method of talk, of exchange of 
 of opinion, of parle3^ . . . 
 
 "I conceive it to be one of the needs of the hour to restore 
 the processes of common counsel. . . . 
 
 "We must learn, we free men, to meet as our fathers did, 
 somehow, somewhere, for consultation. . . . 
 
 "At this opening of a new age, in this its day of unrest and 
 discontent, it is our part to clear the air, to bring about common 
 counsel, to set up the parliament of the people. . . . 
 
 "What are the right methods of politics? Why, the right 
 methods are those of public discussion. . . . 
 
 "The only thing that can ever make a free country is to keep 
 a free, hopeful heart under every jacket in it. . . . 
 
 "We have been told that it is unpatriotic to criticize public 
 action. Well, if it is, there is a deep disgrace resting upon the 
 origins of this nation. This nation originated in the sharpest 
 
 63 
 
sort of criticism of public policy. We originated, to put it in 
 the vernacular, in a kick? and if it be unpatriotic to kick^ why 
 then the grown man is unlike the child. . . . 
 
 "Keep the air clear with constant discussion. . . . 
 
 "The whole purpose of democracy is that we may hold 
 counsel with one another, so as not to depend on the under- 
 standing of one man, but to depend upon the common counsel 
 of all." 
 
 JOHN STUART MILL: 
 
 "No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as 
 a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever con- 
 clusion it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one 
 who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by 
 true opinions of those who hold them only because they do not 
 suffer themselves to think. 
 
 "Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to 
 be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which 
 can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, we cannot hope 
 to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made 
 some periods of history so remarkable. Never when controversy 
 avoided the subjects which are large and important enough to 
 kindle enthusiasm, was the mind of a people stirred up from its 
 foundations, and the impulse given which raised even persons of 
 the most ordinary intellect to something of the dignity of thinking 
 beings." 
 
 "If either of two opinions has a better claim than the other, 
 not merely to be tolerated, but to be encouraged and counte- 
 nanced, it is the one which happens at the particular time and 
 place to be in a minority. That is the opinion, which, for the 
 time being, represents the neglected interests." 
 
 CHARLES BRADLAUGH : 
 
 "Without free speech no search for truth is possible ; without 
 free speech no discovery of truth is useful; without free speech 
 progress is checked and the nations no longer march forward to- 
 ward the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a 
 thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The 
 abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people and 
 entombs the hope of the race." 
 
 NORMAN ANGELL: 
 
 "Now I am suggesting here that we are drifting to a condition 
 of institutions calculated to suppress these heresies, to prevent 
 such questions as these being asked. We believe that it is per- 
 nicious that they should be asked at all, and the power of the State 
 is being used for the purpose of preventing it. What I have been 
 concerned to show is that our welfare and freedom really do de- 
 pend upon our preserving this right of the individual conscience 
 to the expression of its convictions; this right of the heretic to 
 his heresy. 
 
 69 
 
"And I base the claim here, not upon any conception of ab- 
 stract 'right' — but upon utility, our need of heresy, upon the fact 
 that if we do not preserve it, it is not alone the individual heretic 
 who will suffer, but all of us, society. By suppressing the free 
 dissemination of unpopular ideas we render ourselves incapable of 
 governing ourselves to our own advantage and we shall perpetuate 
 that condition of helplessness and slavery for the mass which all 
 our history so far has shown." 
 
 BERTRAND RUSSELL: 
 
 "Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth — ^more 
 than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revo- 
 lutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, 
 established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic 
 and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wis- 
 dom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not 
 afraid. It sees man, a feeble speck, surrounded by unfathomable 
 depths of silence; yet it bears itself proudly, as unmoved as if it 
 were lord of the universe. Thought is great and swift and free, 
 the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. 
 
 A MINOR INQUISITION 
 
 (Interviews with Hyman Herman after the Suspension of 
 Mr, Schmalhausen) 
 
 Dates of Interviews: November 13, 15, 23. (Italics 
 are ours.) 
 
 (Note: This is a faithful copy of what Hyman Her- 
 man himself noted down immediately after his several in- 
 terviews. Hyman Herman was officially a fifth term stu- 
 dent in November, 1917, and sixteen years of age.) 
 
 I 
 
 Tuesday, November 13, 1917 : 
 
 The interviewers : 
 Dr. Francis H. J. Paul, Principal 
 Mr. Oscar W. Anthony, Vice-Principal 
 Mr. Aaron I. Dotey, Special First Asst. 
 Miss O'Rourke, Dr. Paul's Clerk 
 (Taking notes) 
 * Q. You have had Mr. Lapolla twice in this school ? 
 Do you like him? 
 
 * It is well to know that at the date of interview Mr. Lapolla was a 
 member of the Flower Hospital Unit of the United States Army, having 
 voluntarily joined the colors in June, 1917. 
 
 70 
 
A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Why? 
 
 A. Because of his personality and his kindness to his 
 pupils. 
 
 Q. Aiid for nothing else ? 
 
 A. Well, he stood for liberal ideas and allowed free 
 discussion, that is, free speech in his classroom. 
 
 Q. You believe a teacher ought to alloiv free discus- 
 sion? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Even on birth control and sex problems? 
 
 A. Well, the instructor ought to judge whether his 
 pupils are mature enough to take it seriously. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by "mature enough" ? 
 
 A. He has his class for a term and by studying the 
 general character of his class for the first part of the term, 
 should be able by the latter part, to decide whether his 
 pupils are serious minded. 
 
 Q. If you were now in Poland and Poland were to 
 get its autonomy, what kind of Government would you give 
 it? 
 
 A. The kind the United States has. 
 
 Q. Why not that of Athens? 
 
 A. What might have been good then, may not be satis- 
 factory now. 
 
 Q. But. this is no answer. Tell specifically why. 
 
 A. I don't know enough of ancient history to judge. 
 
 Q. Would you make any change in this Government? 
 
 A. Yes, I would have the Cabinet elected by the peo- 
 ple, and responsible to Congress; and I would take away 
 the veto power from the President. 
 
 Q. Wouldn't that make him like George V. of Eng- 
 land? 
 
 A. Oh, he has enough power left. 
 
 (Then follow questions on the Spanish-American 
 War and personal questions which show the answerer's 
 horror of war, his desire for universal peace, and his be- 
 lief in "Humanity above all". Further questions are 
 asked on the entrance of this country into war with Ger- 
 many to which the replies are that it was justified, — 
 after much resentment on the part of Dr. Paul because 
 
 71 
 
questions were asked to be repeated, the listener having 
 failed to grasp their full significance. . . . After much 
 questioning concerning the Open Letter, it was discov- 
 ered that the culprit after having taken up German His- 
 tory, had changed his mind on finding out the complete 
 autocracy existing in Germany.) 
 
 Q. Who is your history teacher? 
 
 * A. Mr. Delaney. 
 
 * Mr. Delaney, having voluntarily come to the "trial'' of the three 
 teachers to testify that he had not personally played any part in Herman's 
 conversion, v^as unfortunately not called to the witness stand by the 
 defense because of lack of time. 
 
 Q. So Mr. Delaney made you change your mind? 
 
 A. No; hut "Robinson and Beard" did. (Authors of 
 the famous High School text book in history.) 
 
 Q. Did you always write compositions along this line? 
 
 A. Yes; during my tvhole career in High School. 
 
 Q. Any in Mr. Schmalhausen's class? 
 
 A. No. I came in late into the class and the tvork was 
 
 chiefly on the text books. 
 
 Q. What periodicals do you read? 
 
 A. Leslie's and Collier's. 
 
 Q. What newspapers? 
 
 A. The "Evening Mail" and "The Evening World." 
 
 Q. No other paper? 
 
 A. Very infrequently I read "The Call." 
 
 Q. You don't buy it? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. What books do you read ? 
 
 A. Books by Tolstoi, London, Schopenauer, and Berg- 
 son. I also enjoy novels. 
 
 Q. Did you read any books by Richard Harding 
 Davis ? 
 
 A. Only one. 
 
 Q. Any by Cooper? 
 
 A. Many. 
 
 Q. Do you belong to any athletic organization? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. You attend public meetings or debates ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 72 
 
Then follows a lecture on the necessity of phy- 
 sical exercise to relieve the brain and a statement 
 of suspension until father is brought.) 
 (Finis) 
 
 II 
 
 Thursday, November 15, 1917. 
 
 Interviewers : 
 
 Same as above plus student's father. 
 (Slow reading of the Open Letter to the Presi- 
 dent and careful questioning of parent's patriot- 
 ism. The father proved undeniably his loyalty and 
 on being asked what he vv^ould do were a private 
 instructor to cause such a letter to he luritten, an- 
 swered that he would discharge the teacher.) 
 * Q. Didn't you say that you didn't write such a letter 
 in Mr. Loughran's class because you did not know what he 
 liked? 
 
 A. / don't remember having said a?iything of the sort; 
 besides, I didn't have a chance to write such a composition 
 because this country was not yet in war and the matter 
 taken up was purely compository and topics of the day (ex- 
 cluding the war) . 
 
 Q. Who told you Siam was an autocracy? 
 A. Mr. Delaney. 
 
 Q. Doesn't that change the slogan of "War for De- 
 mocracy?" 
 
 A. Siam is too small to be regarded. 
 Q. But even then (October 22nd), prior to your 
 change in opinion, you admitted Germany was an autoc- 
 racy. 
 
 A. At the time, I wanted to satisfy those who were 
 clamoring that ; and at the same time show Siam was more 
 of an autocracy — in fact the only complete autocracy. 
 
 Q. What happened after Miss Garrigues went out? 
 Was there any protest? 
 
 A. There was a note of protest. 
 Q. By a majority? 
 
 * Please notice the brutal insinuation cunningly injected into this 
 malicious query. 
 
 73 
 
A. No ; but a strong minority. 
 
 Q. What did they say? 
 
 A. They remarked that it was improper conduct on 
 the part of an educated woman. 
 
 Q. Nothing else said by the blatant minority? 
 
 A. I was too busy thinking about my letter, since Miss 
 Garrigues had threatened to publish them in "The Times," 
 to hear. 
 
 Q. So you were afraid to have your letter printed ? 
 
 A. No ; but I wondered how it would be received and 
 how it would look in the papers. 
 
 Q. What did Mr. ScJunalhausen say? 
 
 A. He quickly quieted the class and proceeded to the 
 regular work. 
 
 Q. Who were loudest in their remarks? 
 
 A. Being taken up with my letter, I didn't observe. 
 
 (Some more questions and a decree of indefin- 
 ite suspension.) 
 
 (Finis) 
 
 III 
 
 Thursday, November 23, 1917. 
 Place: Board of Education; Room 515. 
 Interviewers : 
 
 Dr. Tildsley 
 Mr. Pitts 
 
 Several Superintendents 
 (To the questions asked as to the tone of dis- 
 respect, the replies were that it was of the writer's 
 own volition ; he wished to be disrespectful and 
 tried his best to be so. He was disrespectful be- 
 cause he had lost respect for one whom he thought 
 not to have given humanity its due respects.) 
 Q. Who are you to judge? 
 
 A. Any official, no matter how high, is mortal and is 
 susceptible to criticism, I being one of the judges, as every 
 human being is. 
 
 Q. If Mr. Wilson were to step into this room, would 
 you show any respect ? 
 
 74 
 
A. Not if I felt as I have done prior to October 22nd. 
 I'd only extend to him mere courtesy, having merited noth- 
 ing else. 
 
 Q. Would you lose respect for Dr. Paul because he 
 hurt you in urging the Long-Hour Day? 
 
 A. I am not considering minor details. A Federal 
 Official loses my respect if he fails to respect the sacred 
 rights of humanity. 
 
 Q. What books, papers and periodicals have you read ? 
 
 Note: Same questions and answers as above, includ- 
 ing Cooper and Davis. 
 
 (General Discussion about the Draft Law.) 
 
 Q. Did you copy any author in your style of writing. 
 
 A. / used my oiun ideas. 
 
 Q. Do you speak Yiddish? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you contribute to the English or the Yiddish 
 papers ? 
 
 A. No, never. 
 
 Q. What is the Yiddish term for "Your Excellency"? 
 
 A. "Eyer Excellentz". 
 
 (Discussions on Schopenauer follow.) 
 
 Q. Where did you get your idea of "We are dust" ? 
 
 A. From the Latin : "Pulvis es et in pulverem rever- 
 teris". Besides, it is generally accepted as such. 
 
 Q. Schopenauer does not use that style ? 
 
 A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. Do you attend any debates, public meetings or so- 
 cialist gatherings? 
 
 A. No; in fact, I am a strong Republican and spoke 
 for Hughes during the 1916 campaign. 
 
 Q. Were you recognized by The Republican Party? 
 
 A. No ; I was merely a soap-box orator and spoke on 
 the East Side. 
 
 Q. What did you read in Bergson? 
 
 A. Only a book on "Dreams." 
 
 Q. Did any one tell you to read the book? 
 
 A. (After much hesitation) Yes; Mr. Henry A. 
 Schneer. 
 
 Q. Why did he tell you to read the book ? 
 
 A. We had a "Dramatic Circle" which met once a 
 
 75 
 
week before school and discussed modern humor, verse, lit- 
 erature, etc. 
 
 Q. What was the first book ? 
 A. "Spoon River Anthology." 
 
 Q. Did you pick the book or did he give you cards con- 
 taing the nam.e? 
 
 A. Mr. Schneer gave us cards; but he gave us no 
 books on "Sociology." 
 
 Q. Who were some more authors? 
 A. Leacock and a few others. 
 
 (More questions of all kinds from about 9:30 
 to 1 :30 ; finally three attempts at writing a note 
 expressing regret for the disgrace DeWitt Clinton 
 was suffering. Three attempts brought dissatis- 
 faction and it was arranged that the note should 
 be brought the next day, and if satisfactory, would 
 re-admit him to school. He was also told to be 
 present at three o'clock in Room 704. (Time and 
 place of "trial".) However, the note was not 
 enough and after it had been brought, he was asked 
 to read it before the Assembly.) 
 
 (Note: Finally, Hyman Herman was transferred to 
 the Morris High School.) 
 
 Dr. Tildsley's Method of Handling the Herman Case 
 Testimony, Page 71 : 
 
 "I have read these comments very carefully three or four 
 times on that letter, and in my judgment there is no condemna- 
 tion of the writer of this letter as having done a seditious, im- 
 moral act. . . . The criticism is for the most part a technical 
 criticism. In my judgment, a letter of that kind should not 
 have been criticized in detail at all. The teacher could have 
 seen at the first glance the spirit of the boy and attitude of the 
 boy, and should have refused to accept such a letter at all, and 
 should have simply written on it a general criticism that this 
 letter shows an absolutely wrong attitude on the part of the 
 boy, that it is essentially seditious and immoral, and then he 
 should have called the boy into his presence and explained that 
 to him and convinced him of that fact." 
 
 This delightful bit of hindsight comes too late to be 
 anything more than a pointed commentary upon the lack of 
 intellectual sincerity which characterizes its author through- 
 out. It may be pertinent to ask whether a difference m 
 judgment (between a "superior" official and an "inferior") 
 is sufficient basis either in ethics or in law to warrant the 
 
 76 
 
dismissal of said inferior. The inaccurate reference to 
 Herman's letter as being "seditious" and "immoral" carries 
 its own obvious refutation. No honest expression of belief 
 or opinion, — no matter how disrespectful or inadequate, — 
 can be truthfully characterized as "immoral". Both ethics 
 and law emphasize intention as the chief determinant of the 
 morality or immorality of an act. If Herman's youthful 
 letter of denunciation is to be characterized as "immoral," 
 what fitting language of reprobation shall we choose for the 
 infinitely numerous, denunciatory criticisms of governmetn- 
 al officials by public citizens since "Government by the peo- 
 ple" has been the accepted polity. Dr. Tildsley (who is not 
 a master of style nor a professor of English) naturally con- 
 fused two words : "disrespectful" and "immoral". He chose 
 the latter word partly because of the necessity for appearing 
 emotionally indignant, and partly because his so-called 
 moral code lacks discriminatory values. His reference to 
 Mr, Schmalhausen's incisive intellectual and moral criti- 
 cisms of the Herman Letter as representing "for the most 
 part a technical criticism" is a clear violation of the truth 
 in the case. It may not be sufficient to quote the distin- 
 guished and impartial authority of Professors Dewey and 
 Montague, (both acute psychologists) to convince the hos- 
 tile critic of the utter sufficiency, under the given conditions, 
 of the criticisms made, not in the presence of the offending 
 pupil, not in the presence of the whole class, but merely in 
 the formal and private presence of Dr. Tildsley and Dr. 
 Paul. The best and most conclusive evidence of the ade- 
 quacy and pointedness of the criticisms of Herman's letter 
 is obtained hy a careful and fair-minded reading of the 
 criticisms themselves. Dr. Tildsley repeats again and again 
 that in his judgment, the method of criticism should have 
 been so and so. Well, suppose that he has a method of 
 criticism which he considers to be indisputably superior to 
 that of a given teacher. What's the inference? It's all the 
 more amazing to learn that the possessor of so marvelous a 
 critical method did absolutely nothing to persuade either 
 the offending pupil or the accused teacher of the high valid- 
 ity of that method. One can't escape the conclusion that 
 Dr. Tildsley's self-sufficient attitude was the pure invention 
 of a point of view that sounded eloquent at the "trial". His 
 method in short, was a bold piece of mere guess-work. As 
 
 77 
 
to his charming suggestion that the teacher "should have 
 refused to accept such a letter at all", one fairly gasps at 
 the brazen audacity that encouraged its utterance. How 
 could the teacher have refused a letter which was collected 
 by the head of the English Department two weeks before 
 the existence of the letter was even made known to the 
 teacher? The Associate Superintendent finally achieved a 
 climax of unsurpassable audacity when he gave it as his 
 opinion on the witness stand that the teacher "should have 
 called the boy into his presence" and explained that to him 
 and convinced him of that fact (namely, the seditious and 
 immoral nature of his composition) ". The grotesque irrel- 
 evance, not to say downright impudence, of this suggestion 
 is clearly revealed when it is remembered (as Dr. Paul him- 
 self admits) that the teacher was suspended before he was 
 afforded any opportunity whatsoever to talk the matter over 
 with his pupil. The object of this speedy suspension, thus 
 preventing a friendly interview of understanding between 
 teacher and pupil, was made perfectly clear by the several 
 attempts of officials at DeWitt Clinton High and the Board 
 of Education, on the inspiration of Dr. Tildsley, Dr. Paul 
 and Mr. Dotey, to bulldoze Herman into making untruthful 
 and damaging statements concerning his teacher. (Re-read 
 carefully the remarkable summary of Herman's interviews.) 
 
 Dr. Tildsley' s Educational Theory concerning Pupil Error 
 (Case of the Herman Letter) 
 (Dr. Tildsley on the stand) 
 Testimony, Page 84 : 
 
 Q. Do you not think that growing youths learn more 
 from having errors pointed out, than from going along 
 where there is no chance for their errors to become mani- 
 fest? 
 
 A. (Dr. Tildsley) I do not. 
 Testimony, Page 86 : 
 
 Q. How .could you better criticise a boy than by giv- 
 ing him a chance to show what erroneous ideas he has and 
 then correct them? 
 
 A. I could get at his erroneous ideas in other ways 
 than by that particular assignment. There are some as- 
 signments in the world that are not proper for a classroom 
 in a public school, and this is one of them. 
 
 78 
 
Q. That is to say, that you think it is unsafe for De 
 Witt Clinton High School children to frankly comment upon 
 the attitude of the President of the United States in con- 
 ducting the war against Germany? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Although the answers to such assignment in the 
 great majority of cases, according to Miss Garrigue's testi- 
 mony, are to bring out patriotic essays from the students? 
 
 A. Yes, sir, I still fnaintaiyi that. 
 
 Q. You still maintain that? 
 
 A. I do. 
 Testimony, Page 88 : 
 
 Q. Do you believe that it is right to let boys of this 
 age in the DeWitt Clinton High School write the negative 
 on this topic: "We seek no selfish ends in this world"? 
 
 A. / ivould not give that topic to the boys of DeWitt 
 Clintoyi High School in war times. 
 
 Q. Would you consider it proper to allow students to 
 write an essay on the negative of this proposition: "Con- 
 scription is justifiable under a Democracy"? 
 
 A. Not luhen conscription had been adopted by the 
 Government as its policy. I woidd not allow the boys to 
 ivrite a7i essay on that subject in the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School. 
 
 Q. Would you think that it was proper to permit boys 
 of this High School to write an essay on the subject of 
 "Revenue by bond issue or taxation"? 
 
 A, Not during the sale of bonds. 
 
 Q. Did you know that those things that I have called 
 your attention to were in the examination papers of the 
 DeWitt Clinton High School given last week? (November 
 27, 1917.) 
 
 A. / am not responsible for those papers. 
 
 Testimony of Miss Garrigues in relation to the Assignment. 
 Volume of Testimony, Page 27 : 
 
 Q. The assignment as worded, did it really, in your 
 opinion, call out anything more than such a discussion as 
 we see every day in the various patriotic newspapers? 
 
 A. If you put it that way ; no. 
 
 Q. Exactly the same, is it not? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 79 
 
Q. And I suppose that you sometimes have commented 
 frankly on the conduct of the war by the President? 
 Mr. Mayer (Counsel for Prosecution, inter- 
 rupting) : I object to that as immaterial and ir- 
 relevant. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: That is cross-examina- 
 tion. All right. 
 
 Q. Have you not, Miss Garrigues? 
 A. Well, I feel at liberty to. 
 Testimony, Page 28 : 
 
 Q. Certainly. And do you not bear in mind as a 
 teacher that it is such a subject which, through attrition of 
 ideas, really bears fruit in getting some valuable principles 
 forward which it is worth while for the community in gen- 
 eral to think about and still be patriotic ? 
 
 A. This particular question. I do not know that I 
 can say that I feel that way about it. It was the wording 
 that troubled me, not the question. It was the wording of 
 the question. 
 
 N. B. — Dr. Tildsley, on the other hand, op- 
 posed the question utterly. Whose judgment 
 counts ? 
 
 Q. Have I not correctly stated the way the question 
 was worded, "Write an open letter to the President and 
 comment frankly upon his conduct of the war against the 
 German Government"? 
 
 A. The wording of the question I do not like. 
 Q. And at any rate you have nothing to criticise from 
 your own point of view, have you, that frank comment is 
 the perfectly legitimate and proper thing for patriotic citi- 
 zens whether they are old or young to indulge in ; is not that 
 so? 
 
 A. I would not answer that question yes or no. 
 Q. Let us look at it from another point of view. 
 Would you consider comment upon the conduct of the ivar 
 bij the President ivhich was not frank a proper ivay to dis- 
 cuss it? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Therefore, the element of frankness is essential to 
 any discussion which is tvorth the ivhole? Is not that so? 
 
 A. I suppose so. 
 Testimony, Page 29 : 
 
 80 
 
Is your trouble not perhaps that you have confused the 
 word "comment" with the word "criticised"? 
 
 A. Possibly. 
 
 Q. There surely can be nothing wrong in making com- 
 ments on this subject so long as they are patriotic, can 
 there be ? 
 
 A. / believe in debate in the classroom on all current 
 topics. 
 
 Q. This was a current topic ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 Testimony, Page 30 : 
 
 Q. Now, that you are viewing the subject in the light 
 of your cross examination, do you not think that perhaps 
 after all this was a perfectly legitimate subject to ask for 
 frank comment in the sense of fair comment, on the subject 
 which was of universal interest, and should be of interest 
 to children as well as adults? 
 
 A. They are not children. They are about seventeen 
 years. 
 
 Q. So much the better. Young men of such mature 
 age? 
 
 A. Of course I think that cnticism that comes out in 
 the class is good, because it can be counteracted, but I do not 
 feel that there was sufficient counteraction from the boys 
 themselves. Whether there would have been if the recita- 
 tion had been continued to the proper end, I do not know. 
 (Our italics.) '^h W] 
 
 N. B. — The reader must remember that at the 
 
 recitation in question time permitted only four 
 
 pupils to recite in class. 
 
 THE CASE OF A. HENRY SCHNEER 
 
 Item la. The Schoolmasters say that Mr. Schneer said 
 that "Patriotism should not be discussed in the DeWitt 
 Clinton High School ;" that he "does not believe in teaching 
 patriotism." (Dr. Tildsley, P. 200, Dr. Paul, P. 215.) 
 
 Our Answer. The truth in the case is abundantly re- 
 vealed in the following evidence quoted from the volume of 
 the Testimony, P. 252 and 253 : 
 
 (Mr. Mayer, counsel for prosecution, cross-ex- 
 amining Mr. Schneer) : 
 
 81 
 
Q. Would you teach a boy, unqualifiedly, that one of 
 his first duties, as a law-abiding citizen, is patriotism. 
 
 A. Unqualifiedly and emphatically. 
 
 Q. Now, what do you mean by patriotism? 
 
 A. Patriotism to me means Americanism. American- 
 ism to me means democracy. Democracy to me means civic 
 service, therefore, patriotism finally means to me service 
 to the community. 
 
