1^ 
 
 nil 
 
F 199 
 L91 
 
 i^RaUMENT 
 
 MADE IN DEFENSE OF 
 
 BENJAMIN G. LOVEJOY, 
 
 BEFOBE THE 
 
 Coiiimissioiiers of tlie District of (joUjia, 
 
 IN RESPONSE TO 
 
 Certain charges against him preferred by one 
 William Birney. 
 
 REGINALD FENDALL, 
 R. ROSS PERRY, 
 
 ' Of Counsel. 
 
 Thomas McGill & Co., Law Printers, Washingtoo, D. C. 
 
«i 
 
 Washington City, D. C, 
 July 14, 1885. 
 
 To THE Commissioners of the District of Columbia : 
 
 The counsel for Mr. Lovejoy, before they proceed with 
 the argument of his case, desire to protest against the par- 
 ticipation by Commissioner West, as a judge or in any 
 other capacity, in your deUberations or conchisions upon 
 the said case. 
 
 As counsel, and individually, we regret to be compelled 
 to take this course ; but forced during the taking of the 
 testimony to oppose, almost from the outset, the methods 
 adopted by i\lr. West, an acquiescence in which would 
 have deprived the investigation of all fairness ; and com- 
 pelled to see that Mr. West was really the person com- 
 plaining of Mr. Lovejoy, although in form the accusations 
 were those of Mr. Birney ; and driven to the conclusion 
 that the person intended to be attacked is not so much 
 Mr. Lovejoy, although his name is alone used, as Mr. J. 
 Ormond Wilson^ the late superintendent, — we feel it to be 
 our duty to reject Mr. West as a judge in this matter. 
 
 We expect to furnish you with substantial proof of the 
 truth of our assertions in this connection. This proof we 
 will produce from the records of your office and from the 
 testimony taken in this -case before Mr. West himself, 
 which testimony he has had sufficient opportunity to deny 
 or explain ; much of it, however, has come from his own 
 mouth, and out of this he should not object to be judged. 
 
 Mr. West first appeared in this case as distinct from his 
 associates in consequence of an order made by the Com- 
 missioners that he should take the testimony in the case 
 and report his findings of fact. Tliis order was objected to 
 by Mr. Lovejoy on the ground that it made Mr. West 
 
really the judge of the case, and Mr. Lovejoy insisted that 
 he had " satisfactory reasons for regarding hira as pre- 
 judiced, and hence unfit to adjudicate the findings in the 
 case." (See Mr. Lovejoy's letter of June 30th ultimo.) 
 
 On the same day the Commissioners, through Mr. Ed- 
 monds, assured Mr. Lovejoy that the testimony taken 
 should be referred to a full Board. 
 
 On the 1st day of July (being the next day to this cor- 
 respondence) the testimony was commenced. Almost at 
 the outset Mr. West interrupted the proceedings, as will 
 appear from the record. The situation was this : 
 
 Mr. Birney pubUcly charged Mr. Lovejoy with a certain 
 offense, about the nature of which we shall inquire more 
 fully hereafter. All that is necessary to consider now is 
 that the charge was publicly made and disseminated by the 
 press. Mr. Lovejoy had no opportunity of answering these 
 charges, public as they had been, until the testimony was 
 commenced as above. His counsel then attempted to say 
 that they would admit all of the matters of fact alleged in 
 the specifications, and further proceeded to declare what 
 they understood the charges to be and what answer they 
 desired to make to them. This was attempted to be pre- 
 vented by Mr. West. Finally, however, he admitted that 
 counsel were right, and directed them to proceed with their 
 statement. Next thereafter he ofiered a certain letter in tes- 
 timony. He was asked by Mr. Perry in what capacity he 
 oflt'ered the letter, and whether he ofiered it as counsel ; to 
 which Mr, West answered, " I am instructed to make a case." 
 Now, counsel do not wish to insist upon the literal meaning 
 of the very startling expression, when used by a qaasi-}udge, 
 " mstruded to make a case" We of course know that Mr. 
 West had no such instructions; nor do we wish to insist 
 that Mr. West meant what the words used by him mean. 
 We understand that he intended cnly to state that he was 
 there for the purpose, not of falsifying the evidence, but 
 of looking at the case from one point of view only, and 
 