 Q. Service to the community? 
 
 A. Always to the community. 
 
 Q. Does it mean service to the constituted authority? 
 
 A. Always as a part of the community, we must obey 
 the laws laid down by constituted authorities. 
 
 Q. In time of war? 
 
 A. Yes, at all times. 
 
 On page 210 of the Testimony, Dr. Tildsley, 
 
 under cross-examination by Mr. Smyth, admits 
 
 that Mr. Schneer agreed with his definition of pa- 
 triotism. 
 
 Q. Didn't he agree with your definition of patriotism? 
 
 A. I think he accepted my definition of patriotism; 
 yes, sir. 
 
 lb. The Schoolmasters say (Pamphlet, P. 24) that 
 Mr. Schneer "would not allow a person in a khaki uniform 
 to appear on the platform of the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School and speak to the students." 
 
 "Later on, he said that if a person wearing a khaki 
 uniform was allowed to speak, he would insist that a per- 
 son who would present the opposite side be allowed to speak 
 at the same time." (T. 21, T. 15, Anthony, 221.) So the 
 Schoolmasters' Committee asserts. What is the truth ? Mr. 
 Schneer actually said that he would permit both a soldier 
 and a civilian to address the student body on the various 
 phases of service to the government in time of war, both 
 military and non-military, specifically mentioning Walter 
 Lippman as a proper speaker on the latter phase of serv- 
 ice. As Dr. Tildsley himself testified (P. 211 of Testi- 
 mony) : "He certainly did allude to Walter Lippman, and 
 say that, in fairness to the boy, those who did not have the 
 uniform as well as those who did have a uniform should 
 be entitled to speak." 
 
 82 
 
I 
 
 Ic. The Schoolmasters asse^'t (Pamphlet, P. 24) that 
 Mr. Schneer "does not believe th^t the Board of Education 
 has any right to have military training in the schools" (T. 
 201, P. 215). What Mr. Schneer actually did say is that 
 military training should not be introduced in the schools. 
 The testimony speaks for itself. On P. 211 of the testimony. 
 Dr. Tildsley says : "I made a statement that I believed the 
 best authorities were agreed that military training for boys 
 was not a desirable thing; that is, for the purpose of pro- 
 ducing soldiers." And again on P. 215, Dr. Paul had to 
 admit the whole truth. 
 
 Q. Then it was all a question of a policy which had 
 not even reached a nebulous form, was it not? 
 
 A. (Dr. Paul) It was a question of a policy which 
 had not yet come up before the Board . 
 
 The attitude of the Board itself has always been op- 
 posed to the introduction of militarism as is shown by the 
 following statute : 
 No. 713. Laws of 1910 : 
 
 "Nothing herein contained indirectly shall be construed 
 to authorize military training or drill in the public schools 
 during school hours." 
 
 d. "He wrote, in or about the year 1917, a bibliog- 
 raphy of contemporary literature, copies of which he caused 
 to be placed on sale in the store of the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School, which contained references to works which should 
 not have been called to the attention of the students of that 
 school." 
 
 Note: This pamphlet ("A Brief Guide to Contempo- 
 rary Literature") contains, in the words of Mr. Schneer, 
 "a booklover's humble choice of the 'best' that is being 
 thought and said in contemporary letters — in Fiction, 
 Poetry, Social Theory, Science and Philosophy." (Pamphlet, 
 P. 2.) 
 
 The committee fails to state directly their objections 
 to the Bibliography, which is a small pamphlet of twenty 
 pages, containing a list of the standard books of our time. 
 Of the 200 books listed in the pamphlet, the committee se- 
 lects but ten or so as being "unsuitable" for the students of 
 the DeWitt Clinton High School. On what grounds? They 
 do not say, definitely. We are asked to judge for ourselves 
 the nature of their objection and to this effect they enum- 
 
 83 
 
erate a few titles and sub-titles which they themselves have 
 chosen from the pamphlet* Before taking up in detail the 
 nature of the books objected to, we wish to remind the com- 
 mittee that the Schneer pamphlet IN NO WAY features one 
 type of book to the exclusion of others. So that the prin- 
 ciple of selection is distinctly that of the committee's. Mod- 
 ern psychology teaches that books in themselves cannot be 
 objectionable; it is rather the subjective state of the con- 
 temj^lative mind that determines the objection. As the say- 
 ing goes, "To the pure, all is pure." We take it then that 
 only 5 percent of the entire pamphlet is objectionable to 
 the committee, whatever their objection may be. 
 
 It will surprise the reader to find that all the books 
 objected to (and all the books in the pamphlet) are none 
 other than the great masterpieces of contemporary litera- 
 ture and may be found in the Public Library. In fact, most 
 of them are ON THE OPEN SHELVES of the circulation 
 department. 
 
 We submit herewith a partial list of the contents of the 
 pamphlet including all the books objected to. The latter 
 are printed in italics. 
 
 Partial List of Books in the Pamphlet 
 
 Non-Fiction 
 
 Philosophy 
 Bergson : Creative Evoliilion 
 James: The Meaning of Truth 
 Dewey: Creative Intelligence 
 
 Biography 
 Mill : Autobiography 
 Kropotkin : Memoirs of a Revo- 
 lutionist 
 'Renan : Life of Christ 
 
 Essay and Criticism 
 Ellis: The New Spirit 
 Ilamerton : Intellectual Life 
 Huneker: Egoists 
 Bergson : Laughter 
 Key (Ellen) : Love and Mar- 
 riage 
 
 Social Theory 
 
 Addams : A New Conscience 
 and an Ancient Evil 
 
 Hillquit : Socialism 
 
 Dewey : Democracy and Educa- 
 tion 
 
 Eltzhacher: Anarchism 
 Science 
 
 Crile : Man — an Adaptive Mech- 
 anism 
 
 Ellis: Psychology of Sex 
 
 Metchnikoff: Prolongation of 
 Life 
 
 Freud : Interpretation of Dreams 
 Drama 
 
 Galsworthy : Justice 
 
 Shaw : Man and Superman 
 
 Rostand : Cyrano de Bergerac 
 
 Brieux : Three Plays 
 
 Barrie : Half Hours 
 
 Moody: The Great Divide 
 
 84 
 
Fiction 
 
 Note: Those contain subheadings, originated by the 
 
 defendant (sub-titles) 
 
 Rolland: Jean Christophe 
 
 Arias of a vibrant soul. 
 Bennett : Hilda Lessways 
 
 Drabs of the daily grind. 
 Dostoievsky: Crime and Punish- 
 ment. 
 
 The weird wraiths of the 
 
 soul. 
 
 Sorrows of the Willows ol 
 
 the World. 
 Arizihasheff : Sanine. 
 
 The wilder fires of sex. 
 London: The Call of the Wild. 
 
 The grim rhythms of the 
 
 primitive. 
 France: The Red Lily 
 
 With the wine of its crim- 
 son petals. 
 Flaubert: Madame Bovary 
 
 The clouded crysals of love. 
 
 Violets of tenderness. 
 Loti: Iceland Fisherman 
 
 Violets of tenderness. 
 Andreyev: The Seven Wlio 
 
 Were Hanged. 
 
 The wailing chasms of the 
 
 Butler: The Way of All Flesh 
 The clattering of ikons. 
 
 Conrad: Under Western Eyes 
 The deep abysses of the soul. 
 
 Hardy: Tess of the D'Urber- 
 villes 
 The fugues of sylvan harpsi- 
 chords. 
 
 Moore: Esther Waters 
 Ebbtides of the lowly. 
 
 Sudermann: The Song of Songs 
 The cold grays of lovelight. 
 
 Sinclair: The Divine Fire 
 
 Warm with struggling man- 
 hood. 
 
 Tolstoy: Krcutser Sonata 
 Shadowed Strains of Love. 
 
 Turgeneff: Virgin Soil 
 
 Deeper harmonies of the 
 heart. 
 
 Dreiser: The Genius 
 
 The hidden springs of Sex 
 and Desire. 
 
 Galsworthy: The Dark Flower 
 With a cold fragrance of 
 petals. 
 
 world. 
 
 The reader will notice the great difficulty the commit- 
 tee must have been laboring under. Scientifically speaking, 
 there seems to be no principle of selection whatsoever. For 
 if they object to Tolstoy, why not to Gorky; if they object 
 to Flaubert, why not to Hardy ; if they object to Sudermann, 
 why not to Moore— the books are all of the same type. In 
 fact, Hardy's "Tess" has been the topic of heated discus- 
 sion' by literary critics. We notice they object to Ellis, but 
 not to Jung (!) or Freud ( !) whose work in Psycho-Analy- 
 sis is but the experimental background of the psychologic 
 theory. We notice they object to Eltzbacher, but not to 
 
 Kropotkin. 
 
 Some solution to this puzzle may be forthcommg m 
 the theory that the committee is not acquainted with Hardy 
 or Gorky or Jung. If so, what sense of selection, what 
 sense of comparative values can the committee have, in con- 
 
 85 
 
demning the pamphlet? Should not the defendant who is 
 familiar with all the books at first hand, (shouldn't he) be 
 given the benefit of the doubt? 
 
 Perhaps, the committee objects to the books on the 
 basis of their sub-titles, arguing that they are of an erotic 
 nature. Let us see : 
 
 Jean Christophe is characterized as "arias of a vibrant 
 soul." Is it the "vibrant" they object to or the "soul"? 
 
 The Divine Fire is characterized as "warm with strug- 
 gling manhood." Is it the "warm" or the "struggling man- 
 hood" to which they object? 
 
 The Iceland Fisherman is characterized as "violets of 
 tenderness." Is it "tenderness" to which they object, or 
 the "violets" (!) 
 
 And so we can go through the entire list, selecting such 
 erotic ( !) words as "sex," "love," "desire," "lovelight," etc. 
 Put in this way, the objection to the pamphlet assumes a 
 rather ludicrous character. It cannot be that the commit- 
 tee objects to "love" as such, for they would then have to 
 condemn half the poems studied at the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School. For example, the words, "love," "kisses," etc., ap- 
 pear throughout the pages of Palgrave's Golden Treasury, 
 a book used in the English classes ! 
 For example : 
 
 "The sunlight clasps the earth, 
 
 And the moonbeams kiss the sea. 
 What are all thy kisses worth. 
 
 If thou kiss not me?" (P. 216.) 
 Again, 
 
 "Oh lift me from the grass 
 I die! I faint! I fail! 
 Let thy love and kisses rain 
 
 On my lips and eyelids pale. 
 My cheeks are cold and white, alas ! 
 
 My heart beats loud and fast 
 Oh press it to thhie otvn again, 
 
 Where it will break at last." (P. 205.) 
 Again, 
 
 "She took me to her elfin grot 
 
 And there she wept and sighed full sore 
 And there I shut her ivild lOild eyes 
 With kisses .four." (P. 224.) 
 
 86 
 
"Take, oh take those lips aivay 
 
 That so sweetly were forsworn, 
 But my kisses bring again 
 
 Bring again. 
 Seals of love, but sealed in vain 
 
 Sealed in vain!" (P. 29.) 
 
 In view of the above, it would be just as absurd to dis- 
 miss Miss Garrigues as head of the Department for pre- 
 scribing such books to her English classes. It would be 
 just as absurd to dismiss the faculty adviser of the school- 
 store who, a few terms ago, sold to every English class a 
 volume of Shakespeare containing the celebrated erotic 
 poem of "Venus and Adonis" and "The Passionate Pilgrim." 
 Modesty forbids us to quote therefrom. 
 
 It cannot be, then, that the subtitles of the pamphlet 
 are objectionable per se. For there are many books con- 
 taining no sub-titles whatsoever, as for example, Dewey's 
 Democracy and Education, Eltzbacher's Anarchism, the 
 books on Drama, Science, Philosophy. Then again, we have 
 the baffling case of the two books possessing the same sub- 
 title (The Genius and Sister Carrie) only one of which the 
 committee finds objectionable. 
 
 The only possible theory left is that the committee ob- 
 jects to the character of the books themselves, to the effect 
 that they are "works which should not be called to the at- 
 tention of the students at the DeWitt Clinton High School." 
 
 Assuming that the committee is at least familiar %vith 
 the books they object to, we take it that the objection is on 
 the grounds of "impropriety" or "unsuitability" — terms 
 which probably connote to the committee a type of book 
 which may lead the innocent student astray or on the down- 
 ward 'path of life. If this be so, we are glad to remind 
 them that America's foremost critics — men like Henry 
 James, William Lyon Phelps, Bliss Perry, appraise these 
 very books as being "condemnatory of vice and immorality." 
 In one instance the Catholic World speaks of the book ("The 
 Divine Fire") as being, ethically, "one of the noblest, most 
 inspiring of books." A few of them are required reading 
 at our colleges and universities! (The Iceland Fisherman, 
 Madame Bovary, Jean Christophe.) 
 
 87 
 
All are recognized as masterpieces in their own genre. 
 
 The Schoolmasters' report distinctly states (P. 33) 
 that "Mr. Schneer's defenders either are ignorant of the 
 character of these books or are lost to all sense of shame." 
 Is Henry James "ignorant of the character of these books"? 
 When he calls one of the books "one of the glories of lit- 
 erature" or speaks of it as an "inimitable book" is he "lost 
 to all sense of shame"? What can the committee say of 
 the "Catholic World" — or the "Boston Transcript" or of 
 Huneker or Bennett or Cannan ? 
 
 If such is the laudatory spirit of literary criticism, we 
 must condemn the committee as being out of tune with the 
 modern spirit in literature or maliciously hypocritical 
 in their prurient attitude toward the greatest classics of 
 the day. 
 
 The Character of the Books Objected To: 
 
 What the Committee Says: 
 
 "Either the defenders of Mr. 
 Schneer are ignorant of the char- 
 acter of these books or else they 
 are lost to all sense of shame." 
 (Page 33) 
 
 (Shelf Mark) 
 1. Jean Christophe 2-R 
 
 by Rolland 
 
 Madame Bovary 2-F 
 
 by Flaubert 
 
 The Divine Fire 2-S 
 
 by May Sinclair 
 
 Sanine QDM 
 
 by Artzibasheff 
 
 What Literary Critics Say : 
 
 Gilbert Cannan says : 
 
 "It is the first great book of 
 the Twentieth Century.'' 
 (Translator's Preface, Holt Edi- 
 tion) 
 Henry James says : 
 
 "It is Flaubert's best. It is 
 an inimitable work — it is one of 
 the glories of French literature." 
 (French Poets and Novelists, 
 P. 201) 
 The Catholic World says : 
 
 "A keen understanding, an 
 ethical interpretation and a lyric 
 style have combined to produce 
 one of the noblest, most inspir- 
 ing books." (April, 1905) 
 The Boston Transcript says : 
 
 "It is a work of genius — it is 
 of a magic, imperishable flavor." 
 (Oct. 30, 1915) 
 James Huneker says : 
 
 "With few exceptions, most lat- 
 
 88 
 
The Iceland Fisherman 
 by Loti 
 
 The Genius 
 
 by Dreiser 
 
 Song of Songs 
 
 by Sudermann 
 
 Kreutzer Sonata 
 by Tolstoy 
 
 Britanny." 
 Novelists, 
 
 fore- 
 
 ter-day fiction is thin, pampering, 
 artificial, compared with this au- 
 thor's red-blooded genius." (Uni- 
 corns, P. 45-47) 
 2-L Henry James says : 
 
 "It is a prose epic of the sea. 
 There is always a charming pity 
 and a kind of filial passion in his 
 phrase when it rests upon the 
 people and things of his wind- 
 swept, wave-washed 
 (Stephens: French 
 P. 312) 
 fi. The Genius NBO Arnold Bennett says : 
 
 "Dreiser is America's 
 most novelist." 
 3-S William Lyon Phelps says: 
 
 "We are absorbed by the con- 
 templation of so masterly a 
 piece of mental analysis." (Mod- 
 ern Novelists, P. 156) 
 2-T William Lyon Phelps says : 
 
 "It is a masterpiece. It con- 
 demns vice and immorality on 
 every page." (Russian Novelists, 
 P. 209) 
 
 We wish to call special attention to the next book ob- 
 jected to. We think that it deserves a special paragraph 
 for itself, for in no uncertain terms it verifies unspeakable 
 maliciousness behind the whole procedure. In its silent 
 way, it condemns the members of the committee as being 
 dishonest in their intent, desperate in their revengefulness 
 and brutal in their shamelessness. It is nothing but a high- 
 handed attempt to pervert the facts in the case. 
 
 The committee condemns Eltzbacher's "Anarchism" as 
 being "improper", presumably on sex grounds, and we dare 
 say that there are some readers who do not see through 
 the committee's trick. But what is the truth in the matter? 
 Will it startle the committee to learn that this book HAS 
 NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SEX ! ! ! It is 
 merely a thesis oh anarchism and its relation to the theories 
 of government. Will it further startle the committee's 
 shamefacedness in learning that the author himself is not 
 an anarchist ! And finally, that the book is AGAINST an- 
 archism?! ! 
 
 What can the reader think of a committee that prates 
 
 89 
 
of respectability and shame and propriety when they them- 
 selves are guilty of being dishonest and dishonorable? Is 
 this the kind of criticism based on a knowledge of the "char- 
 acter of the books"? Is this the kind of evidence offered in 
 support of the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher"? 
 
 The next book (and the last) is also a witness of jus- 
 tice and speaks rather loudly of the true motives behind 
 the report of the Schoolmasters' Association. They con- 
 demn Mr. Schneer and his defenders in no uncertain man- 
 ner for having listed as one of the books under "Science" 
 the celebrated work of Havelock Ellis, the original author- 
 ity on "The Psychology of Sex." The objection cannot be 
 against sex as such, for the high school syllabus in Biology 
 (P. 8, April, 1917), requires of all teachers of First Yea?' 
 biology the presentation of sex-principles, animal and hu- 
 man. So that the objection is based against Ellis's presen- 
 tation of the subject. And yet, strange to say. Hall's "Ado- 
 lescence", a book almost identical in method, almost identi- 
 cal in treatment, is to be found in the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School Library, in full view of the students of the school 
 Is Mr. Schneer to be dismissed for merely listing Ellis as 
 one of the 200 authors in the pamphlet, without any special 
 sign to distinguish it from the others? By the same logic, 
 are the Schoolmasters going to dismiss Dr. Paul for "con- 
 duct unbecoming a principal"? Consider the sub-title of 
 the Hall book : 
 
 ADOLESCENCE 
 
 ITS PSYCHOLOGY AND ITS RELATION TO 
 SEx, CRIME, ETC. 
 
 We recommend to Dr. Paul for immediate perusal the 
 chapters on "Sexual Development" (VI) and "Adolescent 
 Love" (IX) and the frequent citations from the works of 
 Ellis (278, 451, 470, 471, 480, 481, 491, 500, 501, 110, 116, 
 119, 139, 141). 
 
 To keep such a book in the library before the very same 
 students whom the committee would forbid to read "Jean 
 Christophe" and "The Iceland P^isherman" or any other of 
 the books mentioned above is but another evidence of Dr. 
 Paul's desire to "get" the defendant as one of the Council 
 leaders in its fight for democracy — it has no other meaning. 
 
 90 
 
We have seen that the objection to the pamphlet can- 
 not be to the sub-titles as such or to the books as such. It 
 remains to be seen whether Mr. Schneer should be dis- 
 missed for "recommending" these books to the students of 
 DeWitt Clinton. In other words, the books may be proper 
 for adults but not for boys. If this be the argument, we 
 must remind the committee that there are boys and boys, 
 and that there are books and books. The reading pro- 
 gramme of a boy like Sidis, or a page from the early boy- 
 hood of John Stuart Mill, would humiliate many an adult. 
 At the age of ten, the former was studying Calculus; at 
 the age of ten, the latter was reading Cicero, Virgil and 
 Herodotus. We ourselves know a boy at DeWitt Clinton 
 who was an expert in logarithms at the age of seven. So 
 that the problem is one of intellectual maturity rather than 
 that of moral waywardness. The student at DeWitt Clin- 
 ton (between the ages of 14 and 19) is not a "boy" in the 
 current sense of the term. While not comparable to gen- 
 iuses like Sidis and Mill, we are certain that the DeWitt 
 Clinton boy's mind is typical of an unusual intellectual ma- 
 turity. Their reading, their thinking, their discussion, their 
 reactions — all attest to a distinctively "mature" type of high 
 school student. Many of them reach college at sixteen and 
 seventeen. Some have graduated from college at nineteen 
 or twenty. Judging from the nature of the English assign- 
 ments at Clinton (cf. supra) , it requires more than the mind 
 of a "boy" to discuss such topics as the negative of con- 
 scription or the affirmative of stydkes. 
 
 The words of Dr. Tildsley himself (See "Testimony") 
 lead to the same conclusion regarding the maturity of the 
 average DeWitt Clinton student. He says: 
 
 (Page 69) "Boys in different parts of the country are 
 different, but I have been a very close observer of the type 
 in the DeWitt Clinton High School, because I was in that 
 school six years and I think I know that type of boy very 
 well, and added to that I had to do with the same type of 
 boy in the High School of Commerce, and he has very much 
 the same characteristics. ' At DeWitt Clinton High School 
 the boys at present are probably 80 per cent either of the 
 first or second generations, of foreign birth, and they have 
 some very decided interests; they are very much interested 
 in the social life and the political life of the city; they are 
 
 91 
 
exceedingly fond of discussion, and they have developed a 
 rather high degree of critical ability and critical tendency, 
 and the only thing that they like more than anything else 
 I should say, is a discussion in social, political and economic 
 topics; they are more interested in that than they are in 
 being good or even than they are in athletics." 
 
 Note the phrases Tildsley uses: "A high degree of 
 critical ability and critical tendency." 
 
 We don't ordinarily speak of a "boy" as being 'critical- 
 minded' or as possessing 'critical ability.' 
 
 The truth of the matter is that the Clinton "boy" of 
 16 or 17 has the intellectual maturity of a young man. In 
 fact, as far as his reading is concerned, we are not sur- 
 prised that books of the type of Tolstoy or Gorky or An- 
 dreyev or James are in constant demand at the Chatham 
 Square and East Broadway branches of the Public Library. 
 The young men who are reared on the East Side have a dis- 
 tinct tendency toward the realistic element in Literature as 
 in Life. Due to the press of a realistic, pushing, palpitant 
 environment they early thrust aside the sentimental and the 
 romantic delusion of life. They frown down upon anything 
 that savors of the sillily amorous or abortively gushy. They 
 are eager to know the brute realities of human existence. 
 They fight bitterly to tear away the smoky films of exist- 
 ence. They easily condemn the roseate aspects of the "liv- 
 ing happily ever afterward." 
 
 So that the authors in the Schneer pamphlet — the 
 books objected to — are but part and parcel of their daily 
 living, their daily reading. 
 
 They are the young men who reach college at an un- 
 usually early age — some of them are at medical college at 
 seventeen, eighteen or nineteen. 
 
 In the light of all this, the objection to the pamphlet 
 as being "unsuitable" for "boys" becomes meaningless. 
 Does the committee know that the fathers and mothers of 
 these boys were married at 17 and 18? Does the commit- 
 tee know that many of the teachers at Clinton (cf. Dotey) 
 were out of college at nineteen — if not earlier. What is the 
 average age of the young man and young woman at our 
 "Teachers' Training School"? 
 
 Does the committee know that many of the "boys" at 
 Clinton work as ushers in the New York theatres where 
 
 92 
 
"Mrs. Warren's Profession" and "Ghosts" and "Salome" 
 and "Kreutzer Sonata" and "The Songs of Songs" have been 
 played ? 
 
 Does the committee know that the settlements fre- 
 quently take their "boys" to see such plays as "Damaged 
 Goods" and "Man and Superman"? 
 
 The "boys" of Clinton cannot be repressed by the medie- 
 val-mindedness, the crabbedness, the misguiding Puritan- 
 ism of a Schoolmasters' Association report. King Canute 
 tried to stem the tide. 
 
 We can come to but one conclusion — and that is, that 
 Dr. Paul was so desperate in his desire to "get" the defend- 
 ant that he lost complete sight of Mr. Schneer's record as 
 an admittedly enthusiastic teacher of mathematics and as 
 a gentleman of high literary attainments. The pamphlet 
 was but an excuse, a weak, flimsy attempt to hide the real 
 facts in the case. It was Dr. Paul's method of disciplining 
 the defendant for his courageous stand as one of the leaders 
 of the Teachers' Council in their fight for better working 
 conditions at Clinton (New York Times, October 12), for 
 his activity in the Whalen Resolution incident (See Testi- 
 mony) and for his contribution to the new order of Educa- 
 tion. 
 
 The committee claims that "this charge alone, brands 
 Mr. Schneer as unfit for any school position whatsoever." 
 
 We beg leave to ask the reader to compare this dis- 
 tinguished opinion with the following opinions from such 
 humble literary men as G. Stanley Hall, Randolph Bourne, 
 Van Wyck Brooks, John Burroughs, J. B. Kerfoot, Edgar 
 Lee Masters, Edward J. O'Brien, James Oppenheim, Bliss 
 Perry, William Lyon Phelps, Booth Tarkington, Louis Un- 
 termeyer, William A. White, Dr. Smith Ely Jelliffe and 
 Theodore Dreiser. 
 
 93 
 
DR. HALL'S LETTER 
 
 CLARK UNIVERSITY 
 Worcester, Massachusetts 
 
 January 19, 1918. 
 President's Office 
 Teachers' Defense Committee, 
 The Teachers' Union, 
 
 Room 909, 70 Fifth Avenue, 
 New York City. 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 In answer to your inquiry of January 11th, I can only say that if, as 
 you say, Mr. Schnner has lost his position for printing this list of books, 
 it is the most preposterous, high-handed, medieval proceeding that has 
 come under my notice for many a year. There may be other things I 
 do not know, which would modify my judgment, but I assume that it 
 is because he has included one or two Freudian books. The movement 
 these books represent deals to some extent with facts that modesty pre- 
 vents free talk about, but the movement they represent is a cultural 
 movement represented by many pamphlets, many journals, a large litera- 
 ture, many societies in every land. (I, like many other psychologists 
 have belonged to such a one for many years.) It is a movement that has 
 given a new and wholesome as well as a great reenforcement to sex 
 instruction. It represents 'things I have taught for years, and the only 
 possible thing that can be said against it is that it is in some respects a 
 little too medical for prudes. 
 
 If this is the reason why this man is turned down, J am not fit for 
 my job. The spirit of it all was like that of a bigot who when my 
 "Adolescence" came out, gathered his family together and put it on the 
 logs in his fire-place and burned it ceremonially, as unfit for any decent 
 person to read. 
 
 You should present this case to the National Society, Dr. Smith Ely 
 Jelliflfe of New York, or Dr. W. A. White, editor of the Psycho-analytic 
 Review, Government Hospital for the Insane, Washington, D. C. I am 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) G. S. HALL. 
 
 Edgar Lee Masters says : 
 
 "If the schools and the teachers of the young do not advocate and 
 explain the books mentioned in this list then they will surreptitiously 
 be read and absorbed by those active and enquiring spirits who will 
 shortly be the leaders of the race. This is not a frank facing of life." 
 
 Dr. William A, White says : 
 
 "That Mr. Schneer was dismissed solely for the preparation of this 
 bibliography is well nigh inconceivable to me, except for the fact that I 
 have only too frequently emphasized to me the existence in this twentieth 
 century of persons with an outlook upon life which belongs, as Dr. Hall 
 has intimated in his criticism, to the period of the middle ages. I am 
 still, however, disposed to believe that if all of the facts could be known 
 that there must be some other reason at the bottom of Mr. Schneer's 
 
 94 
 
dismissal. The people who would dismiss a person for preparing such a 
 bibliographjr could not possibly have read the things in it, otherwise 
 they would not have dismissed him." 
 
 Randolph Bourne says : 
 
 "Certainly it is preposterous for a teacher to be discharged because 
 of a bibliography of the best modern books. The list is admirable, — 
 advanced, perhaps, but all the better, certainly not too advanced for New 
 York High Schools." 
 
 Van Wyck Brooks says : 
 
 "It seems to me a most intelligent selection. How it could possibly 
 form the basis for any attack on any teacher passes my understanding." 
 
 John Burroughs says: 
 
 "I see nothing in this pamphlet that any one can reasonably object to." 
 
 J. B. Kerf oot says : 
 
 "So far from regarding the pamphlet as containing grounds for the 
 dismissal of a High School teacher, I should look upon it as evidencing 
 at least a foundation for exceptional fitness." 
 
 Edward J. O'Brien says : 
 
 ■'! regard Mr. Schneer's pamphlet as a model of its kind, and if 
 it is the sole ground for his dismissal, I can only regret that the City 
 of New York has so low an ideal of what constitutes education.' 
 
 James Oppenheim says: 
 
 "It seems to nie eminently excellent. If his dismissal was based on 
 ilie authorship of this pamphlet, the conclusion is inevitable that he is 
 the victim of official ignorance and stupidity or of deliberate malice." 
 
 Bliss Perry says : 
 
 "T have read the 'Guide' with great pleasure. I think it is an ad- 
 mirable selection." 
 
 William Lyon Phelps says: 
 
 "It is an excellent collection of contemporary books with the signifi- 
 cant line of interpretation. I find it full of good suggestions." 
 
 Booth Tarkington says: 
 
 "The pamphlet represents, as far as I can see, no misconduct on the 
 part of the compiler. I do not see how he can be charged with moral 
 error or misdemeanor." 
 
 Louis Untermeyer says : 
 
 "I am staggered — staggered at the thought that such an innocuous 
 pamphlet could have been a cause for anyone's dismissal. It {the dis- 
 missal) savors of the worst kind of Prussianism. It will be a terrible 
 thing indeed if we, who are spending our blood to exterminate autocracy 
 abroad, should come home to find it here in power, cowardly and crush- 
 ing. We are fighting for a race of independently-thinking men, not for a 
 generation of twitching marionettes." 
 
 95 
 
Theodore Dreiser says : 
 
 "In regard to dismissing Mr. Schneer for his 'Guide to Contemporary 
 Literature,' my feeling, after an examination of the same, is that if such 
 is the guiding intelligence of the schools, far better dismiss the schools." 
 
 Dr. Smith Ely Jelliffe says : 
 
 "The Book Reviews of The New York Times have published reviews 
 of every item in this pamphlet. Possibly reading the daily newspapers 
 will become an act to be censured by our Board of Education." 
 
 MINOR POINTS 
 Regarding Mr. Schneer's Bibliography 
 
 What They Say: 
 
 (Pamphlet Pg. 30) 
 "Schneer claims that his booklet 
 was approved by the Principal. 
 Dr. Paul says that it was pre- 
 sented to him simply as a com- 
 plimentary copy and that nothing 
 was said about placing it on sale ; 
 he never expressed approval of 
 the booklet." 
 
 (Pamphlet pgs. 30 and 31) 
 "Mr. Horton, the faculty mem- 
 ber who is in charge of the stu- 
 dent salesmen in the store, says 
 that he did not know that the 
 booklet was in the store until 
 the time when objection was made 
 to it and its removal was ordered. 
 
 ) 
 
 (Pamphlet Pg. 31) 
 
 "Schneer stated under oath 
 
 that all the books in his list are 
 
 to be had at the usual branches 
 
 of the Public Library (Test. 231)" 
 
 The Truth in the Case : 
 
 Here again it is psychological 
 truth that counts, not vindictive 
 logical "truth." The very fact 
 that Dr. Paul at the time of re- 
 ceiving Schneer's booklet found 
 absolutely nothing in it evoking 
 his objection or resentment or 
 disapproval is ample ground for 
 Mr. Schneer's belief that Dr. 
 Paul not only did not find the 
 booklet reprehensible ; on the 
 contrary, he found it very ac- 
 ceptable. 
 
 Dr. Paul's belated attempt to 
 squirm out of an embarrassing 
 situation only provokes cynical 
 laughter. His repeated assertion 
 that he knew nothing about the 
 book's being on sale simply means 
 that he was ignorant of a depart- 
 ment for which he Is officially re- 
 sponsible. How In the world did 
 the booklet manage to get Itself 
 placed In the G. O. Store? Some- 
 oney officially responsible, Imust 
 have O.K.'d it. That someone 
 in the ultimate analysis is, of 
 course, Dr. Paul himself. Ignor- 
 ance reveals Incompetence, not 
 virtue. 
 
 What Mr. Schneer actually did 
 say is the following: 
 
 Q. These are all standard 
 works are they not? 
 
 96 
 
"Miss E. F. Cragin, Chief of A. Yes, sir, found in every 
 
 Catalogue office, circulation de- library. 
 
 partment, says that the following Q. Found in every library? 
 
 books in his list are in no branch A. Yes, the statement No. 3 
 
 of the Circulation Department: in the Introduction, makes 
 
 it quite clear with reference to 
 
 The Genius; The Song of the books in the Public Library. 
 
 Songs ; Sanine ; Kreutzer Sonata ; 
 Love's Coming of Age (The 
 Committee in its ignorance made 
 the mistake of substituting for 
 this work of Carpenter's the 
 title of another author's work, 
 namely, "The Coming of Love)"; 
 Anarchism; Phychology of Sex, 
 Vol. 1. 
 
 Will the reader try hard to unearth in what 
 precise part of Mr. Schneer's testimony there is to 
 be found any specific reference to the "Circulation 
 Department"? He stated clearly and accurately 
 that the books were to be found in the Public Li- 
 brary. The Public Library, as even the School- 
 masters' Committee must know, consists not only 
 of a Circulation Department, but of Reference De- 
 partments, Reading Rooms, etc. The Committee's 
 insertion of the modifying phrase "Circulation De- 
 partment" is a pure invention of outraged small- 
 mindedness. As a pure matter of fact, however, 
 we have put the actual shelf -mark alongside the 
 books (see above) . 
 
 THE CASE OF THOMAS MUFSON 
 
 The gentlemen of the Schoolmasters' Association and 
 of the American Defense Society have pronounced Mr. Muf- 
 son guilty of "unpatriotic teaching" because he declined to 
 answer certain questions bearing on his attitude toward 
 the war. Why did the gentlemen of the aforementioned so- 
 cieties fail to state the fact that he also refused to answer 
 a question tending to bring out his attitude toward anar- 
 chism? (Test p. 183.) In accordance with the absurd 
 reasoning of the members of the Schoolmasters' Associa- 
 tion and of the American Defense Society, Mr. Mufson, by 
 
 97 
 
refusing to answer the question on anarchism, has proved 
 himself an anarchist. But he is an orthodox Jew which is 
 of itself sufficient proof that he is not an anarchist. The 
 basic principle of Judaism is that law must govern society 
 and the individual. Furthermore, he is a Socialist and thus 
 believes, not in no government, but in more government ; he 
 is opposed, not only to political, social and moral anarchy 
 but to industrial anarchy as well. He no more favors an- 
 archism than he favors Germany, the land where venomous 
 anti-Semitism is a philosophy and a permanent political 
 issue. He refused to answer the question on anarchism be- 
 cause he thought the query too stupid to deserve an intelli- 
 gent answer, which he indicated by asking a question in re- 
 turn designed to be as ridiculous as the one which had been 
 put to him. (Test. p. 183.) 
 
 He refused to answer the questions relating to his at- 
 titude on the war because (1) the question did not bear on 
 the charge against him, which was "conduct unbecoming a 
 teacher." Not a shred of evidence ivas presented, not a 
 shred of evidence tvas in the possession of the prosecution 
 to show that Mr. Mufson had done or said anything justi- 
 fying the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher." The 
 questions at the trial were plainly intended to elicit views. 
 ''Suppose something happened which could not happen, what 
 would you do, if it did happen?" was the type of question 
 asked." (2) He felt that his views on the war were mat- 
 ters pertaining to his own conscience and he harbors the 
 belief that the soul of Americanism is freedom of person- 
 ality, freedom of conscience. (3) He felt that no one had 
 any right to impugn his loyalty to his country without the 
 shadow of a reason. 
 
 He showed his feeling toward the German Autocracy 
 in his letter to 'The Globe" of April 5, 1917. Test. p. 
 178), signed, M. Thomas. The letter follows: 
 
 His Third Prophecy 
 
 Editor Globe: When Roumania first joined the Allies 
 I sent you the following prophecy: I said Roumania, be- 
 cause of her treachery to the Jews, would suffer the fate 
 of Serbia. I further said that a few more blows delivered 
 by Germany against Russia would send the Russian autoc- 
 racy staggering to its death. Both of these predictions have 
 been fulfilled, 
 
 98 
 
Now let me once more assume the role of prophet. 
 Revolution is about to strike again and this time it is going 
 to strike in Germany. Reborn and glorious Russia, repub- 
 lican France and liberal England, an invincible triumvirate 
 of freedom, will very soon deliver a death blow to autocratic 
 Germany. The kaiser and his war-hawks are doomed. At 
 the psychological moment — and that moment is very near, 
 nearer than the world imagines — the German people will 
 rise like a storm and sweep from rejuvenated Europe the 
 kaiser and his band of ruffians who call themselves the 
 "Government" of Germany. No power on earth can keep 
 that cleansing storm from bursting over Germany. A good 
 and far-seeing Providence has staged the fearful but bene- 
 ficent events which are now awing Europe. The divine pur- 
 pose of the European war is clear. Kaiserism is tumbling 
 to the earth to mingle its remains with the cursed debris of 
 Russian czarism. The word of the Lord has gone forth. 
 
 M. Thomas. 
 
 New York, March 29. 
 
 The Schoolmasters' Association and the American De- 
 fense Society say that in that letter they were "unable to 
 find any evidence of his love for the American Government." 
 In the present world crisis love for one's country is well 
 measured by the strength of one's opposition to the Ger- 
 man autocracy. There can be no denying the fact that Mr. 
 Mufson is unalterably opposed to the German autocracy. 
 Furthermore he believes that he who shouts his love of 
 country loudest loves his country least. Lip loyalty and 
 pen loyalty are the easiest kinds of loyalty, behind which 
 many a soulless rascal hides. 
 
 Mr. Mufson did however indicate his patriotic senti- 
 ments in an article of his which appeared in the "Twentieth 
 Century Magazine" of July, 1910, entitled, "Walt Whitman, 
 Poet of The New Age." In that article he wrote as follows : 
 
 "Whitman, therefore, was the great Democrat. 'Amer- 
 ica', he said, 'is the continent of glories, and of the triumph 
 of freedom, and of the Democracies, and of the fruits of 
 Society, and of all that is begun.' Too sadly true it is that 
 corruption, coarseness, materialism abound in America. 
 Yet in spite of it all. Whitman felt the American atmosphere 
 is pervaded, infused, and vitalized by a spirit of grandeur 
 and sublimity, a spirit that sleeps not, neither does it rest, 
 
 99 
 
which penetrates unconsciously into the hearts of its peo- 
 ple. America! magic word which contains within itself a 
 solution of the problem of life ; blessed continent trembling 
 with the wondrous ecstasy of a coming birth ; arena cleared 
 for the great struggle of hearts and souls, from which shall 
 arise with the light of God playing in its eyes, Liberty, De- 
 
 mocracy 
 
 The Schoolmasters' Association and the American De- 
 fense Society affirm that Mr. Mufson proved himself guilty 
 of "unpatriotic teaching" by writing a note to his Prin- 
 cipal, on April 18, 1917, saying: "I shall not be able to 
 take part in the parade tomorrow because I sincerely want 
 peace and not war." This note, a private note of Mr. Muf- 
 son's to Dr. Paul, Principal of the DeWitt Clinton High 
 School, was given to the Schoolmasters' Association and 
 The American Defense Society by Dr. Paul, one of the wit- 
 nesses against Mr. Mufson, five months after the trial. The 
 note was not used as evidence at the trial. We have here 
 a striking example of that spirit of personal animosity 
 which M^as a strong driving force behind the prosecution of 
 all three teachers. 
 
 At the time Mr. Mufson wrote that note our country 
 had just entered the war. Until then, the United States 
 had been to him the star of peace in the blackness of the 
 world chaos, whose light, he hoped, would ^I^Blft under 
 the influence of that supremely sweet and beautnul mes- 
 sage of President Wilson, "We are a nation too proud to 
 fight." Is it not understandable that such a state of mind 
 and soul cannot be cast off like a garment? By what law 
 or tenet of ethics can it be made a "crime to express a 
 viewpoint which had until then been the accepted idealism 
 of the President and of well-nigh the whole of America? 
 
 Even in time of war, mad hate need not hold full sway, 
 for hate, M^hich is blinding, may long lead the nations astray. 
 There are better guides. 
 
 ALL THE FACTS CORRECTLY STATED THAT LED 
 
 UP TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE CLINTON 
 
 TEACHERS 
 
 We intend to show that the true cause of the inquisition 
 at Clinton with its subsequent transfers and dismissals lay 
 in the increasing activities and power of the democratic 
 
 100 
 
Teachers' Council and their co-workers, seeking to oust au- 
 tocratic methods and to inaugurate a regime of genuine 
 democratic management. 
 
 The Crucial Facts in the Case 
 
 The INQUISITION was held at Clinton High because 
 a critical situation had developed involving a conflict be- 
 tween Dr. Paul, and a group of progressive teachers who 
 had been known for years as opponents of autocratic 
 methods in education. 
 
 Dr. Paul, fearing that his incompetence as a principal 
 would soon be exposed by these progressive teachers, ini- 
 tiated the first move against them. What was this move? 
 To Dr. Tildsley he pointed out as undesirable teachers those 
 leaders of the opposition to Dr. Paul's autocracy who had 
 also incurred the displeasure of three official superiors by 
 their vigorous stand against the "Longer School Day." 
 
 It was the autocratic imposition of the longer school 
 day in September, 1917, that had brought dov/n on the head 
 of Dr. Tildsley the strenuous criticism of the pupils and 
 teachers in the high school system. The agitation had be- 
 come so large and impressive at Clinton High that the Prin- 
 cipal, unable to handle the situation, had to call in the as- 
 sistance of Dr. Tildsley. Also, be it remembered, the self- 
 same progressive teachers had been instrumental in crys- 
 talizing the sentiment of more than 100 Clinton teachers in 
 a public expression of their opposition to Mr. Whalen's au- 
 tocratic method of dealing with the protests against the 
 longer school day. 
 
 At this juncture, these three official superiors, fearing 
 the justified resentment of a public outraged at so much 
 official incompetence, hit upon a familiar device for shifting 
 the burden of blame to other shoulders. Dr. Paul, in agree- 
 ment with Dr. Tildsley and Mr. Whalen, decided to fasten 
 the blame for the social agitation upon those progressive 
 teachers who had been so active as leaders of democracy 
 in education. The trick almost succeeded. 
 
 In the light of these facts, nothing can be more firmly 
 grounded than the inference that the object of the IN- 
 QUISITION at DeWitt Clinton High tvas to trap the so- 
 called leaders of the ividely gronmig agitation for more de- 
 mocracy in the school system. A conflict between autocracy 
 
 101 
 
and democracy in education had been assuming proportions 
 so impressive to the teaching body in general as to necessi- 
 tate upon the part of the official superiors some drastic ac- 
 tion, some show of authority wherewith to intimidate the 
 liberal minded teachers. 
 
 Is it any wonder that at the psychologic time the "dis- 
 loyalty" issue was introduced to hide the real facts in the 
 case? 
 
 What They Say 
 
 Page 8. "From the facts at hand the members of the 
 Committee are convinced that the Whalen Resolutions were 
 in no sense the cause of the other investigation." 
 
 The Truth in the Case 
 
 On November 12, 1917, Supt. Tildsley suspended the 
 three teachers for "Holding Views" (Letter of Suspension) 
 "subversive of discipline." 
 
 Why were the records of the three men, given by Dr. 
 Paul himself, uniformly high right through until June, 
 1917? If, as the Schoolmasters' Committee loudly insinu- 
 ates, these teachers had committed acts as early as April 
 and May, 1917, (and in the case of one of the teachers, as 
 early as May, 1914), which revealed a state of mind that 
 could only be characterized as "conduct unbecoming a 
 teacher", how in the name of common sense do they account 
 for the excellent records of these teachers given originally 
 by Dr. Tildsley and later by Dr. Paul? Or shall we say 
 that the reason why the prosecution (and now the School- 
 masters' Committee) found it valuable to include utterly 
 irrelevant material v/as the- knowledge that in the hands of 
 crafty manipulators, such interesting irrelevancies could be 
 twisted and misinterpreted,, — in a period of emotional 
 stress, — to the apparent discredit of the defendants? 
 
 Why were the three teachers suspended in Novernber? 
 Why not, for example, in October, in September, or last 
 April, or May? For, in fact, according to the findings of 
 the Schoolmasters' Committee, crucial "evidence" upon the 
 basis of which the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher 
 might have been entered against these teachers, was already 
 available as early as April, 1917, at which time the follow- 
 ing "crimes" had already been committed: 
 
 102 
 
(a) refusal to sign Mayor Mitchel's so-called loyalty- 
 pledge, 
 
 (b) signing of the famous protest against the method 
 of compulsion used by the Board of Education in the im- 
 position of its loyalty pledge, 
 
 (c) the publication in newspapers of Dr. Paul's at- 
 tempt to coerce teachers to sign the Mitchel pledge (even 
 before the official declaration of war) , 
 
 (d) the Peg Wofiington dinner at which plans were per- 
 fected by the Teachers' Council and their progressive sup- 
 porters to democratize the absolutist authority of Dr. Paul 
 and to eradicate the infamous spying system of Mr. Dotey, 
 
 (e) in May, 1917, the New Republic article, champion- 
 ing .tolerance in war time, appeared, 
 
 (f) continuation of the investigation into the Dotey 
 system of squads and spying. Several teachers among the 
 transferred and dismissed were receiving evidences as to 
 the evils of the Dotey system, 
 
 (g) in September, 1917, the opposition to the Tildsley 
 longer school day was organizing among pupils and among 
 teachers. This sentiment was especially strong at Clinton 
 High School because it was the only school where the prin- 
 cipal v/as incompetent to handle the situation, for not only 
 did the strike spread at Clinton, but the principal had to 
 invoke the aid of his official superiors to adjust a little local 
 disturbance. 
 
 Dr. Paul's Breach of Good Faith 
 
 "The most illuminating incident has not yet been re- 
 cited. At the close of the hearing (October 22, 1917), at 
 the Board of Education, a teacher from the DeWitt Clinton 
 High School walked up to the desk where Dr. John L. Tilds- 
 ley, Mr. Whalen and Dr. F. H. J. Paul, principal of the 
 DeWitt Clinton High School, were assembled and heard the 
 following conversation : 
 
 Dr. Paul to Mr. Whalen : " 'You're not serious about 
 that meeting of the students to-morrow, are you?' 
 
 Dr. Tildsley (interrupting) : 'No; it's all right. The 
 pupils have had their hearing. They're done for. They're 
 settled.' 
 
 Dr. Paul (addressing both) : 'You see, if we held a 
 meeting in our school to-morrow% some of the radical boys 
 might get control of it, and there'd be more trouble.' 
 
 103 
 
Mr. Whalen: 'Oh, that's all right. Don't take that 
 seriously. You don't have to have a meeting.' 
 
 "There was no meeting at the Clinton High on that 
 promised to-morrow ; but instead, the principal got in touch 
 with the young president of the so-called General Organiza- 
 tion and by 'tactful diplomatic' appeal persuaded the youth- 
 ful leader to abandon the idea of holding a mass meeting." 
 (From an elaborate Summary of the Clinton situation by 
 the suspended teachers. New York Evening Post, Novem- 
 ber 16, 1917.) 
 
 This treachery on the part of Dr. Paul was directly re- 
 sponsible for the local outbreak culminating in a "strike" 
 at Clinton High. Unable to handle the situation him.self, — 
 created by his own duplicity, — he called in the assistance 
 of Superintendent Tildsley who, with the aid of Dr. Dotey 
 and a roomful of truant officers finally succeeded in restor- 
 ing "order" — after some of the youthful "leaders" of the 
 strike were suspended or discharged. Official incompetence 
 could have gone no farther ! 
 
 (h) On Oct. 18, (see N. Y. Times) the faculty of Clin- 
 ton elected a committee of teachers, — of which Mr. Schmal- 
 hausen was chairman, — to draw up a brief in opposition to 
 the longer school day. 
 
 (i) On Oct. 22, the hearing was given at which the 
 representative teachers presented their briefs against the 
 longer school day. 
 
 (j) The Whalen meeting was called at Clinton High 
 School on Wednesday, Oct. 24, and voted to publish a set 
 of resolutions, rebuking Mr. Whalen for his autocratic at- 
 titude towards teachers and pupils. 
 
 (k) Publication of Whalen resolution in the news- 
 papers, Oct. 26th. 
 
 (1) The institution of the Whalen-Tildsley-Paul inves- 
 tigation of the Teachers' CQuncil, Oct. 31, 1917. 
 
 Several days after the "investigation" of the Teachers' 
 Council and after the suspension of the three teachers, Mr. 
 Penhollow, one of Dr. Paul's henchmen, circulated a peti- 
 tion among the teachers for the abandonment of the insti- 
 tution of the Teachers' Council. The petition was received 
 so contemptuously as to compel its originators quickly to 
 withdraw it. However, the bureaucratic clique at Clinton 
 Hi£h c'id ^^t rest content with this rebuke. At the monthly 
 
 104 
 
teachers' meeting (the first one after the suspension of the 
 three teachers) , Dr. Paul, thinking to find the teachers off- 
 guard, suddenly near the close of the meeting, put the ques- 
 tion, (not even suggested as a motion by one of the teachers 
 whom he dared to quote and misinterpret) , as to whether 
 the teachers were in favor of officially administering a cen- 
 sure to The Teachers' Council for the part it played in the 
 Whalen Resolution situation! There is ample reason for 
 believing that the sudden determination to transfer Mr. 
 Jablonower was conceived that very afternoon (a day be- 
 fore the transfers were officially announced at the Board) 
 when, outraged by the sinister misinterpretation of Dr. 
 Paul, Mr. J. got up to object to such malpractice. Of 
 course, The Teachers' Council, far from being censured, was 
 overwhelmingly endorsed as an institution by a vote of a 
 hundred and five to forty-three (by a secret vote taken 
 that very week) ! 
 