of developing the evidence in so far us he could in that 
 direction. This is what he meant by ma/dng a case. He un- 
 derstood that he was there to do an attorney's pai't, J3y this 
 ahiiost unconscious expression of his thoughts and purposes, 
 he showed what his intention was ; and as we go on, counsel 
 will point out how completely ho was dominated by that 
 purpose —so completely that he forgot not only what he 
 owed to his position as expectant judge in this case, but 
 also what he owed to the office that he held and to his 
 colleagues whom he represented there. That Mr. West 
 understood at one time that he should be impartial in the 
 case, is evident from an expression used by him to a reporter 
 of the Evening Star of the Ist instant, when he said " that 
 a very unjust effort had been made to make it appear that 
 he came into the investigation prejudiced. The only reason 
 Mr. Lovejoy's friends had for such an opinion was because 
 they knew he was fully acquainted with the record in the 
 case." 
 
 The most important matter connected with the behavior 
 of Mr. West, to which counsel ask your attention, is the 
 series of questions asked, and statements made, by him 
 at the sessions of Monday tlie 6th and Tuesday the 7th 
 instants in connection with the disposition of the salary of 
 Miss Bartlett for the months of January, February, and 
 March, 1882. Mr. West first announced that he wanted 
 to show a way through which Mr. Lovejoy could escape ; 
 that he (West) was convinced that Lovejoy's ignorance 
 had been practiced upon by others. Mr. West next pro- 
 ceeded to put upon record and to state at this public ses- 
 sion, where members of the press were present for the pur- 
 pose of reporting the proceedings, and where he was 
 sitting as a Commissioner of the District of Columbia, that 
 the money then being inquired about, to wit, the salary of 
 Miss Bartlett's school for the three months aforesaid, or 
 for some portion thereof, had " been stolen from the dying 
 girl," and there could be no doubt in the minds of any who 
 
heard liira that he meant that Mr. Wilson had stolen this 
 money. When this statement was, at the next day's ses- 
 sion, pronounced absolutely false by 1^-ofessor Cleveland 
 Abbe, at whose house Miss Bartlett died, Mr. West did 
 not retract this accusation, but insisted that a falsitication 
 had been made of the pay-rolls in order to cover the mat- 
 ter up. Lastly, when he was asked a certain question by 
 Mr. Lovejoy's counsel, after he had gone on the stand as a 
 witness, under the guise of answering the question he 
 made the following extraordinary statement. This is given 
 in full, together with the protest of counsel. 
 
 Mr, West was asked by counsel what charges he had 
 been investigating, and Mr. West said that he had been 
 investigating certain charges against Mr. Wilson in regard 
 to the use of certain money by the latter for the benefit 
 of the Normal School. Said Mr. West, in further answer : 
 
 " To get at this matter a little more definitely, the Com- 
 missioners were investigating the question of what became 
 of the money that was paid to Miss Bartlett in January, 
 February, and March, 1882. Mr. Wilson was charged 
 with having the money, and it was decided to ask him the 
 straightforward question, ' Did you have any such money? ' 
 He was asked distinctly, ' Did any such moiiey exist ? ' 
 He replied categorically, that ' no such fund exists.' He 
 was then asked if any such fund ever did exist ; and it 
 was ascertained by the Conniiissioners that on the morning 
 of the day that he was asked that question he paid out the 
 residue of that money." 
 
 Mr. Perry. " How did you find that out ? " 
 
 Mr. W^EST, " I am making my statement, but I have 
 no objection to being interrupted." 
 
 Mr. Perry. " Go on and state as much as 3'ou think is 
 necessary." 
 
 Mr. West. " Then Mr. Wilson was asked whether any 
 such fund e\er existed. He still denied that such a fund 
 ever existed, but that he had the money — a distinction •! 
 could never comprehend ; and he goes on in this letter to 
 state where he got the money. He got $122 from Miss 
 Bartlett; one gentleman thinks that it was given to Mr. 
 