 It will be observed from this accurate sequence of im- 
 portant events that the closest relation exists between the 
 provocation afforded by the Whalen resolutions and the in- 
 quisition that immediately followed. If the reader will also 
 bear in mind the very significant fact that the very first 
 man to be interviewed was the Chairman of the Teachers' 
 Council officially responsible for the Whalen Meeting; if 
 the reader will further bear in mind the following testi- 
 mony (pages 79-80) , he will arrive at the conclusion so often 
 repeated by the defendants, that the primary immediate 
 cause of the Whalen-Tildsley-Paul inquisition at Clinton 
 High and the subsequent transfer of six teachers and the 
 suspension of three, was undoubtedly the publication of the 
 so-called Whalen Resolutions containing as they did a very 
 straightforward criticism of "superior officials." 
 
 TESTIMONY— PAGES 79-80. (Our Italics) 
 Dr. Tildsley on the stand ; Mr. Smyth questioning. 
 Q. Was the matter of the Teachers' Council Resolu- 
 tions one of the important things? 
 
 A. That was a very important thing ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You took that up first ? 
 
 A. / took that up first; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. With Mr. Pickelsky? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 105 
 
Q. And found that he had nothing to do ivith the reso- 
 lution, did you not? 
 
 A. I did not. I found that he presided at the meeting 
 which passed the resolution. 
 
 Q. He had nothing to do with the resokition, with its 
 authorship ? 
 
 A. He had nothing to do ivith its authorship, he said. 
 
 Q. Nothing has been done with him. He still retains 
 his position? 
 
 A. He still retains his 'position. 
 
 Q. The next man you saw was Kenneth W. Wright ? 
 
 A. No, sir, it was not. 
 
 Q. Are you sure about that? 
 
 A. I think the next man I saw was Mr. Schneer, if I 
 am not mistaken. 
 
 Q. Was it not Mr. Kenneth W. Wright? 
 
 A. I think he was not the next man. I saw Mr. Ken- 
 neth Wright the same morning I saw Mr. Schmalhausen 
 and Mr. Pickelsky. 
 
 Q. You found out from Mr. Kenneth Wright that he 
 did not vote for the resolution? 
 
 A. Yes, sire, I did. 
 
 Q. He has not been interfered with, has he? 
 
 A. He has 7iot. 
 
 Q. The next man you interviewed was Mr. Charles 
 Ham? 
 
 A. I think so. 
 
 Q. You found he had voted for the resolution? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. He is transferred? 
 
 A. He is. 
 
 Q. And he is the first one. The next one you say, 
 Mr. Henry Schneer, was it not? 
 
 A. I think so". 
 
 Q. You found that he had presented the resolution, 
 did you not? 
 
 A. I was told by Mr. Pickelsky he presented the reso- 
 lution. 
 
 Q. He has been suspended? 
 
 A. He has heen suspended. 
 
 Q. You know he did present the resolution ? 
 
 A. I was told so by Mr. Pickelsky. 
 
 106 
 
Q. The next man you saw was Mr, Schmalhausen ? 
 
 A, We saw one or two other people, but Mr. Schmal- 
 hausen ivas the next man I had any considerable intervieiv 
 ivith. 
 
 Q. You found that he ivrote the resolution, did you 
 not? 
 
 A. I don't recollect now, whether he did or did not. 
 
 Q. He has been suspended ? 
 
 A. He has been suspended; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Then you intervieiued. Mr. Mufson, did you not? 
 
 A. I interviewed Mr. Mufson, not immediately, I be- 
 lieve, but within that — on the same day, that I interviewed 
 Mr. Schmalhausen. 
 
 Q. You found he had voted for the resolution? 
 
 A. I did not find Mr. Mufson had voted for the reso- 
 lution. 
 
 Q. What did you find he had done? 
 
 A. It will come out later, I believe. 
 
 Q. Cannot you tell me? 
 
 A. Mr. Mufson is on charges before this body. 
 
 Q. All right. I am representing him. I will protect 
 him. 
 
 A. If the Chairman says I can answer that question 
 I can answer it. 
 
 Chairman Whalen : You had better wait until his case 
 comes up. 
 
 Mr. Smyth: I loant to get the tvhole attiticde of this 
 gentleman. 
 
 Chairman Whalen : You have got it. 
 
 Mr. Smyth : I think I have and I want to complete it. 
 
 Mr. Mayer: / think this cross examination has been 
 pursued far enough. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: Do not waste any more time on 
 that ,Mr. Smyth. 
 
 Mr. Smyth: All right, if your Honor is convinced as 
 I am convinced, I will go to something else. 
 
 Chairman Whalen : Take up something else, noiv. 
 
 107 
 
THE WHALEN MOTIF 
 
 (A) (Testimony, Pages 34 and 35) 
 
 Miss Garrigues on the Stand. 
 By Mr. Smyth : 
 
 Q. Did you not state, Miss Garrigues, that the object 
 of this investigation which had been undertaken against Mr. 
 Schmalhausen was to get the ringleaders of the Teachers' 
 Council who were close to Mr. Whalen in the matter of 
 lengthening the school hours? 
 
 Mr. Mayer: That is objected to as immaterial and ir- 
 relevant. 
 
 Chairman Whalen : I will let her answer that. 
 
 A. I do not remember. I talked to Mr. Horowitz I 
 know, but I do not remember that I made any such full 
 statement as that. Perhaps I have gotten the wording 
 wrong. 
 
 Q. Will you tell us what your recollection is of such a 
 conversation with Mr. Horowitz ? 
 
 A. If I said anything of the sort I said I thought it had 
 some influence. 
 
 Q. What is that? 
 
 A. If I said anything of that sort — I may have said — 
 
 Q. Said anything of what sort? 
 
 A. Of the kind you are asking me. 
 
 Q. Is it your recollection that you did say something 
 of that kind? 
 
 A. Very likely. 
 
 Q. If you did, if it is true that you did, very likely it 
 was because you believed it, is not that so ? 
 
 A. Yes, I think it had influence. 
 
 (B) Volume of Testimony, Page 73 
 
 Dr. Tildsley being cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: 
 
 Q. When you had the first interview with Mr. Schmal- 
 hausen do you recollect the opening topic of your interview? 
 
 A. The opening topic of our first intervieiv urns the 
 discussion of the resolution passed by the Teachers' Council. 
 
 Q. Why was that particular topic brought up first? 
 
 A. Because Mr. Schmalhausen was, if I am not mis- 
 taken, a member of the Teachers' Council of that school, 
 and I interviewed first Mr. Pickelsky, the Chairman of the 
 Council, and Mr. Pickelsky told me that Mr. Schneer handed 
 
 108 
 
him the resolution, and so I interviewed Mr. Schneer and 
 then afterwards several members of the Council. I told 
 you I had two aims in going to that school. 
 
 Q. You ivere at the time engaged in trying to fasten 
 responsibility for the resolution that had been passed on 
 the evening of the 22nd of October when you had those in- 
 terviews with Mr. Schmalhausen ? 
 
 A. I was trying to find out what was meant by the 
 resolutions and why they were passed. 
 
 Q. You ivere also trying to find out ivho had been in- 
 strumental in drawing them up and ivho had presented 
 them ? 
 
 A. / asked those questions; yes, sir. 
 Q. Those were the first questions you asked? 
 A. Not the first questions. 
 Q. They were among the first? 
 A. Among the first; yes, sir. 
 (C) Volume of Testimony, Pages 204, 205, 206 
 Page 204, Cross Examination by Mr. Smyth : 
 Dr. Tildsley speaking: 
 
 Q. What was the first interview you had ? 
 A. The first interview was an interview in the Even- 
 ing School Oflice, I believe on the 31st of October, the first 
 day I was over there, luhen I asked him about the resolu- 
 tions being passed by the Meeting of the Teachers' Council, 
 because Mr. Pickelsky had told me that Mr. Schneer handed 
 him the resolutions. 
 
 Q. Now, there was a stenographic report taken of the 
 first intervieiu, was there not? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you gave part of that stenographic report to 
 Mr. Schneer, did you not? 
 
 A. He received all that I received. 
 Q. Is this the extract? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 Page 205 ; Mr. Smyth : I offer it in evidence .... 
 
 Mr. Smyth : I will not take up the time now to read all 
 these questions and answers, but the Committee can see 
 by going over it, if they will, that these are all questions 
 and ansivers relating to the subject of the Teachers' Coun- 
 cil in which he is very closely cross examined, a*id that 
 
 109 
 
seems to be the whole thing on Dr. Tildsley's mind at that 
 
 time. 
 
 Testimony, Page 206 : 
 
 Q. When you had been told by the Chairman then you 
 went prepared with a stenographer to ask him on that 
 point, did you not? 
 
 A. Not to ask him on that point; to elicit the truth 
 on that point. 
 
 Q. To make a record against him, did you not ? 
 
 A. To make a record of the interview. 
 
 Q. It was not until the third interview that you 
 thought of going thru an academic discussion as to what he 
 would do under given circumstances in relation to the 
 pupils? 
 
 A. Yes, I thought of it before that. 
 
 Q. Did you really think of it previous to or before 
 you had fastened responsibility for the resolutions on Mr. 
 Schneer? 
 
 A.* I never fastened responsibility for the resolutions 
 on Mr. Schneer. 
 
 Q. Did you not state that you did ? 
 
 A. No, sir, I did not. 
 
 Q. You tried to, did you not? 
 
 A. I tried to find out whether Mr. Schneer had drawn 
 up the resolutions. Mr. Schmalhausen has already testified 
 that he drew them up. 
 Testimony, Page 207 : 
 
 Q. Was not your object in getting a stenographer so 
 that you would have a record of it that he was the one who 
 handed them to the Chairman, and after you got that then 
 you went ahead trying to trap him by asking academic ques- 
 tions ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Perhaps the most interesting evidence of the significant 
 part played by The Whalen Resolutions in the "trial" of the 
 three Clinton teachers was furnished gratuitously by Mr. 
 John Whalen, Chairman of the Committee that tried the 
 three teachers. As Dr. Ira S. Wile, of the old Board of 
 Education, clearly pointed out on the day of decision, noth- 
 ing was so thought-provoking in his estimation as the sud- 
 den and strange intrusion of the Whalen Motif at the very 
 close of the "trial", at 12:15 a. m., at a point in the evolu- 
 
 110 
 
tion of the proceedings when the thing farthest removed 
 from the attention of the whole committee was precisely 
 the Whalen Resolutions. What one disturbing thing sug- 
 gested itself at that late and unrelated hour to the mind of 
 Chairman Whalen ? Let the testimony speak eloquently for 
 itself. 
 
 (D) Testimony, Pages 259, 260, 261 
 
 Chairman Whalen : I would like to have you (address- 
 ing Mr. Smyth) to ask him (that is, Mr. Schneer), if you 
 will, for me, if 105 teachers of the Teachers' Council were 
 present when the resolutions were adopted; if they were 
 present, if he will be good enough to give you the names of 
 the members of the Council who were present. 
 
 Mr. Smyth: Yes. 
 
 The Witness : One hundred and five teachers were 
 present. The names of the Teachers' Council are the fol- 
 lowing : Mr. Frank Pickelsky, Chairman ; Charles Ham, a 
 member, now transferred ; Samuel Schmalhausen, now sus- 
 pended; A. Henry Schneer, now suspended. Those were 
 the four members of the Teachers' Council at that time of 
 one year's standing. About that time also a certain mem- 
 ber of the Teachers' Council had been appointed assistant 
 principal, and Mr. Kenneth W. Wright, October 31st, was 
 elected to substitute for Mr. Keller. About November 1st 
 or 2nd, two members were elected from each individual an- 
 nex of the DeWitt Clinton High School, of which there are 
 two. At the time of the Whalen Resolutions there were 
 practically four members: Mr. Pickelsky, Chairman; Mr. 
 Charles Ham, transferred ; Mr. Samuel Schmalhausen, sus- 
 pended ; Mr. A. Henry Schneer, suspended. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: I am not asking about those now. 
 I am asking you, and I am asking Mr. Smyth to ask you, 
 if these one hundred and five members of the Teachers' 
 Council were present when the resolutions were adopted ? 
 
 The Witness: There are only five members of the 
 Teachers' Council. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: I thought you said one hundred 
 and five? 
 
 The Witness: One hundred and five members of the 
 teaching body. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: There are five members of the 
 Teachers' Council? 
 
 Ill 
 
Chairman Whalen: Yes, ivill you give Mr. Smyth the 
 names of the one hundred members of the teaching body 
 ivho voted for the resolution? 
 
 Chairman Whalen : Who were they ? 
 
 The Witness : The names of the one hundred and four? 
 
 Mr. Smyth : That is what he wants. 
 
 Chairman Whalen : Give them to him. 
 
 The Witness : Right now ? 
 
 Chairman Whalen: You may send them to me by to- 
 morroiv morning; will you do that? How many teachers 
 are there ? 
 
 The Witness : About one hundred and fifty-eight. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: Will you give to Mr. Smyth the 
 names ? 
 
 The Witness : Yes, sir. 
 
 On what other hypothesis than the direct and over- 
 whelming importance of the Whalen Resolutions as the im- 
 mediate cause of the several incidents that led to the sus- 
 pension of the three Clinton teachers, can one explain the 
 relevance of the numerous evidences quoted from the volume 
 of Testimony, all pertaining to the one theme, — the Whalen 
 Resolutions. Is it a mere matter of thoughtless accident 
 that the only official stenographic report (which Dr. Tildsley 
 ordered taken in one of his private interviews with Mr, 
 Schneer at Clinton High) relates ivholly and exclusively to 
 the one theme, the Whalen Resolutions ; to the relationship 
 between those Resolutions and the part played in their 
 origination and publication by various members of the 
 Teachers' Council that was officially responsible for them? 
 In this effort to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the 
 crucial importance of the Whalen Resolutions, we must not 
 overlook another outstanding fact; that at the Board of 
 Education, at its first meeting after the publication of the 
 Whalen Resolutions, the President, William G. Willcox, 
 opened that meeting with the following comment uopn the 
 Whalen Resolutions : "I submit that such a statement can- 
 not be allowed to pass unnoticed by this Board. If any 
 teachers in the system have such a false conception of their 
 position as to brand as 'autocratic and arrogant' Mr. 
 Whalen's statement that neither pupils nor teachers will be 
 allowed to run the schools, they should promptly be unde- 
 ceived. . . this group of teachers deliberately set an ex- 
 
 112 
 
ample of insubordination which could hardly fail to have 
 the effect of encouraging a similar spirit among the dis- 
 orderly pupils." (Our italics.) In the New York Evening 
 Post of November 20, 1917, Dr. Tildsley is quoted as say- 
 ing : "I do not believe that teachers have any right, as an 
 organized body, to censure the Board of Education. This 
 these teachers did in condemning the statements of Mr. 
 Whalen." (Our italics.) Commenting upon this situation 
 the New Republic, in its editorial of November 24th, writes : 
 "It looks as if Superintendent Tildsley had been commis- 
 sioned to 'get something on' these teachers antecedently 
 condemned. Only the fairest and openest trial can allay 
 this suspicion of crooked dealing." In another part of the 
 same editorial these trenchant lines appear: "Moreover, 
 the evidence upon which the charge of 'subversive views' is 
 based appears to have been gathered by Superintendent 
 Tildsly through a personal inquisition in which the sus- 
 pected teachers were forced to reply to a number of in- 
 quiries of the familiar 'catch-question' type of the crafty 
 and unscrupulous pedagogue." 
 
 If, as the Schoolmasters' Committee pretends to be- 
 lieve, the Whalen Resolutions were not the efficient cause 
 of the investigation at Clinton High, how is it possible to ex- 
 plain their vast and overshadowing importance throughout 
 the case and at the "trial"? (Isn't it psychologically inter- 
 esting that the most patent cause of the inquisition was the 
 very one not even faintly alluded to in the specifications and 
 charges conceived by Superintendent Tildsley against the 
 Clinton teachers?) How shall the fact be explained — a most 
 unique and thought-provoking fact, — that Mr. Kenneth W. 
 Wright, recently elected a member of the Teachers' Coun- 
 cil, (October, 1917), after admitting that he had voted 
 against the Whalen Resolution, was released by Dr. Tildsley 
 without further questioning after a five minute interview? 
 Most significant of all is the overtowering fact that all the 
 Clinton teachers disciplined by "the powers that be", 
 namely, the transferred and the dismissed and their fellow- 
 sympathizers among the faculty who suffered themselves to 
 be haled before the inquisition, had all taken an active part 
 in the Teachers' Council movement in its oppotitic^ to the 
 Longer-Schoolday culminating in the Whalen Resolutions ; 
 a movement that in October, 1917, had achieved suflficient 
 
 113 
 
power to express in unmistakable terms its opposition to the 
 autocratic conduct of Dr. Tildsley, Mr. Whalen and Dr. Paul. 
 The relation between the agitation against the Longer- 
 Schoolday and the "Whalen" Resolutions will be readily in- 
 ferred from the appended : 
 
 The Teachers' Council of the De Witt Clinton High School adopted 
 resolutions on Wednesday denouncing as undemocratic the statements 
 made by Chairman John Whalen at the hearing of the high schools com- 
 mittee on Monday, when he repeatedly asserted that he wanted it clearly- 
 understood that "neither the pupils nor the teachers would be allowed to 
 run the schools," and "I want you to understand that if you pupils don't 
 go back and behave yourselves I'll close down all the schools. Do you 
 understand that?" 
 
 The resolutions read : 
 
 "As self-respecting teachers we cannot allow so arrogant and 
 injudicious a statement to go unchallenged. We deem it both un- 
 democratic in spirit and unprofessional in motive. 
 
 "Therefore, we teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School 
 do hereby resolve : 
 
 "FIRST: — That it is the sense of this meeting that John 
 Whalen's assertion is contrary to the modern spirit of true democracy. 
 "SECOND: — That remarks of this type and threats to close 
 the high schools are detrimental to good discipline and good teaching. 
 "THIRD: — ^It is the sense of this meeting that the autocratic 
 assertion of John Whalen is subversive of the proper spirit under- 
 lying our educational institutions. 
 
 "FOURTH:— Be it finally resolved: 
 
 "That the best interests of school administration demand the 
 cordial recognition of the classroom teacher as a most vital in- 
 fluence in the educational system." 
 
 (From "The Globe," October 26, 1017.) 
 
 MINOR POINTS 
 
 As to the Whalen Meeting at Clinton High School. 
 Testimony, Page 77. 
 
 Dr. Tildsley speaks: (Discussing the relation of the 
 Whalen Resolutions to the series of interviews at Clinton 
 High.) 
 
 "/ found out that there ivere one hundred at 
 that meeting and that no record had been kept of 
 the attendance during that meeting; therefore it 
 was immaterial as to who the specific people were. 
 
 Does the Schoolmasters' Committee ask for more hon- 
 orable corroborative evidence of the truthfulness of the de- 
 
 114 
 
fendants' assertion that there were a hundred or more Clin- 
 ton teachers present at the famous Whalen-Resolution Meet- 
 ing (October 24, 1917) ? It must be remembered that the 
 very final sentence of the communication containing the list 
 of the teachers who had voted against and those who had 
 voted for the Whalen Resolutions, reads as follows : "This 
 list comprised all those present as far as our knowledge 
 goes." It was never claimed by the defendents that they 
 had kept a strict tabulation of the names and length-of-stay 
 of all the teachers who crowded the "Reception Room" at 
 Clinton High on that famous Wednesday. Their judgment 
 was based upon a rough off-hand calculation of the capacity 
 of the room. A very careful count was taken, — in the na- 
 ture of the case, — of the persons who voted against the 
 Whalen Resolutions. It was natural, almost inevitable, for 
 the enthusiastic Teachers' Council to assume (no knowledge 
 to the contrary being at hand) that all those persons who 
 did not vote against the resolutions, had voted for them. 
 Though this may not be the soundest logic, it is yet a famil- 
 iar psychologic method of judgment especially natural in 
 an emotional situation. It was assumed that any teacher at 
 that informal meeting who had any definite objections to 
 the resolutions would certainly voice them either in a speech 
 or by vote. It was therefore permissible to assume that all 
 persons with the exception of the declared opponents of the 
 Whalen Resolutions were clearly in favor of their adoption 
 and publication. May we point out to the Schoolmasters' 
 Committee, — that appears to possess an abnormal talent for 
 discovering the mote in a fellow-mortal's eye and for naively 
 overlooking the beam in its own, — that on page 5 of its own 
 incoherent report, the statement appears (in relation to the 
 April 21st meeting of Clinton teachers at the Peg Woffing- 
 ton Coffee House) that "there were foi'ty-one members of 
 the faculty present. . .". But since no record was kept 
 of the attendance at that meeting, the number is at best 
 a good guess ; a reasonable approximation. And since of 
 the number present only one, a Mr. Deixel, (a "tool" of Mr. 
 Dotey's), spoke in favor of the autocratic regime at Clin- 
 ton High, the plausible assumption obtains that all the other 
 persons, — with one or two possible exceptions, — were in 
 favor of the democratic conception urged by several of the 
 speakers. The point is simply that the arithmetical ac- 
 
 W5 
 
curacy for which the committee pretends to be so insistent 
 a stickler is not an important fact at all: a margin for 
 arithmetic error may well be allowed without vitiating in 
 the least the soundness and seriousness of the essential 
 proposition. The essential proposition in relation to the 
 Whalen meeting was the remarkable unanimity of feeling 
 and opinion in behalf of the Whalen Resolutions. Let us 
 stick to essentials. 
 
 The Schoolmasters' Committee, relying upon Mr. 
 Dotey's unreliableness, appends a list of names of Clinton 
 teachers who, assumed to be present at the Whalen meet- 
 ing by the defendants, are supposed, upon inquiry by Mr. 
 Dotey, to have either denied their presence or to have de- 
 nied their presence for more than a short space of time, or 
 to have admitted their presence but to have denied that they 
 voted at all. In these doubtful matters, where guess-work 
 and memory-recall play their unscientific parts, it is often 
 useful to check up a method by a test case. For example, 
 Mr. Dotey appends as one of the names of the several who, 
 so Mr. Dotey's Committee implies, were not present at the 
 Whalen meeting, the name of Mr. Thomas. The fact is that 
 not only did Mr. Thomas attend that meeting ; he delivered 
 a short snappy speech in which he referred rather pointedly 
 and sharply, to Mr. Whalen and his bulldog beh^ivior and 
 concluded his rousing talk with an appeal to the Clinton 
 teachers to join The Teachers' Union. ... If this be the 
 sort of verification which the Schoolmasters' Committee re- 
 lies upon to help them out of an obvious predicament, we 
 shout back our derision at their predicament and their fool- 
 hardy method of evasion. ... 
 
 Moreover, from the statement of the pamphlet are we 
 to understand that Dr. Paul was chiefly responsible for the 
 Whalen-Tildsley investigation at DeWitt Clinton High 
 School ? What was Dr. Paul's interest in this matter ? Was 
 it, because "the patience and forbearance of the school of- 
 ficials" (does that mean Dr. Paul and Mr. Dotey?) "reached 
 the breaking point, however when one of the group, Samuel 
 D. Schmalhausen, assigned as the subject of a letter to 
 the President a topic which led a number of his pupils to 
 make unpatriotic criticisms . . . ?" Was Dr. Paul's out- 
 raged righteousness genuinely due to the nature of the as- 
 signments ? If so, how will he or his apologists explain the 
 
 116 
 
nature of the subjects contained in the mid-term examina- 
 tions evidently approved of by the principal himself? 
 
 Note: These subjects had already been prepared by 
 the head of the English Department before October 22, the 
 day on which Dr. Paul, thru Mr. Dotey, had become aware 
 of the assignment and thought it a good opportunity to 
 "get" Mr. Schmalhausen because of his activities in the 
 Teachers' Council and as the chairman of the group oppos- 
 ing the longer school day. As the head of the English De- 
 partment, called as a witness by the prosecution, testified 
 under oath, relating what had occurred when she handed 
 the Herman composition to Dr. Paul: 
 Testimony, Page 32: 
 
 Counsel: Q. Did he (Dr. Paul) make an exclamation 
 at that time in reference to the position that he deemed Mr. 
 Schmalhausen to be in? 
 
 Miss Garrigues: A. He said, I think — Yes, he said 
 something. 
 
 Q. What was it he said ? 
 
 A. He said, I think, "I have him now." 
 
 Q. Are not the words that he said, "Noiv, I've got 
 him" ? 
 
 A. I think so. 
 
 Q. You think so? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 In November, 1917, while the trial of the three teachers 
 was pending, the mid-terms were held at Clinton High and 
 among the subjects contained in the English examination 
 were these: 
 
 Write brief proper, affirmative or negative : 
 We seek no selfish er.ds in this war. 
 Conscription is justifiable in a democracy. 
 
 Write in outline from the brief proper: 
 Strikes. 
 
 Revenue by bond issue or taxation. 
 Note: 
 
 It is important to know that the assignment of the 
 topic was the subject of an informal conference between 
 Dr. Paul and Mr. Schmalhausen on Friday, Oct. 26, at which 
 conference it was agreed that therafter whenever in the 
 opinion of Mr. Schmalhausen any one of his topics for dis- 
 cussion struck him as being "unwise", he would consult 
 
 117 
 
with the head of department before final assignment. It 
 cannot too often be repeated that the animus lying behind 
 Dr. Paul's opposition was in no way connected with that as- 
 signment or its consequences. In fact, the animus had been 
 distinctly conceived against the teacher himself long before 
 the date of assignment. 
 
 (This theme will be amplified under the specific head- 
 ing: THE CASE OF MR. SCHMALHAUSEN.) 
 
 OTHER INFLUENCES OPERATING AGAINST THE 
 DISMISSED TEACHERS. 
 
 . ANTI-SEMITISM. 
 What They Say 
 Page 9. 
 "The committee was unable to find any evidence, real 
 or implied, which even intimated such prejudice on the part 
 of Dr. Straubenmuller who directed the charges to be pre- 
 ferred, . . . or of any of the . . . members of the Board 
 who voted for their dismissal. The testimony at the trial 
 shows that Dr. Tildsley while at DeWitt Clinton, had never 
 entertained any such prejudice against any of them." 
 (Page 10.) 
 
 The Truth in the Case 
 
 As against the committee's so-called search for evi- 
 dence of religious prejudice, we, more fortunately situated, 
 are able to adduce very convincing proof of the existence of 
 a very deep anti-Semitic prejudice on the part of several in- 
 fluential officials connected with the prosecution. We know 
 nothing about Dr. Straubenmuller's connection with our 
 case. The charges and the specifications were preferred by 
 Dr. Tildsley. To a sub-committee of the Teachers' Defense, 
 one member of the Board said : All the men (i. e., the dis- 
 missed teachers) were Russian Jews. Their parents had 
 come from Russia; the day was soon coming when they 
 
 would be sent back to Russia where they belong 
 
 They try to practice the things they couldn't do in Russia ! 
 He hoped to see the day when there would be no more Rus- 
 sian Jews in this country! . . . This is but one illustra- 
 tion of a prejudice that existed in the minds of several of 
 
 118 
 
the Board members. (We have examined carefully the 
 pages referred to (102, 165, 234) and find no reference 
 whatsoever to the religious faith of the three teachers. 
 The text refers merely to the records of the three teachers.) 
 
 Any member of the New York City teaching profes- 
 sion who is at all intimately acquainted with Dr. Tildsley's 
 career, will have no trouble in recalling several damaging 
 cases of race prejudice in which Dr. Tildsley's anti-Semit- 
 ism is flagrantly revealed. Of the several instances of anti- 
 Semitism (which in the near future will be fully published 
 in the case against Dr. Tildsley) we choose one as illustra- 
 tive of the kind of bias that operated against the dismissed, 
 transferred and interviewed teachers. The following quo- 
 tations are taken from the official testimony of Examiner 
 Byrnes, Coramissioner Churchill, et. al., in the case of Cohen 
 vs. Pugh and Collins, the appeal of which is now pending 
 in the court. 
 
 Note: At the time of the Cohen hearing, Dr. John L. 
 Tildsley was principal of the High School of Commerce. 
 The hearing occurred at the Hall of the Board of Educa- 
 tion, Nov. 14, 1916. All the incidents leading up to the 
 hearing occurred during Dr. Tildsley's principalship at Com- 
 merce High School. 
 
 (Official Minutes, Pages 63, et. seq.) 
 
 BY MISS LEVENTRITT: 
 
 Q. Is it true, Mr. Smith, that since this time it is the 
 sense of the Board of Examiners that no Jewish candidates 
 be given classroom tests at the High School of Commerce? 
 
 A. I have heard of nothing of that sort. We have not 
 any special high schools in which to test Jewish candidates. 
 We make no distinction whatever on that line. 
 
 BY MR. CHURCHILL: 
 
 Q. Do you know whether there is that coincidence, < 
 that no Jewish candidate is given classroom tests at the 
 High School of Commerce? 
 
 A. I am certain that it cannot be the case. 
 
 BY DR. WILE : 
 
 Q. This is the only place you can give it for economics 
 candidates ? 
 
 119 
 
A. Since that time we have sent economics candidates 
 to other high schools. The DeWitt Clinton get some. 
 BY MR. CHURCHILL: 
 
 Q. Do you know, Mr. Tildsley, whether any Jewish 
 candidates have been given classroom tests at the High 
 School of Commerce? 
 
 A. I don't know, but I should think that there have 
 been. We have a great many candidates there, and I am 
 very sure there have been. 
 
 Witness: There must have been in many subjects. 
 
 Mr. Byrnes: I tvas informed by Mr. Blunt, of ivhom 
 I made that inquiry (he is the clerk ivho makes these as- 
 signments of candidates) that it is his understanding that 
 no Jetuish candidate's, I do not know whether in all subjects 
 or in some subjects, are to be sent to the High School of 
 Commerce. (Note: These are our italics.) 
 
 As further testimony establishing the plausibility of 
 the charge of anti-Semitism, we quote the following ex- 
 cerpts from Professor Beard's statement concerning the 
 dismissal of the three teachers: (Letter Dec. 15, 1917.) 
 "On careful inquiry I find no little anti-Semitic feeling in 
 the case — the three teachers accused being Jews. This is 
 denied but it is a fact." 
 
 The most authoritative voice that has spoken the truth 
 in relation to this malignant undertow of anti-Semitism 
 comes in unmistakable accents from no less a person than 
 ex-President William G. Willcox, who (in a letter, dated 
 Jan. 25, 1918) honestly admitted: "I must confess to a 
 great deal of uncertainty in my own mind regarding the 
 course of the Board of Education. I cannot but feel that 
 the attitude of some members of the Board, and possibly 
 of Dr. Tildsley himself, was influenced in some degree by 
 the so-called "Whalen Resolutions" and by opposition to 
 the Socialistic views of these teachers, and possibly to some 
 extent by racial considerations also. Furthermore, it was 
 quite evident to me that in spite of the fact that no evidence 
 was produced to indicate disloyalty, the whole atmosphere 
 was charged with a suspicion of disloyalty which almost in- 
 evitably, although perhaps unconsciously, affected the judg- 
 ment of members of the Board. ... I felt during the 
 trial, and I still feel that the whole situation was clouded by 
 these irrelevant factors." 
 
 120 
 
"The Trial" 
 "In the matter of the three suspended high-school teachers, 
 the expected has happened. The Committee on High Schools of 
 the Board of Education has recommended the defendants for dis- 
 missal, after a hearing in which was disclosed a state of mental 
 and moral obfuscation on the part of the prosecution which in any 
 ordinary times would have excited public ridicule. The Board of 
 Education will doubtless concur in the verdict and expel these men 
 from the service of the city. The case not only was prejudged from 
 the beginning, but was disingenuous in inception, unfair in method, 
 and un-American in spirit. Under the plausible guise of an effort 
 to eliminate disloyalty from the teaching force in the city schools, 
 these teachers are being punished, not for disloyalty, but for having 
 been active in connection v.'ith the adoption by the De Witt Clinton 
 High School faculty of a set of resolutions criticising by name the 
 chairman of the Committee on High Schools. In the prosecution 
 of the case, that chairman has been virtually complainant, prosecut- 
 ing officer, judge, jury, and executioner." 
 
 This compact summary on the unfairness of the "trial" 
 is an editorial from the New York Evening Post, (Dec. 11, 
 1917). No one who is acquainted with the standing and 
 traditions of this most admirable and high-minded of 
 American newspapers ean ascribe either the motive of par- 
 tizanship or of wilful perversion of the facts to the writer 
 of that editorial. But we shall not content ourselves with 
 one distinguished opinion on the "trial". We take the lib- 
 erty of quoting the most distinguished educator-philosopher 
 America has produced. In his speech at DeWitt Clinton 
 High School (Dec. 15, 1917), Prof. Dewey, commenting 
 upon the so-called trial of the three teachers said : "These 
 teachers have not gotten the rights of a fair hearing which 
 everywhere else in the life of a citizen they have a right 
 to before being held guilty. These teachers are not under 
 trial for acts of any kind. They are under accusations. . . . 
 So far as the evidence brought against them is concerned, 
 there is absolutely nothing but charges about their private 
 views and private opinions; and those views and opinions 
 were not expressed within any school, but were brought out, 
 taking it at their worst, taking it at Mr. Tildsley's and Mr. 
 Paul's statements, in a purely private and personal hear- 
 ing. / don't know what this is called in 1917, but I knoiv 
 what it used to be called. It used to be called the Inquisi- 
 tion." 
 
 On the day of judgment, Dec. 19, 1917, every member 
 of the Board of Education had placed on his desk before 
 
 121 
 
him a copy of the following letter signed by twelve distin- 
 guished professors representing Columbia University, 
 Teachers' College and the College of the City of New York : 
 
 Professors' Letter (Dec. 19, 1917) 
 The situation in connection with the cases of the ac- 
 cused DeWitt Clinton High School Teachers appears to us 
 in danger of becoming irretrievably confused. Contradic- 
 tory statements are made by those in authority who are 
 pressing the case against the men as to whether the loyalty 
 issue is involved. The general public believes that nothing 
 more cruelly unjust could happen than at this critical time 
 of war to have the professional career of teachers blasted 
 under imputation of disloyalty if the actual charges against 
 them are of another nature. On the other hand, the state- 
 ment is widely current that the real source of the difficulty 
 is found in the internal friction in the administration of 
 the DeWitt Clinton High School, In the interests of public 
 education and in justice to the officials of the school, this 
 statement should either be substantiated or shown to be 
 false. 
 
 In this confused state of affairs, the need for further 
 inquiry and deliberate consideration in order to ascertain 
 facts and clear up issues seems manifest. There appears 
 to be no urgent need for haste. Since the accused have al- 
 ready been suspended from school duties, no harm can 
 arise from delay in case further inquiry should show them 
 to be unworthy of retention. Decision in many less im- 
 portant cases has frequently been deferred in order to as- 
 sure impartial decision. Accordingly, as citizens having 
 direct professional interest in education, we respectfully 
 suggest such delay as will enable the facts and the issues 
 involved in them to be made clear. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 W. T. Bush W. P. Montague 
 
 M. R. Cohen H. A. Overstreet 
 
 John Dewey Thomas PvEed Powell 
 
 A. J. Goldfarb J. H. Robinson 
 
 Carlton J. H. Hayes David Snedden 
 
 N. P. Mead J. P. Turner 
 
 122 
 
Prof. Charles Austin Beard (who was present at the 
 "trial") said in a letter which he made public Dec. 15, 1917 ; 
 "It is evident that there was bitter feeling between Mr. 
 Whalen and the teachers of DeWitt Clinton High School 
 before the loyalty issue arose. It is therefore in large 
 measure an administrative fight — Mr. Whalen being prose- 
 cutor, judge and jury in his own case." 
 
 Mr. James H. Post, who had originally voted for the 
 dismissal of the three men and a week later, because of 
 conscientious scruples and doubts, changed his mind, wrote 
 a letter to Commissioner Finley in behalf of the three 
 teachers the last paragraph of which reads: "I feel that 
 several members of the Board of Education did not have 
 sufficient opportunity to consider the matter, in view of the 
 fact that the last two meetings had to be largely given up 
 to properly concluding numerous routine matters of the 
 Board." 
 
 What more startling confession of the fundamental 
 unfairness of the "trial" of the three teachers could be 
 asked for than the following editorial appearing in the New 
 York Times (Dec. 21, 1917) : 
 
 "There is probably something of disquietude or dis- 
 satisfaction in the minds oi many of the city's entirely 
 loyal citizens as a result of the severe punishment just in- 
 flicted by the Board of Education on the three high school 
 teachers convicted by it of the rather vague offense of con- 
 ducting themselves in a way that does not become men in 
 their position. This feeling is natural enough, and it has 
 several excuses. 
 
 For one thing, there has been made the always more or 
 less effective appeal to our veneration of the much-misun- 
 derstood right of "free speech." i^or aiiother, the proceed- 
 ings at the trial of the accused teachers ivere obviously not 
 such as would have brought about a conviction in a cowt 
 where the established rules of evidence luere observed. As 
 it happens, however, the case was not, so far as the Board 
 was concerned, one that required observance of those rules, 
 but rather for the use of the far less rigid method of judg- 
 ing evidence which, while it always offends the lawyers, 
 still is considered, and rightly considered, by all reasonable 
 
 123 
 
men as adequate in determining action in their own affairs, 
 no matter how important. 
 
 The defenses of the three teachers are all technical, 
 and they are all weakened or vitiated by the mistake of con- 
 sidering the personal viterei^ts and legal lights of the 
 teachers instead of the community's need to have its chil- 
 dren properly taught by example as well as by books. 
 
 (From an editorial in The New York Times — Dec. 21, 
 1917.) (Our italics.) 
 
 Com. Thomas W. Churchill said : 
 
 "This is a pitiable travesty of a trial. I wouldn't send 
 a dog to his doom on such evidence." 
 Com. Joseph Barondess said : 
 
 "This is not a trial. This is a lynching on unsupported 
 allegations." 
 Prof. Harry A. Overstreet said : 
 
 "The trial itself was conducted under conditions that 
 would excite great concern in a Court of Law." 
 Prof. Charles A. Beard said : 
 
 "It reminds me of nothing so much as the mediaeval 
 days." 
 Mr. Randolph Bourne said : 
 
 "This is a public executipn." 
 Dr. Wm. H. Allen said: 
 
 "Travesty and menace are weak pictures of this gro- 
 tesque mis-defense of loyalty. 
 
 "No court would call a tramp disloyal on the basis of 
 such facts as are adduced to justify branding and dismis- 
 sing three teachers as disloyal. 
 
 "The dismissal of three teachers, on facts given, is in- 
 finitely more disloyal and dangerous to American ideals 
 than anything charged or implied against the teachers." 
 (From Public Service Bulletin, Dec. 18, 1917.) 
 
 And finally, we quote a remarkabe passage from the 
 testimony itself, in which Mr. Herbert C. Smyth, counsel 
 for the teachers, one of the most acute cross-examiners, 
 gives it as his legal opinion, in speaking of the procedure : 
 "It is something comparable to the old Salem witchcraft 
 trials, that persons who are supposed to have views that are 
 not in consonance with the views of the community are put 
 on trial and asked suppositious questions, not as to what 
 
 124 
 
they had done, not as to what their duty required them to 
 do, but taking a case that is not in point at all, what would 
 you then do." (Testimony, page 263.) 
 
 THE CASE AGAINST THE PROSECUTION 
 (as evidenced by the testimony of their own witnesses) 
 
 WHAT THEY SAY: 
 
 (in their Report) 
 
 p. 27 
 
 "In each of the three cases the 
 testimony of the school ofificials 
 (together with the exhibits) in 
 the opinion of the Committee, 
 establishes the charges made. 
 Their sfaieiiicnis arc simple, 
 straightforward and positive. The 
 testimony of one official is cor- 
 roborated by that of the others." 
 
 THE TRUTH OF THE CASE: 
 
 As the quoted testimony of the 
 prosecution's witnesses; will re^- 
 veal, their statements, far from 
 being "simple'' are involved, 
 hesitant, self-contradictory and 
 often obscure; far from being 
 "straightforward," some of what 
 purported to be the most damag- 
 ing evidence, upon examination, 
 proved to be crooked and disin- 
 genuous; instead of being "posi- 
 tive," their statements in large 
 measure are either positively 
 wrong or utterly inadequate. As 
 we shall see ! In fact, the evi- 
 dence reveals at every turn a self- 
 interested motive that comes 
 close to the margin of collusion 
 and conspiracy. As we shall see. 
 One would expect that the wit- 
 nesses for the prosecution would 
 indeed corroborate each other's 
 .'•i.iten.ents, for in truth they had 
 one and the same sinister inten- 
 tion. But, in fact, as we shall 
 show, their statements are often 
 contradictory and conflicting. 
 
 ILLUSTRATION I. 
 (Case of Conflicting Testimony) 
 
 Volume of Testimony p. 32. 
 
 Miss Garrigues 
 Q. Did he (Dr. Paul) make any 
 exclamation at that time in 
 reference to the position that 
 he deemed Mr. Schmalhausen 
 to be in? 
 
 vs. 
 
 Volume of Testimony, p. 48. 
 
 Dr. Paul 
 
 Q. She says that you said, "Now 
 I've got him." Did you not 
 say that? 
 
 A. I regret that I must remain 
 at variance with Miss Gar- 
 rigues. 
 
 125 
 
A. He said, I think — yes, he 
 
 said something. 
 Q. What was it he said? 
 A. He said, I think, "I have 
 
 him now." 
 Q. Are not the words that he 
 
 said, "Now, I've got him? 
 A. I think so. 
 Q. You think so? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. 
 
 A. 
 Q. 
 
 A. 
 
 Q. 
 
 You have always known her 
 as a lady of absolute veraci- 
 ty? 
 Yes. 
 
 Can you imagine how she 
 could make such a mistake 
 as that? 
 
 I can only — the only solution 
 I can get would be from the 
 words of your client in the 
 room at the time when he 
 spoke of her as an emotion- 
 ally energized lady on oc- 
 casion. 
 
 Do you think that is an 
 answer to my question? 
 I can find no other. 
 
 Is this one of the examples the Schoolmaslers' Com- 
 mittee had in mind when it referred to the statements of 
 the school officials as being "simple, straightforward and 
 positive;" that "the testimony of one official is corroborated 
 by that of the others?" 
 
 ILLUSTRATION IL 
 (Case of Contradictory Testimony) 
 
 p. 57. 
 
 Dr. Paul 
 
 Q. So that if this essay (the 
 Herman letter) had been 
 presented before that in 
 class to Mr. S'chmalhausen 
 and he had had the oppor- 
 tunity of criticising, as he 
 had according to his margi- 
 nal notations, you would have 
 great hopes that the next 
 time the boy was called upon 
 to address that particular 
 subject it would be in an en- 
 tirely different vein, would 
 you not? 
 
 A. I havei not only hope but 
 knowledge that the boy has 
 under the control and direc- 
 tion of another teacher seen 
 the mistake that he made in 
 writing that letter. 
 
 vs. 
 
 p. 84. 
 
 Dr. Tildsley 
 
 Q. And the very thing that I 
 am trying to make, the point 
 I am trying to make is 
 this answer in Herman's 
 case, because that attitude 
 was found out by his an- 
 swer to that asignment, 
 and his ideas have been 
 rectified? 
 
 A. His ideas, in my judgment, 
 have not been rectified. 
 
 Q. Have -you not admitted that 
 before? 
 
 A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Did you hear Dr. Paul 
 testify that his (Herman's) 
 ideas now were entirely 
 different than what they 
 were? 
 
 126 
 
Q. 
 
 Did this other teacher follow 
 
 A. 
 
 I am not responsible for 
 
 
 the annotations of Mr. 
 
 
 what Dr. Paul says. 
 
 
 Schmalhausen in criticising 
 
 Q. 
 
 Do you concur in what he 
 
 
 that essay? 
 
 
 says? 
 
 A. 
 
 The other teacher did not dis- 
 
 A. 
 
 I do not. 
 
 
 cuss that essay per se. 
 
 Q. 
 
 You do not agree? 
 
 Q. 
 
 I see. 
 
 A. 
 
 No. 
 
 A. 
 
 The other teacher presented 
 
 Q. 
 
 With Dr. Paul? 
 
 
 to the boy a better under- 
 
 A. 
 
 I do not agree with Dr. 
 
 
 standing of the German Gov- 
 
 
 Paul ; no. 
 
 
 ernment, according to the 
 
 
 
 
 boy's statement to me. 
 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 No opportunity was given to 
 Mr. Schmalhausen to present 
 any idea of the German Gov- 
 ernment to this boy, was 
 there? 
 
 
 
 A. 
 
 Not as I know of. 
 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 None that you know of. In 
 fact he was suspended before 
 there was any opportunity 
 for him to do anything about 
 the matter further than write 
 the annotations in your 
 office? What? 
 
 
 
 A. 
 
 That is correct. 
 
 
 
 Is this another classic illustration in which, "the testi- 
 mony of one official is corroborated by that of the others?" 
 
 ILLUSTRATION III. 
 (Clear case of prejudice) 
 (Page 160, Dr. Tildsley speaking.) 
 Q. Now wait a minute, Doctor, you are not interested 
 in having this man discharged, are you ? 
 A. / am interested. 
 Q. You want him discharged? 
 A, / do ivant him discharged. 
 Q, Then you are an interested witness ? 
 A. I am interested in my capacity as Superintendent 
 of Education. 
 
 ILLUSTRATION IV. 
 
 (Clear case of personal animus) 
 (Page 217, Dr. Paul speaking.) 
 
 Q. Did he (Schneer) say pacifist? 
 A. I do not recollect the exact word. 
 
 127 
 
Q. Then why did you use that ugly word if he did 
 not say it? 
 
 A. With no intent. 
 
 Q. Are you sure about that? 
 
 A. Absolutely. 
 
 Q. Then will you withdraw it? 
 
 A. Willingly. 
 
 Q. Thank you. 
 
 A. But may I substitute the name I know he did use? 
 
 Q. What? 
 
 A. The name you asked me a moment ago, 
 
 Q, Lippman? 
 
 A. Beg pardon; Walter Lippman, yes. 
 
 Q. Is that the name that you meant? 
 
 A, That is the name that I meant. 
 
 Q. Did you know that he was one of the advisers of 
 President Wilson? 
 
 A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Do you consider any person who speaks from the 
 stage, not in uniform, as a pacifist? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. That was a slip on your part, not intending to in- 
 jure Mr. Schneer? 
 
 A. Not intending in any way to injure Mr. Schneer. 
 
 How will the Schoolmasters' Committee account for 
 this most interesting slip of the tongue? Is this, in Mr. 
 Dotey's phraseology, an illustration of "lapsus linguae?" 
 
 ILLUSTRATION V. 
 
 (Illustration of testimony that is "simple, straightforward 
 
 and positive ! !") 
 
 Page 93. Mr. Anthony speaking) 
 
 Q. When Mr. Schmalhausen was asked whether he 
 would allow a similar letter to be read, is not really what 
 happened this — that Mr. Schmalhausen called attention to 
 the fact that Herman was a very intelligent boy, as shown 
 by his record? 
 
 A. I do not recall it. 
 
 Q. Do you deny it? 
 
 A. I do not recall it. 
 
 Q. Do you deny it? 
 
 128 
 
A. I simply do not recall it. 
 Q. You won't answer that question? 
 A. I simply do not recall it. 
 Q. You won't answer that question? 
 A. I do not recall it. 
 
 Q. Will you answer the one question that I ask you, 
 do you deny that that was said ? 
 
 A. I do not deny it. I do not recall it. 
 (Mr. Smyth) Thank you. 
 
 ILLUSTRATION VI. 
 
 (Case of Tildsley vs. himself) 
 Page 166.) 
 
 Q. You say that you asked him whether he was in 
 favor of early peace ? 
 
 A. I did not. 
 
 Q. Did you mention that subject? 
 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. In what respect do you now say you mentioned 
 that subject? 
 
 A. I told him that I had drawn the inference that he 
 was in favor of an early peace. I did not ask if he was in 
 favor of an early peace. I told him that I had drawn the 
 inference from his own attitude in the matter. 
 
 Q. Assuming that he is in favor of an early peace, 
 should he be discharged for that? 
 
 A. / should say yes. 
 
 Q. Are you in favor of an early peace ? 
 
 A. I am not. 
 
 Q. You are in favor of prolonging the war indefi- 
 nitely ? 
 
 A. I am not. 
 
 Q. Then it is one or the other? Which is it? Do you 
 want an early victorious peace? 
 
 A. I do. 
 
 Q, Then you want to see an' early peace? 
 
 A. Not necessarily. 
 . . Q. I do not quite get you. Are you a loyal American 
 citizen? 
 
 A. I am. 
 
 Q. Then you do want to see an early peace, do you not? 
 
 129 
 
A. Not necessarily. 
 
 Q. Well, bu1>— 
 
 A. What is the use of arguing about that? 
 
 Q. Because I want to see how — show you how unfair 
 you are. 
 
 A. I am not unfair. I want a victorious peace as 
 early as it can be brought about. 
 
 Q. Is there anything he said that was different than 
 that? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What? 
 
 A. He wanted an early peace whether it was victor- 
 ious or not. 
 
 Q. Did he say that? 
 
 A. I— 
 
 Q. Did he tell you that? 
 
 A. I do not believe he said it in those ivords, no, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you, in your direct examination, say anything 
 of that kind? 
 
 .A Not in that language ; no, sir. 
 . . Q. Have you not just thought of it when I put the 
 word "victorious" in your mouth? 
 
 A. No, sir, we both had in mind, or at least T had in 
 mind, the idea of a peace such as the United States Govcrr- 
 ment was working for. 
 
 Q. Did you call his attention to the fact that you werf 
 inferring that he desired an early peace without victory? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Then why should you assume that he wanted ai 
 early peace without victory? 
 
 A. By the context of the conversation. 
 
 Q. And that context you have given us? 
 
 A. Not all of it. 
 
 Q. Why did you not give us all? 
 
 A. I gave you the main things as I remembered them. 
 The conversation lasted about half an hour. I have not 
 reproduced it all. 
 