Wilson entirely voluntarily by Miss Bartlett ; the lady is 
 dead; she cannot answer the question; but it is evident 
 that the intention of Mr. Lovejoy, that that money should 
 contribute to the solace of her last moments upon earth, 
 was not carried out ; the money did not go there. Whether 
 Miss Bartlett voluntarily turned the money over to Mr. 
 Wilson, or whether that resolution of the 14th of March 
 last was passed for the purpose of covering up the trans- 
 action, those who see the record can judge. On the 14th 
 of March last a resolution was passed which was to cover 
 up the transaction. That money had been drawn con- 
 trary to the statutes of the United States and to usage, 
 and it became necessary to have a retroactive act to give 
 the lady pay; and upon the passage of that retroactive act 
 the money arising from its eifect was paid over to Mr. 
 Wilson. What he did with it, and his right to do any- 
 thing with it, is a matter for those to judge of who have 
 the matter in charge. But as I understand this case, this 
 is Mr. Lovejoy and Mr. Wilson on the one side, Commis- 
 sioner West and Mr. Birney on the other. This is the old 
 system of irregidarity, free from, any intentional collusion 
 and bad practices — an accommodatioyi to the teachers. I 
 have no object in persecuting anybody; but I do say 
 that as long as I hold the position which I do, and profess 
 to control these educational matters, every dollar shall be 
 accounted for, whether it is spent in a copyrighted school 
 book or a worthless hand brush. Those are the things 
 that I found it necessary to look into. Whenever any 
 trustee iinds it necessary to call in question the acts of his 
 co-trustee, or whenever there is brought to the notice of 
 the Commissioners facts looking to malpractice, the Com- 
 missioners will look into them, notwithstanding the fact 
 that the gentlemen think the Commissioners have no 
 authority in the premises." 
 
 Mr. Perry. " The counsel for Mr. Lovejoy have listened 
 to this most extraordinary statement on the part of Mr. 
 Commissioner West which he has interjected into this 
 record under the guise of an answer to a question asked 
 during his examin^ation, and they wish to enter their pro- 
 test against it, lirst, because, under the order of the Com- 
 missioners, which gave Mr. West the power to conduct this 
 examination there can be found no warrant for any such 
 extraordinary statement as that which was made by him ; 
 
6 
 
 second, because it is an argument which absolutely mis- 
 states the facts that have been so far adduced in evidence ; 
 third, because it is an abuse of official position for the sake 
 of making an attack upon an absent man, which attack is 
 based upon absolute misstatements of the testimony which 
 has been taken here." 
 
 Mr. Fendall and Mr. Perry, without reference to their 
 position as counsel in this case, say that they, as citizens 
 and as persons represented in a certain way by Mr. West, 
 protest against his conduct in this matter as unworthy 
 of his high office and of the people whom he represents. 
 As counsel for Mr. Lovejoy, they say that even were they 
 convinced that Mr. West could be an unprejudiced judge 
 in this case, yet, after their experience in this investigation, 
 they could not consent to submit to his judgment the de- 
 tei'mination of any question. 
 
 Counsel may seem to use harsh language. It is most 
 repulsive to them to use this language ; but they are con- 
 vinced that no one can read understandingly what Mr. 
 West has said in taking the testimony, or follow the attacks 
 made by him over Mr. Lovejoy's shoulders on an absent 
 and a sick school teacher, broken in health through his 
 devotion to and labors for the schools, and undefended 
 here, without reaching the conclusion that counsel are jus- 
 tified in their course. 
 
 Counsel will now proceed with the argument of the 
 case : 
 
 The charges which were given to the public press 
 against Mr. Lovejoy on the 24th day of June ultimo were 
 of the gravest nature as published. They alleged falsifica- 
 tions made by Mr. Lovejoy of the teachers' pay-rolls. The 
 charges and specifications were not published then in de- 
 tail, nor have they yet been published, save through the 
 testimony taken at the investigation. These charges and 
 specifications were long and wordy, and have probably 
 been read by few. Mr. Birney's imblished charge was con- 
 