 Q. Had anything been said in that conversation about 
 a victorious United States, a victorious peace? 
 
 A. Not a word as to victorious, because the instance 
 was the boys in the classroom discussing a movement in 
 favor of peace. 
 
 130 
 
Q. You have answered the question? 
 A. No, I have not. 
 
 Q. You have and I am going to ask another one. It 
 is true, is it not, Dr. Tildsley, that you want an early peace? 
 A. No it is not true. 
 
 Then you want a prolongation of this world misery, 
 
 do you? 
 A. 
 Mr. 
 
 To a certain extent; yes. 
 
 Smyth: Thank you, that is enough. (Our italics) 
 
 For a revelation of an utterly confused, intellectually 
 incompetent and provincially prejudiced mind, this testi- 
 mony of the chief witness for the prosecution will go down 
 in educational literature as another Comedy of Errors. 
 
 The reader can no longer remain in doubt as to the 
 pathetic show of virtue lamely revealed in the self-right- 
 eous assumption of the Schoolmasters' Committee that the 
 statements of the school officials testifying for the prosecu- 
 tion are "simple, straightforward and positive. The testi- 
 mony of one official is corroborated by that of the others." ! ! ! 
 
 A few more illustrations culled judiciously from the 
 volume of testimony will shatter completely the overween- 
 ing self-confident assumption of the Schoolmasters' Com- 
 mittee ! 
 
 ILLUSTRATION VII. 
 ( Contradictions) 
 
 Testimony Pages 69 and 70. 
 Dr. Tildsley 
 
 A. It is my opinion that a letter 
 such as that would have a 
 very serious effect on the 
 boys in that class. . . This 
 is not a mere theorizing on 
 my part, but I have talked 
 with the boy who wrote 
 this letter, namelj^ Herman, 
 who came to my office, and 
 I asked him whether he 
 would have written such a 
 letter in the case of another 
 teacher named Loughran, 
 and he said he zvould not. 
 
 Testimony Page 136. 
 
 Hyman Herman 
 
 Q. Was anything said about Mr. 
 Schmalhausen by Dr. Paul 
 at that interview? (Herman 
 had been called to several in- 
 terviews by Dr. Tildsley and 
 Dr. Paul.) 
 
 A. Not directly, or as far as 1 
 know, indirectly, but Dr. Paul 
 wanted to know whether I 
 would have written in any 
 other teacher's class such a 
 composition. 
 
 Q. What did you tell him? 
 
 A. / told him, as I felt at the 
 time I would have written it 
 in any teacher's class. 
 
 131 
 
(Mr. Smyth, Counsel for Defendants, continuing (Herman 
 
 on stand.) 
 
 Testimony, Pages 136-7 
 
 Q. Did they ask you whether Mr. Schmalhausen had 
 influenced you in writing the letter, so that you did write 
 that letter? 
 
 A. / suppose that is tvhat they wanted me to tell. 
 
 Q. What did you tell them ? 
 
 A. I told them nobody had influenced me, I would 
 have written it in anybody's class. 
 
 (Mr. Smyth) : That is all. 
 
 Cross examination of Hyman Herman by Mr. Mayer, 
 Counsel for Prosecution. 
 
 Q. Would you have written this letter in Mr. Lough- 
 ran's class? 
 
 A. Had he given me the topic, I ivould have ivritten 
 such a letter. 
 
 Q. Even though Mr. Loughran had inculcated a spirit 
 of patriotism in his class? 
 
 A. / do not remember Mr. Loughran having inculcated 
 any special spiHt of patriotism. 
 
 Q. You do not? 
 
 A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Would you have written it in Mr. Lapolla's class? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You would have written it? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (Counsel for the Prosecution still trying to compel 
 Hyman Herman to assert that he had been given special 
 instruction in patriotism by teachers other than Mr. Schmal- 
 hausen) .... Testimony, Page 141 (for following) : 
 
 Q. Your note addressed to your fellow students came 
 as the result of the teachings which you imbibed since you 
 wrote the letter to President Wilson of October 22, 1917, 
 through your history teacher in the history class; is that 
 right? 
 
 A. From the history book in my history class. 
 
 Q. And your teacher there? 
 
 A. And my teacher perhaps. 
 
 Q. Perhaps, do you say? 
 
 A. He just simply pointed out what was in the book. 
 
 132 
 
Q. Did he ever give you any direct instruction in 
 patriotic attitude toward the government? 
 
 A. No direct instruction. 
 
 Q. No direct instruction? 
 
 A. No, sir. (Our italics.) 
 
 ILLUSTRATION VIII. 
 
 Dr. Tildsley Versus Com. John Whalen 
 
 (Testimony, Page 74) 
 
 (Concerning the Whalen Resolutions) 
 
 Q. To whom did you make any informal or any pre- 
 liminary report, or to whom did you tell what the result of 
 your conversation was? 
 
 A. I talked with the Board of Superintendents about 
 it. 
 
 Q. Who else? 
 
 A. I do not remember ; I talked to President Willcox — 
 I do not remember whether I talked to President Willcox 
 before or after I had made the investigation, but I have 
 not made any report on that investigation as yet. 
 
 Q. You have spoken to Chairman Whalen about it? 
 
 A. Probably I have; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Probably? Have you no recollection about it? 
 
 A. I have no recollection of having made any formal 
 report. 
 
 Q. I did not ask you for any formal report. 
 
 (Chairman Whalen interrupts) : 
 
 I can say that to you, he has not done so to me. 
 
 (Mr. Smyth) : I did not say he had made any report. 
 
 (Whalen) : He has not discussed it ivith me. 
 
 (Mr. Smyth) : Do you mean he has not spoken to 
 you, Mr. Chairman, about it? 
 
 (Whalen) : No. (Our italics.) 
 
 ILLUSTRATION IX. 
 
 (Dr. Paul's Animus) 
 
 (Testimony, Pages 32 and 33) 
 
 Mr. Smyth: I think I am entitled to show animus if 
 there is any. 
 
 Mr. Mayer: It does not make any difference whether 
 there tvas any animus or not. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: No, I do not think it does. We 
 
 183 
 
are just trying this specific charge. . . . We won't pay any 
 attention to the animus of Dr. Paul, 'if any. 
 
 Mr. Smyth : It may have this to do with it your Honor, 
 that it will go to the credibility of those who framed the 
 charges if they had a definite purpose and prejudgment 
 coming from a definite purpose beforehand in attributing 
 innuendoes or insinuations or interpretations or statements 
 alleged to have been made by Mr. Schmalhausen. It some- 
 times takes but the transposition of a little word to spell 
 the difference between guilt and innocence. // there has 
 been a predeternfiined effort, in the luords of Dr. Paul, "to 
 get Mr. Schmalhausen," we find an imderlyiyig motive for 
 that which will be illuminative when we come to hear the 
 testimony of his accusers. 
 
 Chairman Whalen: Mr, Smyth, we are interested in 
 trying these charges, and if there is any feeling between 
 Dr. Paul and Mr. Schmalhausen I do not think that we 
 want to go into that, because these charges are preferred 
 by the superintendent and they are specific, and if we are 
 going to undertake to try all these little things that hap- 
 pened before and after, we shall never get through tuith the 
 trial of this case. 
 
 Mr. Smyth : May I respectfully urge upon your Honor 
 that the only object I have in asking this particular ques- 
 tion is to show that the genesis of these charges was an oc- 
 currence which had. previously resulted in the adoption of 
 the resolution which were cHtical of your Honor. (Our 
 italics.) 
 
 PUBLIC OPINION IN THE CASE 
 PROFESSOR LOUIS S. FRIEDLAND SAYS: 
 
 "I consider that the official vindication of the teachers who 
 were suspended by a moribund Board in its last days, after the 
 people of this city had disowned most of the members of this 
 Board, is a matter of the utmost importance. The actual vindica- 
 tion of the suspended teachers is made clear to all who read the 
 evidence in the case." 
 
 MRS. JOHN DEWEY SAYS: 
 
 "I think their reinstatement will bring a new sentiment for 
 justice into play with that part of the public who have known their 
 history, and that it is demanded for this reason as well as for 
 repairing the professional wrong that has been put upon them 
 personally." 
 
 134 
 
REV. NORMAN THOMAS SAYS: 
 
 "So far as I can gather from the newspapers the treatment 
 measured out to them was unjust to them and dangerous to any 
 sound theory of education or democracy. 
 
 "I have read with care the evidence of the trial of the three 
 teachers of De Witt CHnton High School. It confirms my opinion 
 that they were victims of injustice and that the attitude of the 
 School Board is not beneficial to the best interests of education." 
 
 WINTER RUSSELL SAYS: 
 
 "I feel strongly that democracy has received a severe blow in 
 this infringement upon the rights of American citizens as well as 
 of public school teachers; nay, as a father of four children, one of 
 whom is now attending the public school and all of whom I expect 
 will, as they become of age, attend the public schools, I feel that the 
 rights of pupils were hereby abbreviated if not grossly assaulted. 
 
 "I shall not attempt to present any new view of the case be- 
 cause I realize of course that you will go into it most thoroughly, 
 but I simply want to add my petition to the hundreds who will no 
 doubt write to you, and to the thousands who feel just as deeply 
 as I do, but who may not take upon themselves the initiative of 
 addressing you in behalf of those three forward-looking and inde- 
 pendent young men." (Letter to Dr. Finley) 
 
 FREDERIC C. LEUBUSCHER SAYS: 
 
 "I have just finished reading the testlmonj^ taken at the trial 
 of the three High School instructors who were dismissed by the 
 Board of Education of this City last December. I had received 
 the impression from the newspaper accounts that they were dis- 
 missed for disloyalty to the government of the United States. A 
 reading of the record, however, shows that no charge of disloyalty 
 was made, but that the charge was conduct unbecoming a teacher, 
 and even that charge was not proven. The only explanation I can 
 find for their dismissal is that it was the result of public hysteria. 
 "I hesitated for some time about writing you for fear that my 
 advocacy of their case might do more harm than good, because of 
 my German name. You know me however, to be a loyal American 
 citizen. Indeed considering my ancestry, it would have been difficult 
 for me to be otherwise. My father was one of the revolutionists 
 of '48, and was obliged to flee to this country about the same time 
 that Carl Schurz arrived here. After he had become an American 
 citizen he enlisted in the first New York regiment that went to the 
 front, serving throughout the war of the Rebellion and commanding 
 his regiment in many of the large battles, being wounded twice. 
 Were he alive todaj^ he would do all he could to fight for democracy 
 against autocracy. Being dead, his son must continue the war for 
 freedom which he began seventy years ago. 
 
 135 
 
"Knowing that you are not the sort of man who can be in- 
 fluenced by public hysteria, I am confident that your consideration 
 of the case will do full justice to the appellants." (Letter to Dr. 
 Finley) 
 
 ***** 
 
 MRS. J. P. WARBASSE SAYS: 
 
 "I attended the hearing at your request on Monday, the testi- 
 mony for the prosecution was incredible. It does not seem possible 
 that in the Twentieth Century, people — Educators — could hold or 
 at least state such opinions, in a democracy too !" 
 
 DUNCAN MACDOUGAL SAYS: 
 
 "I am one of a large number of the people of New York who 
 would be glad to see the above-named teachers re-instated. In- 
 deed, in my work as a lecturer and writer, and in my more im- 
 mediate domestic circle, I have heard but one person speak un- 
 favorably of the teachers; and that one also expressed himself 
 out of sympathy with those who proceeded against them. 
 
 "In reviewing the printed evidence I am amazed at the findings 
 of the Committee on High Schools; and one questions whether one 
 is living in the twentieth century or not. I was formerly a lecturer 
 at St. Andrew's College, University of Sydney; and was for some 
 years in practice as a teacher in London, England: having instructed 
 in the households of the Duke of Portland, the Hon. Mrs. E. L. 
 Franklin and other distinguished circles ; but in all my experience 
 I have never known such an obvious, unmitigated outrage against 
 our profession. To speak in cold blood, the conclusion of the trial 
 is so contrary to just reading of law, and all equity, that I cannot 
 but subscribe to the general opinion that the three teachers were 
 sentenced by their offilcial enemies before ever their trial began 
 The evidence against them being so arbitrary and inconsequential, 
 so impertinent even to the puerile charges, I agree with the great 
 majority of my friends and acquaintances in holding the proceedings 
 to be farcical in the extreme. 
 
 "Surely all sane persons interested in the progress of education 
 must assume that if Dickens or Swift or Moliere were amongst us, 
 each and all would pour scorn and ridicule on the Committe and 
 on the Board, on Chairman John Whalen and Associate Superin- 
 tendent Tildsley. And did not Shakespeare himself evoke a vision 
 of the Chairman and the Assistant Superintendent in the no less 
 renowned unconscious comedians, Dogberry and Verges of that ilk? 
 But returning to the more pitiable aspect of the case, and the printed 
 evidence, was not all honesty and manliness on the side of the 
 accused, and the most contemptible bullying, meanness, and prevari- 
 cation, if not perjury itself, on the side of the accusers? In plain 
 English, we the public believe both the investigation and the trial 
 to be framed up. We demand either a new trial or the re-instate- 
 ment of the three teachers. The fact that some of the Committee 
 
 136 
 
have already reversed their decision is one other reason for the 
 re-instatement of the teachers; more particularly as these votes, 
 if given in due time, would have freed the accused." (Letter to 
 
 Dr. Finley) 
 
 ***** 
 
 OWEN R. LOVE JOY SAYS: 
 
 "I have followed with some care the entire proceedings at the 
 time of the so-called trial last Winter and failed to recall any 
 instance in which there has been so evident a miscarriage of justice 
 or a case in which the final verdict had been so obviously determined 
 upon before the examination began. 
 
 "I am very keen, as you know, for the principle that loyalty to 
 our American Democracy and its free institutions must be main- 
 tained, and that in a time like this it is particularly important that 
 it be emphasized. I do not believe, however, that our elementary 
 schools or even secondary schools should be turned into training 
 camps for the Army because the bulk of loyal service our citizens, 
 especially the youth, can perform, is of quite a diflferent character. 
 At the present time their chief need is to develop sound minds and 
 sound bodies in order to prepare for whatever emergency the future 
 may demand, and I think the attitude of some of the school officials 
 in turning the attention of children away from their studies to the 
 almost continual contemplation of military activities constitutes a 
 kind of intellectual dissipation highly detrimental to the develop- 
 ment of the pupils and the welfare of the public. 
 
 "Apparently the offense these three teachers committed was 
 against a superheated Prussian type of patriotic absolutism and 
 their determination to stand on the principle of freedom of thought 
 and expression in the public school to the fullest extent consistent 
 with public safety and public morals. 
 
 "I do not know any of these men personally nor their abilities 
 as teachers, but I am convinced that our system of public education 
 cannot afford to bear the onus of requiring a blind and unthinking 
 obedience to authority which would not be tolerated in any of the 
 other warring countries today — with the possible exception of 
 Germany and Turkey. 
 
 "If these teachers are to be dismissed permanently from the 
 teaching staff as imfit custodians of the education of our youth, 
 it should be on a trial and conviction so clear-cut as to leave no 
 doubt in the public mind. 
 
 "I beg you, therefore, as one who admires your spirit of democ- 
 racy and fair play, to use your official power and influence for the 
 re-instatement of these men." (Letter to Dr. Finley) 
 
 HARRY WEINBERGER, LAWYER, SAYS: 
 
 "I was graduated from De Witt Clinton High School many years 
 ago, and while attending the school, many a time and oft, in 
 athletic games, I carried her colors to victory, and my memory is 
 
 X37 
 
of teachers who were thinkers and individuals; and so I have a 
 personal interest in the case. 
 
 "I have examined the record, and I believe that the teachers 
 were unfairly dismissed. That Mr. Schmalhausen said:: 'He was 
 loyal to the truth rather than to persons,' is certainly a crime, if 
 we admit our school system has gone back to the days of the 
 Spanish Inquisition. The discussion and the quibbUng on the part 
 of the school authorities appear like the old discussions as to how 
 many angels could dance on the point of a needle. Nothing in the 
 evidence shows that these teachers were not men of ability and that 
 they did not give satisfactory services as teachers. Only the war 
 with its accompanying hysteria in some individuals can even lead 
 us to forgive the imbecility of these proceedings. Miss Garrigues' 
 testimony that Dr. Paul said: T have him now,' or 'Now I've got 
 him,' referring to Mr. Schmalhausen, (knowing Miss Garrigues as 
 I do, and knowing that that is the truth), shows the animus behind 
 Dr. Paul, and shows a mind that would lay a trap to catch the un- 
 warj% and come to believe that honesty is really disloyalty, and 
 that independence is really subserviency to autocracy. 
 
 "From the days of old the highest duty of a teacher was to 
 think and honestly come to a conclusion and inculcate in his pupils 
 and those coming under him, a desire for the truth. Pupils may 
 come to a wrong conclusion as a result of their honest thought, 
 but that is not so important as the question whether they think, 
 because if they think wrong today, but really think, to-morrow 
 they may think right. 
 
 "Our great objection to German methods and German thought 
 is the regimentation of the mind. This trial makes me believe there 
 are many officials in our school system of New York who also 
 believe in the regimentation of the minds and the thoughts of the 
 teachers of our school system." 
 
 Edward F. Alexander, Lawyer (Cincinnati, Ohio), writes 
 
 "I fail to find any evidence that any act or other conduct of any 
 of these teachers was complained of or was in question. The testi- 
 mony of Superintendent Tildsley, who brought the charges, is 
 that he himself laid the foundation for them by making private 
 inquisitions into the mental attitude of the three teachers with 
 reference to his own conception of patriotism. This was done by 
 means of hypothetical questions as to what they would do or say 
 under certain imaginary conditions which never arose and in all prob- 
 ability never would arise. The answers of the teachers at these in- 
 quisitions, as recalled by Dr. Tildsley, would seem to constitute 
 the unbecoming conduct complained of. 
 
 "Dr. Tildsley denies that the prominence of these teachers 
 in connection with a certain teachers' protest resolution had any- 
 thing to do with his singling them out for an investigation, but he 
 fails to assign any other reason. His testimony reminds one of 
 
 138 
 
the heretic hunters of the middle ages, and stamps hnn irretrievably 
 as either an intolerant bigot or a vulgar, unscrupulous patnoteer 
 In either case he would seem to be untit to be set over any part of 
 an American school system. America is entitled to patriotic service 
 in the schools, but she is also entitled to have her teachers free from 
 the terrorizing activities of meddlesome trouble-makers. 
 
 "It is amazing that a school superintendent should file charges 
 backed up by such an absolute lack of facts as exists in these 
 cases, and it is beyond belief that a Board of Education should 
 dischkrge competent teachers on such trivial substitutes for evidence. 
 
 "The motion of counsel for these teachers to dismiss the 
 charges in these cases, should have been sustained immediately, 
 with a reprimand to Dr. Tildsley for bringing them. In fact, 
 Dr. Tildsley's conduct in these cases appears to be the only conduct 
 unbecoming a teacher that was presented to the Board. The Board's 
 action in sustaining the charges, points out the need of some pro- 
 tection for teachers by way of organization or otherwise, if teach- 
 ing is to continue to be a dignified calling for men who think with 
 their own minds." 
 
 PUBLIC EDUCATION ON TRIAL 
 PROF. DEWEY WRITES: 
 
 Social situations are never simple, and in wartime nothing is simple, 
 save emotion. The educational conditions leading up to the dismissal of 
 three teachers in a New York high school afford no exception to this 
 statement. Guidance through the maze may be had, however, by review- 
 ing the matter as a culmination of the established and traditional relation- 
 ship of official superiors and inferiors in the school system, and as evi- 
 dence of a sharp clash between two opposed social and educational philoso- 
 phies But since these causes have been exasperated by war conditions 
 and war psychology-, it is first necessary to say something about the 
 "lovalty" aspect of the matter. 
 
 ' Almost up to the time of the meeting at which the men were dis- 
 missed a reader of at least the editorial columns of the newspapers 
 would 'have derived the impression that the teachers were accused of 
 disloyalty of some degree or other. But by the time of the final meetmg 
 the prosecution had settled on another formula. The men were not 
 charged with overt disloyalty; they were charged with a lack of that 
 active or aggressive loyalty which the state has a right to demand, m 
 war time particularly, from its paid servants. Now lack, absence, is 
 a negative thing; it is notoriously difficult to prove except when the 
 thing at issue is definite and tangible. Opinions even among experts 
 differ as to the precise constitution of loyal partiotism ; no burden of 
 standardization has ever settled upon the exact tests by which its ab- 
 sence is to be determined. r ., i <, 
 The observer who bears in mind the negative character of the charge 
 will have the kev to many of the otherwise inexplicable phenomena of 
 the testimony (I'sav testimony rather than evidence advisedly) and the 
 trial. Ordinarily a person is innocent till proved guilty. The charge of 
 
 139 
 
absence of something, that something not being clearly defined, shifts 
 the burden. Anybody may then safely be considered guilty until he can 
 present convincing evidence that he is in possession of the required 
 article — which is, perhaps, one reason why negative charges have not 
 been encouraged in the legal procedure of more enlightened countries. 
 Moreover, charges of lack or absence encourage suspicion. With the 
 multiplication of accusations and loyalty pledges in the schools — pledges 
 which naturally such pro-Germans as there are sign with the greatest 
 regularity and cheerfulness — the situation was approaching the point ex- 
 emplified in the old tale : "There is nobody in the congregation orthodox 
 but you and me — and I am not quite sure about you." There follows 
 another lack than that of active and aggressive loyalty, namely, a lack of 
 intellectual scrupulousness in making and weighing charges. The lack 
 of active loyalty is assumed to be so widespread that a sacrificial offering, 
 even if somewhat vicarious, will be welcome to the God of Hosts. It 
 is absurd to be too particular about positive evidence to prove the lack 
 of a thing. There are suspicious circumstances; to punish this man will 
 at least arouse others to a less passive patriotism. 
 
 One who reads the volume of testimony with these things in mind 
 will have little difficulty in understanding either its concentration upon 
 views rather than acts, views which might be entertained on various 
 hypothetical occasions rather than any views ever actually uttered, or 
 its desire to entrap individuals into obnoxious statements. Such an 
 atmosphere breeds suspicion, accusation and violent action, the phenomena 
 of Inquisition, whether of Torquemada, Salem, the Comrhittee of Public 
 Safety of the French Revolution, Lenine, or New York School authorities. 
 
 All this, however, concerns the spirit and atmosphere, the local 
 color, of the school episode rather than its substance, or structure. These 
 are to be sought, as has already been said, in the only too well established 
 methods of school administration with respect to teachers. Quite in- 
 dependently of this episode, one of the least sensational of our school 
 superintendents, Mr. Arthur Perry, has written a pamphlet regarding 
 the problem confronting the new Board of Education. In it he frankly 
 states that there is a general feeling that the building of the Board of 
 Education is a circumlocution ofifice ; that there is practically no city-wide 
 esprit de corps among the teachers; that because of this lack the "tre- 
 mendous amount of enthusiasm and intelligence in the more than twenty 
 thousand members is going pitiably to waste" ; that the devotion of 
 teachers to pupils — which is general — is due to dictates of individual con- 
 science, rather than to leadership, and that the feeling is widespread 
 among teachers that instead of looking to their immediate employers, 
 the Board of Education, for support and aid, they must rather protect 
 themselves against their employers by using the pressure of legislation 
 or of public opinion to secure "even ordinary consideration." 
 
 This is a temperate, and even tempered, statement. It indicates the 
 background upon which a particular difficulty has been projected. If 
 there has been a lack of "active" loyalty in support of the war, the 
 charge affects not three alone nor yet thirty nor three hundred. But 
 what it reflects is not lack of individual loyalty, but just this absence 
 of leadership on the part of nominal leaders, an undermined esprit de 
 
 140 
 
corps, a widespread scepticism and even cynicism, the immediate responsi- 
 bility for which does not lie at the door of the teaching staff. Not 
 merely the accused teachers but the teaching force has been left without 
 inspiration, and the guidance of any constructive policy and hence ex- 
 posed to every sort of irresponsible interference and amateur pressure. 
 
 It is matter of common knowledge that the strain in the relations 
 between superior and inferior and the general unrest in the teaching 
 staff have been on the steady increase during the latter years of the 
 Mitchel administration. To (he teachers that administration presented 
 its most brutal face. All of the better informed of the friends of the 
 now defunct Gary system in New York have been aware for some time 
 that its success was fundamentally compromised if not doomed by the 
 autocratic way in which it was formulated and imposed from above. 
 Under Mr. Churchill, the cultivation of more co-operative relations with 
 the teaching staff had begvm ; after the fusion administration broke with 
 him, the situation became largely that described by Carlyle as anarchy 
 plus the constable's club. 
 
 New York memories are proverbially short. But if any one will 
 turn back to the newspapers of the pre-election days he will lind them 
 full of school riots and school strikes, for which the fusion campaign 
 managers with the inepitude which characterized their almost every act 
 were holding, by name, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Somers and other members 
 of the Board of Education, responsible. Pupils of De Witt Clinton High 
 School were active in a strike against the imposition of the longer 
 (seven hour) school day. The merits or demerits of this legenthened 
 school day are of little account for present purposes in comparison with 
 the fact that it presented one more autocratic decree and imposition from 
 above. The teachers immediately affected were not even consulted as to 
 its probable effects or the best way of administering it so as to mitigate 
 the hardships it would work upon the many pupils who spent part of 
 their time in earning money to continue at school. Provoked by these 
 riots and strikes, and presumably as a Tammany man not particularly 
 pleased at having them unjustly charged to Tammany, Mr. Whalen, the 
 chairman of the High School Committee of the Board of Education, said 
 that he would close the schools rather than allow teachers and pupils 
 to "run them." 
 
 This utterance seems to have furnished the proverbial straw. Mem- 
 bers of the school council, most of whom are among the dismissed and 
 transferred teachers, prepared resolutions condemning Mr. Whalen's at- 
 titude as autocratic and called a meeting of the teachers of the school 
 which passed the resolutions almost unanimously. The Inquisition fol- 
 lowed. There is no evidence that Mr. Whalen himself instigated it. The 
 variety and number of the coincidences with respect to the teachers 
 called and not called, the questions asked, etc., amount to a mathematical 
 demonstration of the connection between the two things. It was no ac- 
 cident that the inquiry began in and concerns teachers in the De Witt 
 Clinton High School. Moreover this action on the part of teachers in 
 that school did not stand alone. Before this episode the school had been 
 famous — or if any one will, infamous — as a center of unrest, of in- 
 dependence, and of protest against autocratic administration. If an 
 
 141 
 
example was needed, here was the place to begin. If specific charges of 
 insubordination had been brought, the hearing might have cleared the air. 
 Underlying causes of friction would have been brought out and the 
 public been placed in a position to determine the balance of rights and 
 wrongs. But it was more tactful to leave the indictment vague and to 
 establish a subtle association between lack of loyalty to official superiors 
 and to the nation. 
 
 The direct clash of educational philosophies as to methods of teaching 
 and discipline in dealing with pupils presents the same conflict from an- 
 other angle. The situation between teachers and pupils corresponds, 
 point for point as the mathematicians say, to that between teachers and 
 their employers. Hence the phrases "teaching instinctive obedience" and 
 "respect for authority as such' (with true metaphysical emphasis upon 
 the "as such") are permanent contributions of the trial to pedagogical 
 literature. Teachers who do not instil in pupils blind "doglike" fealty 
 to every kind of authority are not likely themselves to yield it. Teachers 
 who regard the possibility of utilizing their own thoughtful experience 
 as an important factor in conducting the schools will respect the in- 
 telligence of their pupils. This defines the fundamental issue. /.$■ au- 
 tomatic routine habit or the development of habits of reflective considera- 
 tion to be the dominant aim of teaching and discipline f Never has it 
 been revealed more clearly that the latter is "dangerous" and the former 
 "safe" — dangerous to whom and safe for whom being carefully con- 
 cealed save as the subtle association with disloyalty may be insinuated. 
 In spite, then, of the temporary prestige which war psycholog>' may give 
 to automatic habit over against thoughtfulness as an educational end, pro- 
 gressives might, were it not for danger of injustice to individuals, well 
 be grateful to the reactionaries for having the issue so -unambiguou-sly 
 set forth. The fact that this conflict of ideals and principles is the 
 source of a multitude of other clashes and discrepancies is usually over- 
 laid with irrelevant matter and ornamentally concealed with eulogistic 
 phraseolog}'. The trial has brought it out in a bald, naked, uncompromi.sed 
 form. The record stands. Like most reactionary triumphs after the 
 issue is once revealed, the record will become a milestone in the history 
 of the gradual victory of a progressive over a reactionary social and 
 educational philosophy. — ^New Republic, Dec. 20, 1917. 
 
 142 
 
DISTINGUISHED CONVERTS 
 
 (Copy) 
 
 JAMES H. POST, 
 
 129 Front Street, 
 
 New York City. 
 
 Jan. 16, 1918. 
 Hon. John H. Finley, President of the University and 
 Commissioner of Education— State of New York. 
 
 My dear Dr. Finley : 
 
 In view of the fact that I was a member of the Board 
 of Education from the first of January, 1917, until the close 
 of the year, I am taking the liberty of writing to you 
 "In the Matter 
 of 
 The Charges of Conduct Unbecoming a 
 Teacher, Preferred by Associate Superin- 
 tendent Tildsley 
 
 against 
 Thomas Mufson, A. Henry Schneer and 
 Samuel D. Schmalhausen, teachers in the 
 DeWitt Clinton High Schools." . . 
 
 I was not present at the meeting of the "Committee 
 on High Schools and Training Schools" of the Board of Edu- 
 cation when the trial was conducted by that Committee, but 
 I was present at the Board of Education meeting on De- 
 cember 19, 1917, and voted in favor of accepting the re- 
 port of the Committee recommending the dismissal of the 
 teachers from the School System. 
 
 Before that meeting I had read the testimony and had 
 tried to form an opinion as to how I ought to vote, and at 
 the Board of Education meeting I gave very close attention 
 to the addresses for and against the accused teachers, and 
 finally decided to vote in each case, in favor of the dismissal 
 
 of the teachers. 
 
 I had great doubt in my own mind, after readmg the 
 testimony and even after I had voted, as to whether I had 
 done what was right in voting for the dismissal of the 
 three teachers, and I now feel that the penalty imposed was 
 too severe. Since the meeting I have given considerable 
 thought and study to the testimony and havs h^c\ confer- 
 
 143 
 
ences with the teachers dismissed, and partly in view of 
 their statements to me, I beg to request you to delay your 
 final decision in regard to the matter, until you are able to 
 give careful consideration to the appeal that I understand 
 is being prepared by the Teachers to be submitted to you. 
 
 President Willcox, in his opening speech before the 
 Board of Education, December 19, 1917, said : 'The three 
 teachers are not charged with disloyalty." 
 
 I am informed that the records of the three teachers, 
 on file, at the Board, attest to eight years of loyal and effi- 
 cient service at the DeWitt Clinton High School. 
 
 I feel that several members of the Board of Educa- 
 tion did not have sufficient opportunity to consider the mat- 
 ter, in view of the fact that the last two meetings had to be 
 largely given up to properly concluding numerous routine 
 matters of the Board. 
 
 With highest esteem, I am. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) James H. Post. 
 
 *LETTER TO PROF. GIDDINGS 
 
 (Publication permitted by Mr. Willcox, 
 
 President of the Board) 
 
 Jan. 25, 1918. 
 My dear Prof. Giddings : 
 
 I thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to 
 Dr. Finley regarding the three teachers dismissed from 
 the DeWitt Clinton High School. I am interested to find 
 that in spite of your emphatic position in the discussion of 
 the matter in the High School Committee and in the entire 
 Board, you now express yourself in favor of reinstating at 
 least Mr. Schmalhausen and Mr. Schneer. 
 
 I must confess to a great deal of uncertainty in my 
 own mind regarding the course of the Board of Education. 
 I cannot but feel that the attitude of some members of the 
 Board and possibly of Dr. Tildsley himself, were influenced 
 in some degree by the so-called "Whalen Resolutions" and 
 by opposition to the Socialistic views of these teachers, and 
 possibly to some extent by racial considerations also. Fur- 
 thermore, it was quite evident to me that in spite of the 
 
 144 
 
fact that no evidence was produced to indicate disloyalty, 
 the whole atmosphere was charged with a suspicion of dis- 
 loyalty which almost inevitably, although perhaps uncon- 
 sciously, affected the judgment of members of the Board. 
 
 I felt during the trial, and I still feel that the whole 
 situation was clouded by these irrelevant factors. The one 
 thing to emphasize and insist upon was the imperative 
 necessity of positive and forceful influence in the class- 
 room for inculcating in the pupils, loyal and patriotic at- 
 titude toward the. American Government, and I could not 
 but feel that the evidence bearing upon this crux of the 
 whole situation was vague and indefinite. As you your- 
 self forcibly pointed out, Mr. Schmalhausen's apparent re- 
 action when faced with the scurrilous composition of one 
 of his pupils, did not indicate any such indignant amaze- 
 ment and protest as should have been expected from any 
 teacher having the proper attitude towards his responsi- 
 bility for the loyalty and patriotism of his pupils, but rather 
 a disposition to consider the matter as a subject for theo- 
 retical argument and metaphysical discussion. This, how- 
 ever, was only an inference without any positive evidence 
 of such attitude on Mr. Schmalhausen's part and unsup- 
 ported by any proof in regard to his actual influence in the 
 classroom. 
 
 Mr, Mufson's refusal to answer when asked whether he 
 believed it to be his duty to teach patriotism in the class- 
 room naturally left the impression that he could not truth- 
 fully answer in the affirmative, and that, as Dr. Strauben- 
 muller said, he refused to answer because he was unwilling 
 to lie. This again is merely an inference, however, and I 
 can quite conceive that his refusal to answer was merely 
 due to the mistaken belief that he should decline to answer 
 any question not directly bearing upon the charges. 
 
 Mr. Schneer's statement that he would not allow a 
 man in military uniform to address his class naturally 
 created an unfavorable impression, but to my mind it was 
 quite susceptible of the explanation that he was merely op- 
 posed to arouse in his pupils a militaristic spirit. The most 
 serious evidence against Mr. Schneer, to my mind, was the 
 sub-titles in his bibliograph. I am still quite at a loss to 
 understand how any teacher fit to be entrusted with the 
 moral training of High School boys could bring himself to 
 
 145 
 
put before them such filthy suggestions as are contained in 
 some of the sub-titles. 
 
 My own position, as President of the Board, was ex- 
 tremely difficult, especially as regards Mr. Schmalhausen 
 and Mr. Mufson. At the meeting of the High School Com- 
 mittee, which I attended, I was apparently the only mem- 
 ber who had any doubt whatever regarding the recommen- 
 dation for dismissal of all three teachers, and I did not 
 feel that, as ex-officio member of the committee, I was jus- 
 tified in submitting a minority report in opposition to the 
 unanimous judgment of other members of the Committee, 
 since such a minority report coming from the President of 
 the Board would have inevitably carried a weight and in- 
 fluence to which my individual judgment was not fairly 
 entitled. 
 
 When the vote was taken in the Board of Education, I 
 was still so much in doubt that if any one of the 24 mem- 
 bers who voted for dismissal had cast his vote for acquittal, 
 I do not think I could have cast the deciding vote against 
 either Mr. Schmalhausen or Mr. Mufson. When, however, 
 the necessary number of votes had been cast by other mem- 
 bers of the Board, I did not feel that I had any right to use 
 my position as President to nullify or discredit their judg- 
 ment, and T had no hesitation, therefore, in casting my vote 
 with the majority. 
 
 The fact that you and Mr. Post, and possibly some 
 other members who voted for the dismissal of these teachers 
 have now reconsidered their judgment, must naturally af- 
 fect Dr. Finley's judgment, since without your votes the 
 teachers would not have been dismissed. The question to 
 be considered now is not only justice to these three teachers, 
 but also the eflfect upon the school system. I must confess 
 that I was influenced not a little by the report from at least 
 two of the Associate Superintendents that the Board of 
 Superintendents was unanimous in considering all three 
 teachers as undesirable teachers who should be dismissed 
 for the good of the schools. I suppose they still retain that 
 opinion, and I am afraid that the reinstatement of these 
 teachers now could hardly fail to have an injurious effect 
 upon the influence of the Board of Superintendents and the 
 morale of the teaching staff. On the other hand, if an in- 
 justice has been done, it should of course be corrected as 
 
 146 
 
far as possible, and as one of my business friends once 
 said in a serious labor situation, "We can always afford to 
 take a chance doing what is right". In view of the import- 
 ance of the matter and the far reaching effect of Dr. Fin- 
 ley's decision upon the school system, I am wondering 
 whether we should not suggest to him the advisability of a 
 conference with us and with President Somers, Dr. Straub- 
 enmuller and Superintendent Tildsley in order that he may 
 have the benefit of these various points of view before 
 reaching his final decision. 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 (Signed) William G. Willcox. 
 * This letter was also sent to Com. John H. Finley. 
 
 RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT 
 A Vital Summary 
 
 It is clear that in the City of New York at least there 
 has been a serious lack in educational circles of the ordinary 
 standards of honorable conduct. This lack of standards on 
 the part of officials is a logical outcome of an autocratic 
 system. When one man or a small set of men determine 
 the policies of a great educational system of 22,000 teachers 
 and 800,000 children, the ideals and practises of those few 
 are not likely to be any better than the few^ think out, and 
 find serviceable to their purposes. 
 
 When the rest of those who serve the City in that De- 
 partment are not expected, or even permitted, to partici- 
 pate on a democratic basis in the formulation of policies, 
 there are two effects noticeable. One is the absence of any 
 considerable interest on the part of teachers in questions 
 of educational policy. Another is a tendency to accept the 
 official point of view on all issues that arise in the adminis- 
 tration of education. Thus, even when an exposure is made 
 of methods pursued by educational officials that are far 
 from being honorable, the rank and file of the teaching 
 staflf will accept the situation, as it has invariably adjusted 
 itself in favor of the officials. This is true even of offenses 
 against the code of sexual morality. Women teachers of 
 unquestioned personal character will seldom murmur a pro- 
 test against the social insult of the presence of a principal 
 whose conduct presumably offends them personally. Nay, 
 they will even oppose anyone who does attempt to force the 
 
 147 
 
issue of the public welfare by calling attention to the of- 
 fensive fact. 
 
 There seem to be two interpretations of this attitude 
 on the part of teachers. One is that any disturbance in the 
 official relations of superior and subordinate will jeopardize 
 the economic security of subordinates. Principals have no 
 power to dismiss, but they do have the power to "rate" the 
 teachers. A low rating supported by the low rating of a 
 superintendent will result, in the first three years of serv- 
 ice, in dismissal without a trial, and after three years in a 
 stopping of the salary increase, and potentially in final dis- 
 missal. A point of even m^ore far-reaching significance is the 
 fact that teachers in general do not think of their own pro- 
 fessional activities in terms of social icelfare. If they 
 thought even of the welfare of their profession itself, they 
 would be inclined to risk their economic security for the 
 larger benefit to their profession. On the one hand, the 
 Teachers' Union finds itself in the midst of a professional 
 conflict with a staff of educational officials in which there 
 are some who on occasion employ dishonorable methods to 
 maintain the autocratic system intact, while others agree by 
 their silence, to the professional ethics involved. On the 
 other hand, the Union has long realized the difficulty of 
 striving to improve the conditions under which our work of 
 teaching is done, especially when large numbers of teachers 
 are willing to submit to those conditions, serious as they 
 are. The leaders to whom the teachers have long been ac- 
 customed belong to the group from which the committee of 
 the Schoolmasters' Association has been drawn. These 
 leaders submit to the system as a matter of course, because 
 their hope of advancement lies in their doing so. Even 
 when they may be disposed to criticize occasional policies of 
 their superiors, their "common sense" tells them that it is 
 useless to object. Thus, the autocratic system that has 
 grown up has held together thru the self-interest of he 
 officials and their potential successors, aided by the acquies- 
 cense of the teachers. 
 
 As an instance of the psychology of teachers in rela- 
 tion to conflicts that involve important interests of their 
 own, we may cite the general indifference and the lack of 
 interest in the outcome of everyone of the major cases re- 
 lated in the body of our pamphlet. When the conflicts de- 
 
 148 
 
veloped they were each regarded by teachers in general 
 as lying between the officials and the accused teachers. In 
 the earlier case mentioned there was in no quarter a com- 
 mon feeling that if a teacher has risked his position for an 
 ideal of professional conduct, that other teachers should 
 support his undertaking. It was to them a personal fight. 
 In the later cases the Teachers' Union organized and con- 
 ducted the defense with singular devotion. But no other 
 organization did more than to express a private interest. 
 
 It is a feature of the union movement among teachers 
 frankly to assail the psychology of complacency and to 
 stimulate teachers to care about the conditions under which 
 their work is done. There can be no real improvement of 
 the teaching undertaken in the schools until a professional 
 esprit de corps is developed. If the public is not well 
 enough informed about educational matters to think about 
 getting better teaching thru having teachers who are mem- 
 bers of a real profession, then teachers themselves should 
 do this in the interest of the public. 
 
 A real profession with standards which the members 
 have developed has no place for a system of petty rating 
 that lies at the root of the autocratic power. The members 
 of a real profession will in their professional relation main- 
 tain the same social standards of conduct to which they 
 submit in their own private life, and they tvill demand the 
 maintenance of these standards by others in their profes- 
 sion without regard to the non-essential relations of su- 
 perior and subordinate. 
 
 It is nothing less than preposterous that because a 
 person happens to be a superior officer, he may employ his 
 immoral inclinations and go scot free. Or that he may 
 brutally mistreat and insult those over whom he has power. 
 Or that he may inflict false charges upon those whom he 
 dislikes for reasons of personal or racial antagonism. These 
 things are continually being done in the educational system 
 of the City of New York. They will be done again and 
 again until the teachers themselves arise and stop it all. 
 
 The union movement is not primarily concerned, how- 
 ever, with making a campaign against incompetent or dis- 
 honest officials. But it is concerned thru the avenue of the 
 participation of teachers in the management of the schools 
 with the introduction of democracy in the institution where 
 
 149 
 
the people's most important business, the training of young 
 citizens, is carried on. Not only is this necessary for the 
 improvement of the formal service of the teachers, but it is 
 also necessary to feed the yearning among the intelligent 
 for social power, for inspiration to go on to greater and 
 greater accomplishments. Yet more than all is it neces- 
 sary for the reason that all the world is awaking to the 
 dream of democracy as never before. The school must be 
 the seminar and the laboratory of democracy. 
 
 One of the most specious claims of autocracy is that 
 it is only the occasional official who offends the public 
 conscience, and that most of the educational officials are 
 honorable and high-minded. The existence of an autocratic 
 system of educational administration does not imply that 
 all the superintendents and principals are over-bearing 
 or dishonest. In fact the autocracy could not maintain it- 
 self at all if a very large number of the officials thru whom 
 the system works out its purposes were not honorable and 
 high-minded men and women. But the attitude of these 
 commendable persons toward dishonorable or low-minded 
 fellow officials is one of loyalty to officials as such, rather 
 than to the social welfare as such. Hence, the regeneration 
 of educational administration, and thru that the attain- 
 ment of a more definite social purpose in education itself, 
 is impossible of attainment merely by the process of having 
 more of these good men and women, encouraging as that 
 would be in a general way. 
 
 Slow as the process may be, the only hopeful indication 
 of a solution of the problem of educational administration, 
 and the loosening of the bonds on education, lies in the di- 
 rection of the development of a social idealism on the part 
 of the workers, — the teachers themselves. The movement 
 toward the development of a spirit of class-consciousness 
 among teachers must of course have its beginning amid 
 tribulations. Injustice will often drive out from the pro- 
 fession the more aggressive spirits who begin the struggle, 
 but the struggle once begun will gain force by the repeated 
 efforts of those who are willing to take the initial risks. 
 So long as the class-conscious movement among teachers 
 strives with the vision of the social welfare ahead of it 
 there can be but one end, and that is the ultimate triumph 
 of an idealism in which the teacher is supreme in his serv- 
 
 150 
 
ice to the people, and is a self-respecting, respected and 
 effective agent in a democracy. 
 
 The rank and file of teachers are not likely to take up 
 with a democratic movement that is evidently so unpopular 
 with their superior officials, until it is borne in upon them 
 that the methods of defeating critics thru "transfer," or 
 dismissal, or by pigeon-holing incriminating evidence ex- 
 hibits the characteristic weakness of all autocracies. At 
 some time or other that form of human control must resort 
 to arbitrary power, and that power is not backed in au- 
 tocracy by the approval of the masses. Hence, it will be 
 reduced to the necessity of imposing injustice to gain an 
 immediate end, and that moment it is logically doomed. 
 
 On the other hand, the strength of democracy lies in 
 the fact that it can never be wrong so long as it is true 
 to the principle of seeking the good of all the people. Even 
 under the disappointment of error, the agents of democ- 
 racy have a source of power which makes their program 
 unconquerable in the end. Even if the organization which 
 in the present instance is responsible for calling to the 
 attention of the public the shortcomings of a huge educa- 
 tional system proves to be ineffective in bringing about the 
 regeneration of an important social institution the end of 
 it has not come. The work will be carried on by others who 
 must come forward in the social regeneration which the 
 war with its destructive influence on traditions has made 
 inevitable. 
 
 Education must be made safe for democracy and de- 
 mocracy for education ! 
 
 EXHIBITS ON "CRITICISM IN WAR TIME" 
 Explanatory Note 
 
 The Schoolmasters' Committee has cunningly attempted 
 to taint the reader's mind with the suspicion that the purely 
 educational criticism of the Teachers' Union (and The 
 American Teacher) is somehow a species of "disloyalty." 
 The fact is that The Teachers' Union has never even whis- 
 pered an adverse comment on the administration's conduct 
 of the war. It has from the beginning accepted and sup- 
 ported the President in his far-reaching idealism. What 
 we should like to ask of the Schoolmasters' Committee is 
 
 151 
 
this: What do they (and their co-patriots in the Ameri- 
 can Defence Society) think of the point of view and of the 
 brand of Americanism of their great leader, Theodore 
 Roosevelt (Honorary President of The American Defence 
 Society) and of his political co-worker, Mr. Job E. Hedges? 
 
 (Exhibit A) 
 CRITICISM IN WAR TIME 
 "Citizens or Subjects?" 
 (By Thedore Roosevelt, Honorary President of the Ameri- 
 can Defence Society.) 
 
 "In a self-governing country the people are called citi- 
 zens. Under a despotism or autocracy the people are called 
 subjects. This is because in a free country the people are 
 themselves sovereign, while in a despotic country the people 
 are under a sovereign. In the United States the people 
 are all citizens, including its President. The rest of them 
 are fellow citizens of the President. In Germany the people 
 are all subjects of the Kaiser. They are not his fellow- 
 citizens; they are his subjects. 
 
 "This is the essential difference between the United 
 States and Germany, but the difference would vanish if we 
 now submitted to the foolish or traitorous persons who en- 
 deavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Admin- 
 isration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence 
 or other shortcomings. Such endeavor is itself a crime 
 against the nation. 
 
 "Since this war began the suppression of the truth by 
 and about the Administration has been habitual. In rare 
 cases has this been disatvantageous to the enemy. In the 
 vast majority of cases it has been advantageous to the 
 enemy, detrimental to the American people and useful to 
 the Administration only from the political not from the 
 patriotic standpoint. 
 
 "The Senate Judiciary Committee has just recom- 
 mended the passage of a law in which, among many ex- 
 cellent propositions to put down disloyalty, there has been 
 adroitly inserted a provision that anyone who uses 'con- 
 temptuous or slurring language about the President' shall 
 be punished by imprisonment for a long term of years and 
 by a fine of many thousand dollars. 
 
 "This proposed law is sheer treason to the United 
 States. Under its terms Abraham Lincoln would have been 
 
 152 
 
sent to prison for what he repeatedly said of Presidents 
 Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. 
 
 "It is a proposal to make Americans subjects, instead 
 of citizens. It is a proposal to put the President in the po- 
 sition of the Hohenzollerns and Romanoffs. 
 
 "Government by the people means that the people have 
 the right to do their own thinking and to do their own 
 speaking about their public servants. 
 
 "Any truthful criticism could and would be held by 
 partisanship to be slurring or contemptuous. The Dela- 
 ware House of Representatives has just shown this. It 
 came within one vote of passing a resolution demanding 
 that the Department of Justice proceed against me because 
 of my recent speeches in Maine. 
 
 "I believe the proposed law is unconstitutional. If it 
 is passed I shall certainly give the government the oppor- 
 tunity to test its constitutionality. For whenever the need 
 arises I shall in the future speak truthfully of the President 
 in praise or in blame, exactly as I have done in the past. 
 
 "When the President in the past uttered his statements 
 about being too proud to fight and wishing peace without 
 victory, and considering that we have no special grievances 
 against Germany, I spoke of him as it was my high duty 
 to speak. Therefore I spoke of him truthfully and severely, 
 and I care nothing whether or not timid and unpatriotic 
 and shortsighted men said that I spoke slurringly or con- 
 temptuously. In so far as the President in the future en- 
 deavors to wage this war efficiently and to secure the peace 
 of overwhelming victory, I shall heaftily support him. But 
 if he wages it inefficiently or if he should champion a peace 
 without victory or say that we have no grievance against 
 Germany, I would speak in criticism of him precisely as 
 I have spoken of him in the past. 
 
 "I am an American and a free man. My loyalty is 
 due to the United States and therefore it is due to the Presi- 
 dent, the Senators, the Congressmen and all other public 
 servants only and to the degree in which they loyally and 
 efficiently serve the United States." 
 
 (Quoted from a reprinted article in the "Tribune ot 
 April 6, 1918.) 
 
 153 
 
CRITICISM IN WAR TIME 
 (Exhibit B) 
 
 "There has been evident of late a tendency to denounce 
 as 'disloyal' the citizen or legislator who criticised the ef- 
 fectiveness of the Administration's war policies. It has 
 even been urged by many that during these wartimes the 
 political parties should ignore their individual organizations 
 and give their unqualified approval to candidates for the 
 simple reason that they have given public proof of their 
 'loyalty.' 
 