cise and simple — it was falsification of pay-rolls ; something 
 very definite, and signifying to the minds of all who saw it a 
 very definite thing. This charge was given to the press, 
 and on the morning of the 25th of June it is safb to say 
 that in all the principal cities of this Nation it was pub- 
 lished that Benjamin G. Lovejoy, of the City of Washing- 
 ton, V>. C, stood charged as school trustee with the falsifi- 
 cation of pay-rolls, as we have said a very definite and 
 easily-understood charge. It would have been a grave 
 matter had the publication of this charge been confined to 
 the City of Washington where, to those who knew the two 
 men, both the character of the accused and of the ac- 
 cuser would have refuted the accusation as soon as ut- 
 tered ; but this charge was published broadcast, in distant 
 cities, and among strangers, to whom Mr. Lovejoy's name 
 meant no more than the name of Mr. Birney. Certainly 
 this was a grave thing — tliat a man, who had lived a rep- 
 utable life in the community in which he was born, should 
 suddenly and without notice find himself attacked in his 
 integrity and honesty about a matter in which he had 
 served the public gratuitously and with much labor, dur- 
 ing the best years of his life. Certainly such a charge, 
 made in such a way, and by such a person, could only be 
 justified by proof of guilt in the sense in which the charge 
 was meant to be, and in fact was, understood. 
 Now, let us see what the proofs were upon trial : 
 As has been said^ counsel for Mr. Lovejoy took the 
 earliest opportunity at the investigation of stating his an- 
 swer to this charge. Tlie testimony is now before you, 
 and counsel assert that not one scintilla of proof has been 
 added by the testimony to the statement made by counsel 
 on the first day of the investigation. And yet the coun- 
 sel for Mr. Birney, refused to receive these admissions, 
 and said " we propose to prove our own case in our 
 own way." It was not intended to allow Mr. Love- 
 joy the opportunity of admitting what was true in the 
 
specifications. It was intended that he should be put in 
 the false attitude of silently standing on the defensive and 
 calling for strict proof. It was intended that it should 
 falsely appear that the allegations of the specifications 
 were denied, that thus Mr. Birney might appear of record 
 as proving something. This attempt failed through the 
 persistence of Mr. Lovejoy's counsel; and Mr. Birney is 
 of record as insisting on the proof of what Mr. Lovejoy 
 admitted on the threshold. 
 
 Now follows a matter to whicli counsel ask your atten- 
 tion. Mr. Perry's statement is contained in full in the 
 record. After it had been concluded, Mr. Birney was 
 compelled to admit that he could not prove anything that 
 was not there admitted. By his counsel he then said: 
 
 " Mr. Lovejoy was not accused of taking money. There 
 was no criminal charge against him. As a trustee, Mr. 
 Birney had deemed it his duty to call the attention of the 
 Conmiissioners to the fact that it was the practice of some 
 trustees to certify pay-rolls which did not represent the 
 truth. To give public charity he did not think was the 
 duty of a trustee." 
 
 Counsel have quoted the words of Mr. Birney's counsel 
 with great care, because when they were uttered it seemed 
 to Mr. Lovejoy's friends that there must have been some 
 misapprehension on the part of Mr. Birney as to the true 
 case. They could hardly believe that any one would de- 
 liberately charge a man of previous good character in the 
 public press with so grave a charge as the falsification of 
 pay-rolls, simply because there existed a diit'erence of 
 opinion as to the proper names to be entered on the pay- 
 rolls, and where there was no question of any criminal or 
 dishonest motive, but only, as Mr. Birney's counsel states, 
 a question of what he calls charity. It did not seem possi- 
 ble thatanj^ man of sound understanding could deliberately 
 adopt the method of a criminal charge to settle this ques- 
 tion. There were so manj* other methods of determining 
 
9 
 
 a dispute of tliis kind that to suppose any one to deliber- 
 ately resolve to do what in him lay to brand the character 
 of another man, no matter how unfriendly to him person- 
 ally, in this way, was to suppose that Mr. Birney, acting in 
 this way, had the malice of a na.ture inherently crimimd, or 
 that he was disordered mentally. 
 
 Let us now consider exactly what the whole record 
 shows to be the facts underlying the inquiry ; the motives 
 of those who have urged the inquiry can be briefly con- 
 sidered afterwards. 
 
 The facts undeniably established about Miss Bartlett's 
 school, and which ai'e the gravamen of the first five speci- 
 fications, are these : Miss Bartlett was a teacher of unusual 
 ability, and character. Her health failing, she had given 
 up a school of a higher grade, which she taught with great 
 success, and had in the latter part of the year 1881 taken 
 charge of a school of young children in the "Franklin 
 Building," the same building in which the Normal School 
 is tiiught. This school was a model of its kind ; and the 
 pupils of the Normal School, themselves preparing to 
 teach, often were sent by their principal. Miss Smith, to 
 observe the methods used by Miss Bartlett with such suc- 
 cess. In December Miss Bartlett was so much worse that 
 she was invited by the father of one of her pupils, who took 
 an interest in her, to come to his house. This she did, and 
 there she died. In January, 1882, she was not able to 
 teach, but she did teach, and continued to do so until 
 about the middle of that month, when her will ceased to 
 be able to compel her body to that exertion from which its 
 physical weakness had for a long time shrunk. Professor 
 Abbe at first asked for leave of absence for her without 
 pay; and this was granted. It was afterwards suggested 
 by some friends that under the rules she could employ a 
 substitute, and thus receive some part of her pay, and at 
 the same time retain her connection with the school in 
 which she took so deep an interest and the separation 
 2 
 
10 
 
 from which so distressed her. This was discussed by Mr. 
 Lovejoj, Mr. Wilson (the late principal), Miss Smith, and 
 others, and it was agreed that such a course was author- 
 ized by the rules, sanctioned by precedent, and a kindness 
 that might properly be shown by the school officers with- 
 out departing from their strict duty. There were certain 
 of the Normal School pupils who had very successfully 
 taught in Miss Bartlett's school as a part of their own 
 education, as explained above. These pupils, among 
 whom was Miss McQueen, whose name appears on the 
 fourth and fifth specifications, accordingly, under the im-- 
 mediate direction and advice of Miss Smith, took charge 
 of this school, and taught it until the end of the scholastic 
 year in June, 1882. 
 
 It is not denied by Mr. Birney, and it is affirmatively 
 proved by Mr. Lovejoy, that the rank of Miss Bartlett's 
 school was preserved at its former high standard during 
 the time that these pupils had it in charge. It cannot there- 
 fore be, nor is it pretended, that the interest of this school 
 or of the pupils attending it at all suffered from what was 
 done in that school from January 1st, 1882, until the close 
 of the school year. Tlie pupils were well taught and the 
 money of the teacher was well earned. It cannot be pre- 
 tended that what was done was done secretly. The course 
 pursued was decided upon after consultation between Mr. 
 Lovejoy, Mr. Wilson, and Miss Smith, with the knowledge 
 of Professor Abbe and of others. It cannot be pretended 
 that it was against the rules of the school, for at that time 
 Rule 42 read as follows: 
 
 Rule 42. 
 
 "1. In case of the absence of any teacher on account of 
 sickness or other justifiable cause for not exceeding one 
 day the school ipay be closed. 
 
 " 2. In case of longer absence, or where the absence is 
 likely to be of longer duration, the teacher may furnish a 
 
11 
 
 substitute, provided that the person selected be satisfac- 
 tory to the supervising principal, superintendent, or local 
 trustee having special charge of the school. 
 
 " 3. In case the absentee does not elect to provide a 
 substitute, he or she shall forthwith notify, or cause to be 
 notified, the supervising principal, superintendent, or local 
 trustee, whose duty it shall be to employ a substitute; and 
 such substitute shall be paid by such absentee an amount 
 equal to one-half of his or her salary during the time that his 
 or her place may be tilled ; and written evidence of such pay- 
 ment shall be tiled with the Committee on Accounts prior 
 to the auditing of the salary account of said absentee for 
 the month next succeeding the termination of service of 
 said substitute. 
 
 "4. Teachers now in the employ of the Board, by con- 
 tinuing, and those hereafter to be employed, by accepting 
 service will be understood to agree to this rule. 
 
 " 5. Persons who hold or shall obtain certificates from the 
 Committee on Teachers, and notify the superintendent of 
 their readiness to serve as substitutes, and do so serve suc- 
 cessfully, as opportunity otfers, shall have preference, next 
 after graduates of the Normal School, in appointments to 
 the corps of teachers." 
 