 "To say that criticism of the manner in which specific 
 acts are being performed is disloyalty is to be unintelligent, 
 is to reduce citizenship to such a servile following as would 
 be without Virility, without potential force, and without the 
 enthusiasm that come from consciousness of joint partici- 
 pation. The best evidence of a rising outraged public senti- 
 ment against the awfulness of Prussianism is shown in the 
 present running line of comment on what the Administra- 
 tion is doing. It indicates nothing more than a desire that 
 the best shall be done. 
 
 "The argument that to criticise the manner of conduct- 
 ing the war means disloyalty, and, therefore, should not be 
 tolerated, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the war is a 
 mere party matter and the only persons interested in it are 
 those who are conducting it. Pride of opinion from the 
 inside is as dangerous as pride of opinion from the outside. 
 
 "Every one knows that the most active, efficient, prac- 
 tical, constructive work done since the United States de- 
 clared war has been done since there began to be general 
 criticism by the people at large, and by intelligent, thought- 
 ful leaders of opinion. As long as that continues in the 
 right spirit there will be no recession in effectiveness. The 
 moment there is no criticism its absence can be taken as 
 the measure of an indifference deadly to loyalty. It is as 
 puerile to say that any one who criticises an administrative 
 act is disloyal as it is to say that an administrative act well 
 intended but unintelligent is necessarily loyal. 
 
 "There has never been effective progress in State or 
 Church without criticism. Whether or not the criticism is 
 efficient is to be determined after it has been made, other- 
 wise the test of efficient criticism is the approval of the 
 person criticised. 
 
 154 
 
"No man ever lived in this country or ever will live 
 in this country whose judgment should surpass the com- 
 bined judgment of all the others; and whenever any man 
 thinks that he alone should direct and that the other follow 
 with servile complacency, it makes democracy unsafe for 
 the world. 
 
 "Democracy must furnish its own mentality and its 
 own morality from its own ranks. Democracy is without 
 pregnant force if any portion of it becomes mentally or 
 morally servile and performs the sole function of following." 
 
 (From N. Y. Times. Article by Job E. Hedges, June 2. 
 1918.) 
 
 APPENDIX: LEGAL OPINION 
 
 LEGAL POINTS OF INTEREST TO ALL TEACHERS 
 
 N. B. The following is taken verbatim from the ad- 
 mirable Brief prepared by the Counsel for the Defendants, 
 Gilbert E. Roe, one of the most distinguished liberal-minded 
 lawyers of America. 
 
 "In my opinion, this entire trial proceeded upon a mis- 
 understanding of the law. It proceeded upon the theory that 
 the security in their positions which the law had thereto- 
 fore guaranteed the teachers had been withdrawn and that 
 they held their positions virtually at the discretion of the 
 Board. This error appears from the character of the 
 charges filed and from the conduct of the case. For ex- 
 ample, at page 311 (stenographer's minutes), Mr. Sm^yth 
 who represented the three teachers before the Board offered 
 in evidence the By-Laws of the Board as they existed be- 
 fore the adoption of the present Statute, and the following 
 occurred : 
 
 "Mr. McTntyrc: We object to these By-Laws because it seems 
 quite apparent from Mr. Smyth's statement that the By-Laws are 
 introduced for the purpose of showing that the teachers may be 
 tried for the grounds specified in each of those bj'-laws, namely, 
 misconduct, insubordination, or neglect of duty, and general ineffi- 
 ciency. Is not that right? 
 
 "Mr. Smyth: That is right. 
 
 "Mr. McTntyre: We object to them on the ground that the 
 by-laws have been superseded bj- the statutes, by the last amendment 
 to the Educational Laws, June 8, 1917, and that provides that a 
 teacher may be removed for cause, and the cause is any substantial 
 cause that appeals sufficiently to your discretion, and we object to the 
 by-laws on those grounds. 
 
 155 
 
This argument of the Assistant Corporation Counsel is 
 made in a number of places throughout the case and it 
 seems to have been assumed by the Board that if the Act 
 of 1917 superseded the Charter provision (Section 1093) 
 that then the Board could, as stated by the Corporation 
 Counsel, discharge any teacher in their discretion for any 
 cause deemed by the Board sufficient. A motion was duly 
 made in the case of each of the teachers to dismiss the 
 charges for insufficiency and was overruled and the answer 
 in the case of each of the teachers raised the sufficiency of 
 the charges so that the question was squarely presented and 
 overruled in each case. 
 
 I have no doubt that the Act of June 8, 1917, super- 
 seded Sec. 1093 of the Greater New York Charter and that 
 the causes for which these teachers can be discharged must 
 be found in the former and not in the latter. So far, how- 
 ever, from lessening the security of the teachers in their 
 positions, the Act of June 8, 1917, increased it. The por- 
 tion of the Act of June 8, 1917, material to the present dis- 
 cussion, is found in Sub-Section 9 of Sec. 872 and provides 
 that permanent teachers such as it is admitted the appel- 
 lants are: 
 
 "Shall hold their respective positions during good behavior and 
 efficient and competent service and shall not be removable except 
 for cause, after a hearing by the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
 Board." 
 
 The clear meaning of this Statute is that the teachers 
 shall (1) be removable only for cause and after a proper 
 hearing and by affirmative vote of a majority of the Board, 
 and (2) that the teacher cannot be removed for any cause 
 during good behavior and so long as he renders efficient 
 and competent service. Under Sec. 1093 of the Greater 
 New York Charter repealed by the above Act of June 8, 
 1917, it was provided that a teacher could be discharged 
 "for gross misconduct, insubordination, neglect of duty or 
 general inefficiency." 
 
 In the Henrietta Rodman case, decided by this Depart- 
 ment, June 8, 1915, a teacher was suspended for six months 
 for writing and publishing in a New York newspaper a 
 letter commenting most unfavorably upon the motives and 
 conduct of the Board while that body was acting in a ju- 
 dicial capacity in determining its policy with respect to the 
 continuation of "mother-teachers" in their positions. In 
 
 156 
 
that case, this Department construed Sec. 1093 of the Char- 
 ter as follows : 
 
 "]t is obvious that the purpose of this Statute was to give to 
 the Board of Education a comprehensive disciplinary control over 
 the teachers of the schools of the City. Its scope is sufficient to in- 
 clude every aci on the part of the teacher, tending to impair her 
 usefulness in her position, or to injuriously affect the administra- 
 tion of the school system." 
 
 In the same opinion and referring to the letter in 
 question, it is said : 
 
 "I am of the opinion that in this case it would have been well 
 to ignore this comment. It would in time have brought its own 
 condemnation. ... I believe that the end sought would at the time 
 have been accomplished by an expression of censure or by a sentence 
 less severe, and, while I suggest that the Board, even at this late 
 date, might well consider a reduction of the term of suspension, I 
 am unwilling to make an order which would impair the authority 
 or discretion of the Board in this matter." 
 
 It will thus be seen that while the Honorable Com- 
 missioner of Education did not agree with the Board so far 
 as the severity of the sentence is concerned, he gave to the 
 then Statute an interpretation which made the disciplinary 
 power of the Board extend to every act on the part of the 
 teacher which might impair her usefulness as a teacher or 
 injuriously affect the administration of the school system. 
 The power of the School Board could not be enlarged be- 
 yond that indicated in the opinion in the Rodman case and 
 leave the teacher any substantial security in his position 
 if a Board desired to remove him. It was in this state of 
 the law that the Act of June 8, 1917, was passed. That 
 Act, in the portion above quoted, accomplishes several 
 things. In the first place, it will be observed that Sec 1093 
 of the Charter grouped together indiscriminately causes 
 for dismissal and causes for lesser punishment. In other 
 words, that Section provided that charges might be pre- 
 ferred against a teacher for gross misconduct, insubordina- 
 tion, neglect of duty or general inefficiency, and that, as a 
 result of trial on those charges, the teacher might be either' 
 fined, suspended for a fixed time without pay, or dismissed. 
 The portion of the Act of June 8, 1917, above quoted, elim- 
 inates all question of lesser punishment and goes directly 
 to its purpose of securing the tenure of office of the teacher 
 by providing that the teacher should not be removable ex- 
 cept for cause, after a hearing, by affirmative vote of a ma- 
 jority of the Board, and should not be removed for any 
 
 157 
 
cause during good behavior and efficient a7id competent 
 service. Minor offences for which a teacher might be dis- 
 ciplined by censure, fine or temporary suspension are not 
 referred to in this Section, the central thought of which is 
 clearly to secure the teacher against discharge by the Board 
 for any cause except that which the legislature prescribed. 
 It would, indeed, be strange if the legislature in the 1917 
 Act had given the Board power to discharge a teacher for 
 causes for which the teacher could not previously have been 
 even fined or temporarily suspended. The legislature 
 clearly intended no such absurd result. In the 1917 Act, 
 the legislature discarded the general language of Section 
 1093 of the Charter and used language which has a definite 
 and technical meaning. When the Act of June 8, 1917, pi'o- 
 vided that a teacher should not be removable "except for 
 cause", it declaimed, in effect, that a teacher should not be 
 removable except for some valid reason, arising out of the 
 non-performance or improper performance of official duties 
 by the teacher. 
 
 In People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 
 N. Y., page 176, Supra, it is said : 
 
 "We agreed with the learned Appellate Division that section 
 1117, as continued by section 1101 of the revision, was designed to 
 establish the general rule applicable to all teachers, regardless of 
 when they were appointed, that a public school teacher in the 
 greater city should be protected against removal 'during good be- 
 havior and competency.' " 
 
 There is no charge here that either Mr. Schmalhausen 
 or any of the three teachers were, incompetent. On the 
 contrary, the proof is that they were each of them extremely 
 competent. There is no charge that Mr. Schmalhausen or 
 either of the three teachers have failed "in good behavior." 
 Referring now specifically to the charge against Mr 
 Schmalhausen, we find the allegation to be that he is charged 
 with conduct unbecoming a teacher. But there is no pro- 
 vision in the Statute which authorizes a Board to discharge 
 a teacher for conduct which it may consider unbecoming. 
 The Board has simply tried to create a new offense. What 
 is conduct "unbecoming a teacher?" A Board might think 
 that wearing a certain style of dress was unbecoming a 
 teacher, and that it was unbecoming a teacher to go to 
 
 158 
 
dances, and that it was unbecoming a teacher to hold other 
 than orthodox views upon any subject. At this time, par- 
 ticularly, a Board might hold that to eyitertain the vieivs 
 of a Quaker was unbecoming a teacher and justified such 
 teacher's discharge. If the Statute provided that any 
 teacher might be discharged for any conduct which a Board 
 regarded as unbecoming, the effect would be to absolutely 
 destroy the right of the teacher to be secure in his position 
 during competency and good conduct, of which right the 
 law is most jealous. Prior to the adoption of the Greater 
 New York Charter, teachers were dischargeable at the will 
 of the Board except as they might be protected by contract. 
 But commencing with 1897 and continuing down to the 
 present time, the legislative object plainly has been to give 
 the teacher greater and greater security in his position. 
 See: 
 
 People ex rel. Fisk v. Board of Education, 69 Hun. 212 
 People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 N. 
 Y. 169. 
 Tenure of office and civil service acts, both Federal and 
 State, have in recent years all been tending in the same di- 
 rection, namely, toivard givhig the employee of the public 
 greater and greater security in their positio7is so long as 
 their service loas good. It would be in the highest degree 
 absurd to suppose that the Legislature, by the Act of June 
 8, 1917, intended to withdraw from teachers any of the 
 protection and security in their positions which the prior 
 law had given them. And yet, if the Statute is construed 
 as contended for by the Assistant Corporation Counsel and 
 so as to include, among the causes for discharging a teacher, 
 whatever a school Board may consider to be "conduct un- 
 becoming a teacher", then, indeed, all independence of a 
 teacher is gone and we have returned to the system of 
 twenty years ago, which, by depriving teachers of all se- 
 curity in their positions destroyed their incentive to perfect 
 themselves in their professions. 
 
 * • * * * * 
 
 All these specifications (against the teachers) are far 
 afield from anything contained in the Statute. They con- 
 demn a state of mind, not acts, not conduct, not behavior. 
 If a teacher can be discharged for a state of mind of which 
 the Board does not approve, then, of course, that is the end 
 
 159 
 
of freedom of teachers in our Public Schools. A Protestant 
 Board may find in the state of mind of every Catholic 
 teacher sufficient "superstition" to require his discharge. 
 A Catholic Board may find in the state of mind of every 
 Protestant teacher sufficient "impiety" to require his dis- 
 charge. And both may find in the state of mind of every 
 Quaker sufficient "disloyalty" to require his discharge. 
 Any opinion on any subject, though the opinion has not 
 manifested itself in the acts of the teacher, if the Board 
 strongly enough disapproves such an opinioyi, will, under 
 the practice of the Board in this case, be a ground for dis- 
 charging the teacher, and the worst of it will be that the 
 evidence against the teacher will be obtained as it was done 
 in this case, by orally quizzing and interrogating the 
 teacher suspected of heterodox views on any subject, with 
 the result that there will be the confusion, uncertainty and 
 disagreements in testimony manifest in this record. It is 
 intolerable that such a practice should exist or such a re- 
 lation be established between school Boards and the teach- 
 ers. There is nothing in the law that authorized the charge 
 or the specifications, and they should have been dismissed 
 as being on their face insufficient. 
 
 ^ ^ ^ :{: H: 
 
 THE SO-CALLED TRIAL OF MR. SCHMAL- 
 HAUSEN AND HIS TWO ASSOCIATES WAS WHOLLY 
 ILLEGAL. 
 
 Sec. 881 of the Act of June 8, 1917, provides that: 
 
 "All teachers . . . lawfully appomted or assigned before this 
 Act takes efifect, shall continue to hold their respective positions 
 for the term for which they were appointed or until removed as 
 provided in subdivision three of Section eight hundred and seventy- 
 two of this article." 
 
 Subdivision three of Section 872 of the article provides, as 
 we have seen, that all teachers 
 
 "who have served the full probationary period or have rendered 
 satisfactorily an equivalent period of service prior to the time this 
 act goes into efifect, shall hold their respective positions during good 
 behavior and efficient and competent service and shall not be re- 
 movable except for cause after a hearing by the affirmative vote of 
 a majority of the Board." 
 
 Mr. Schmalhausen and his associates admittedly are cov- 
 ered by the above provision, as they had long previously 
 served the full probationary period and had been appointed 
 as regular teachers long before the Act of June 8, 1917, was 
 
 160 
 
passed. The above Act took effect June 8, 1917 ; the pres- 
 ent proceedings were instituted in November, 1917. The 
 teachers could, therefore, be removed only in accordance 
 with the terms of Subdivision 3, of Sec. 872 above quoted. 
 Now, there is no provision in this section or in this law 
 for the trial of the teachers except by a quorum of the full 
 board. Without such provision, of course, a tHal otherwise 
 than by at least a quorum of a full board cannot be had. 
 This precise question has been passed upon by the courts 
 and is not open to discussion here. In People ex rel. De 
 Vries v. Hamilto7i, 84 A. D. 369, the question was presented 
 whether a Deputy County Clerk could take testimony which 
 the County Clerk was authorized to take under the Civil 
 Service Law for the purpose of trying charges against an 
 exempt fireman, and report the testimony to the County 
 Clerk for final action. The Court holds that this cannot 
 be done in an opinion which is conclusive here. In the 
 opinion, it is said : 
 
 "We are cited to no authority, except as will hereafter be 
 noticed, nor have we found any, either statutory or otherwise, au- 
 thorizing a deputy to perform the duties of his chief, take the proof 
 offered upon the hearing, and then pass the proceeding over to the 
 clerk to make the determination. The judgment which is pronounced 
 in each case involves a determination upon the merits and the exer- 
 cise of discretionary power thereon. The basis therefore is found 
 to a large extent in the impressions produced upon the mind of 
 the officer from the appearance and candor of the witnesses, and 
 is common and material to all judicial proceedings. This has been 
 held to be a prime factor in determining the weight of the testi- 
 mony and in control of "the punishment which ought to be inflicted. 
 It is substantial in its nature and courts have uniformly attached 
 great weight thereto, making it a controlling element in their de- 
 termination in many cases. In the orderly course of judicial pro- 
 cedure a trial may not be severed so that one functionary may take 
 the proof and another make the determination. Such power has 
 never been exercised, so far as we are aware, unless is was con- 
 ferred by statutory enactment." 
 
 This question of practice becomes vitally important in 
 view of the creation of the new board, under the Act of 
 June 8, 1917. If less than the whole board can hear 
 charges, then, of course, one member could hear them and 
 report to the board. The acting Corporation Counsel, 
 George P. Nicholson, in a communication dated February 8, 
 1918, addressed to Hon. Arthur S. Somers, President of 
 
 161 
 
the new Board, replied to a question of the Board on this 
 point after referring to the statutes, as follows : 
 
 "Obviously, therefore, in the cases which are triable under 
 Sec. 872, subdivision 3 of the Act of 1917, there is no statutory 
 authority which expressly permits the Board of Education to dele- 
 gate to a Committee the hearing of the testimony of the witnesses. 
 In my opinion, there is no implied warrant for such a procedure, in 
 as much as in the absence of the statutorj'- provisions to the con- 
 trary, the person on trial is entitled to have all witnesses heard 
 by the individual or body that is to pass judgment upon him. Hence, 
 it follows that the persons who are placed on trial in accordance 
 with Sec. 872 must be tried by a quorum of the Board of Educa- 
 tion and judgment must be rendered by the members of the Board 
 who sit at the trial." 
 
 I am not unmindful, of course, of the fact that the Act of 
 June 8, 1917, Sub-section 4 of Sec. 881, provides: 
 
 "The rules and regulations adopted by a board of education 
 in pursuance of any law hereby repealed shall continue in full force 
 and effect notwithstanding such repeal, until the same are modified, 
 amendment or repealed by the Board of Education as provided in this 
 chapter." 
 
 Also, that by Sub-section 4 of Section 21 of the By-Laws of 
 the Board of Education, it is provided : 
 
 "Except when otherwise ordered by the Board, said Committee 
 shall conduct all trials of principals and teachers in high schools 
 and training schools against whom charges have been brought in 
 accordance with Sec. 1093 of the Charter and shall report its con- 
 clusion to the Board for action thereon." 
 
 But Section 1093 of the Charter was repealed by the Act of 
 June 8, 1917, and in any event, the charges against the 
 teachers in this proceeding were not brought or attempted 
 to be brought in accordance with Section 1093. The Act 
 of June 8, 1917, provides in express terms that these 
 teachers could only be removed in the manner provided in 
 Sub-section 3 of Sec. 872 of that Act. The By-Law in ques- 
 tion above quoted, even if it could be given any force at all, 
 after the repeal of the charter provision to which it at- 
 taches, which is doubtful, does not purport to provide for 
 a trial conducted under Sub-section 3 of Sec. 872. Admit- 
 tedly, the present trial, so far as it can be called a trial at 
 all, was taken under Sub-division 3 of Sec. 872 of the Act 
 of 1917. Indeed, the Notice of Suspension of Mr. Schmal- 
 hausen, dated November 12, 1917, and the same is true of 
 the Notice given to each of the other teachers, provided : 
 
 "You are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions 
 
 162 
 
of Chapter 786 of the Laws of 1917, and with the By-Laws of the 
 Board of Education, ... I hereby suspend you without pay. " 
 
 These Notices, while not introduced in evidence are a part 
 of the records of the Board and the Commissioner will, of 
 course, take judicial notice of them if necessary. It follows, 
 therefore, that the whole proceeding was void. The point 
 is jurisdictional. It involves a question as to the poiuer of 
 the Board ; it could not be waived. 
 
 If, upon a review of the testimony, the Hon. Commis- 
 sioner of Education is of the opinion that there is nothing 
 in the evidence warranting a dismissal of the teachers, it 
 will not be necessary to decide the question raised under 
 this point, for, if the evidence does not warrant the dismis- 
 sal of the teachers then it makes no difference before what 
 body or tribunal this alleged trial was had. If, however, it 
 could be found that there was anything in the evidence 
 warranting placing the teachers upon trial, the order would 
 be as in the DeVries case, that they be restored to their 
 positions and a new hearing had before a tribunal properly 
 constituted. There should be no straining to uphold the ac- 
 tion of the trial Committee, which was clearly unauthorized 
 by law. These teachers, as the record shows, did not have 
 either a fair or a legal trial. In this connection, I respect- 
 fully refer to the Matter of Walwrath, No. 5251, page 1026 
 of Mr. Finegan's excellent compilation of judicial decisions 
 of the Educational Department. All that was said in that 
 case by the learned Commissioner is equally applicable 
 here. In the first place, the Chairman of the Committee, 
 Mr. Whalen, was clearly disqualified, as the record shows, 
 and would not, had he been a judge, have thought of sitting 
 in a similar situation in a court of law. (Stenographer's 
 Minutes, pages 15-18, 41, 91-93). Moreover, the unfair 
 limitation placed upon the cross-examination of the prose- 
 cution's witnesses, (S. M. 39-41, 71-73) and the admission 
 of incompetent testimony against the teachers, (See Tilds- 
 ley's so-called expert testimony, P. 84-87), and the refusal 
 to accept proper testimony offered in their behalf, (P. 85, 
 86, 123-127) in the many instances shown by this record, 
 makes it from every point of view desirable, if they are to 
 be tried at all, that they should receive a new, fair and legal 
 trial. One matter which would be reversible error in any 
 court in the world is contained in the speech of Mr. Somers 
 set up in the answer filed with the Honorable Commissioner 
 
 163 
 
in this case. I refer to the introduction and reading before 
 the full Board for the first time of damaging articles, the 
 authorship of which was charged to Mr. Schmalhausen with- 
 out a particle of proof to support the charge or to show 
 that Mr. Schmalhausen had ever heard of the articles. Of 
 course, Mr. Schmalhausen was without representation be- 
 fore the Board and had no opportunity to deny or explain 
 the charge, (See particularly, pages 3-4 and 8 of Mr. Somer's 
 remarkable speech). The case of People ex rel. Ajas v. the 
 Board of Education, 177 A. D. 936, is exactly in point. The 
 error in that case consisted in the taking by the Chairman 
 of the Committee of statements of some witnesses in the 
 absence of the defendant. These statements were less in- 
 jurious than the ones unlawfully injected in this case by 
 Mr. Somers before the Board. In the opinion in that case, 
 it is said : 
 
 "Such procedure was palpably wrong and it is impossible to 
 conclude that such statement did not to some extent influence the 
 minds of the triers." 
 
 And for that error, the finding of the Board was annuled. 
 
 Although a man is a teacher his rights are still de- 
 fined by law. In the Walrath case previously referred to 
 (See Compilation of Judicial Decisions by Finegan, Page 
 1028) the methods adopted to effect the dismissal of a 
 teacher were much like those in the case at bar. In that 
 case the then Honorable Commissioner said: 
 
 "It must be understood that a teacher is entitled to a fair chance 
 for his life and that a teacher's place is not to be the foot-ball 
 of politics, or partisanship in other forms. If a teacher to whom the 
 law gives a permanent tenure 'through good behavior' and declares 
 that he can only be removed for cause, is to be removed, the cause 
 must be a reasonable one and the procedings leading up to the de- 
 termination must be so conducted as to establish the cause and yet 
 protect the teacher's rights." 
 
 and further, in the same opinion, it is said : 
 
 "He (the teacher) had had considerable experience in the place 
 he held. He was not an old man incapable of further progress and 
 yet better accomplishments. The school over which he presided 
 was upon his heart. He was entitled to be treated like a man. to 
 be regarded for the public service he had rendered. He was not a 
 mere hired man. He was entitled to be conferred with about the 
 interests of the school." 
 
 164 
 
I yield to no one in the exacting 
 demands I make for loyalty and pa- 
 triotism on the part of the teachers 
 charged with the duty of educating 
 the children of our public schools. 
 My own children are among the num- 
 ber receiving their instruction from 
 such teachers today. Too often pa- 
 triotism, however, is confused with 
 militarism; "Loyalty" is confused 
 with intolerance and persecution. 
 We are already reapng some of the 
 terrible consequences resulting from 
 whipping up this spirit of intolerance 
 in the cases of lynching, mob violence 
 and outrages taking place all over the 
 country, which can only discredit us 
 in the eyes of rational people every- 
 where and which will discredit our 
 cause throughout the world. 
 
 Gilbert E. Roe, 
 Counsel for The Teachers' Union. 
 
 Grayzel Press 
 
m^Z.?' CONGRESS 
 
 AN APPEAL TO AMERICAN 
 TEACHERS! 
 
 Fellow Teachers : 
 
 If you are impressed by this little 
 volume on Contemporary Education, 
 why not acquaint yourselves with 
 ALL the available literature reveal- 
 ing the methods and manipulations 
 of Autocracy in our Public School 
 System? Write to THE TEACH- 
 ERS' UNION for: 
 
 1) A Volume of the Testimony. 
 
 2) A Summary of the Evidence. 
 
 3) (Another copy of) TOWARD 
 THE NEW EDUCATION. 
 
 4) The American Teacher. 
 
 A New World is Emerging. 
 Become one of its Apostles.