 Of the matter of precedent we will speak later. The 
 money earned during the months of January, February, 
 and March— 1150 (being at the rate of |50 for each month) 
 — was paid to the sick teacher, Miss Bartlett. This is sworn 
 to positively by Professor Abbe, at whose house she was 
 and where she died. Miss Bartlett was too conscientious 
 to keep more of this money than she actually earned, and 
 either she or her sister gave to Mr. Wilson about |125 of 
 this, being all that she received, less the salary for about 
 one-half of the month of January, which she earned her- 
 self. Of the sum so given, about $50 or |55 were applied 
 to her burial expenses. The salaries for the months of 
 April, May, and June were drawn by Miss McQueen, 
 making in all $120; and this sum was added to that re- 
 ceived from Miss Bartlett, making in all about $240. The 
 
12 
 
 testimony shows approximately how this was expended, 
 to wit: 
 
 For renovating grand piano (property of 
 the District) 
 
 For moving piano, music, &c., at exhibition 
 of school 5 
 
 For Miss Bartlett's funeral expenses 50 
 
 For apparatus for the Normal School 80 
 
 This completes the history of the first live specifica- 
 tions. It is in part on this state of facts that the charge 
 of Mr. Birney was published. These facts were admitted 
 in the opening statement, and they are shown by the 
 proof to be as admitted ; nothing more. Counsel do 
 not purpose making any argument about them, save 
 to hereafter refer to certain precedents in the schools 
 which would justify all engaged in this matter in claiming 
 that they had not even been irr regular, according to the 
 most technical construction of the rules. But the charge 
 here is — tlie charge published to the world is — falsification 
 of paj'-rolls. Counsel ask you as honorable men, having 
 reputations wliich are dear to you, is it not an outrage on 
 Mr. Lovejoy that, for what he did in this matter, he should 
 have been thus dealt with by this false accuser? Ought 
 such a man as this one, whose malice is so bitter or whose 
 nature is so perverted, ought such a man as Mr. Birney 
 here appears be to continue trustee of the schools ? 
 
 Permit us to say a few words in behalf of Mr. Wilson, 
 whom we do not represent, and who is absent and physi- 
 cally disabled through his labors in behalf of our schools, 
 and who has the confidence of the most reputable citizens 
 of Washington in every way, both as to intelligence and 
 integrity of the strictest kind; a man respected of all 
 the teachers, and who had so endeared himself to the 
 children that the mention of his name at the late com- 
 mencements made their hands try to tell what their hearts 
 felt for him, — permit counsel to say of him, as citizens and 
 
13 
 
 lawyers who have studied this case, that there is notliing 
 either developed or hinted at in the testimony, save what 
 is much to his credit; that he appears to have acted in 
 the case of Miss Bartlett, in which Mr. West has made so 
 unwarranted an attack upon him absent, in the most hon- 
 est and manly way. 
 
 There are two other matters to which we wish to call 
 your attention in connection with the case of Miss Bart- 
 lett's school. This school was thoroughly investigated by 
 Mr. West himself as to the time when Miss McQueen 
 signed the pay-rolls in April, May, and June of 1882, in 
 connection with Mr. Wilson. The result of that investi- 
 gation is well known to you. In order, however, to re- 
 fresh your recollections, we desire to insert here the letters 
 of Mr. Edmonds and of Mr. West to Mr. Wilson, wM-itten in 
 October, 1884, and a part of this record. They read as 
 follows : 
 
 " 1625 K Street N. W., 
 " Washington, D. C, October \st, 1884. 
 
 " Mr. J. Ormond Wilson. 
 
 "Dear Sir: General West tells me the young lady 
 teacher understands the payment made by her to yon to 
 have been purely voluntary on her part, and in all respects 
 as you understood it. 
 
 " As the story came to the General, the lady understood 
 it differently, which would iiiake quite a different case. 
 
 '=As it is, there is nothing to be said, except that the case 
 is another illustration of the ease with which simple mat- 
 tei-s are outrageously distorted as they go through town. 
 
 "The General will doubtless write you to similar effect. 
 " Very truly yours, 
 
 "J. ^. Edmonds." 
 
 "Office of the Commissioners, 
 
 " District of Columbia, 
 " Washington, October 2d, 1884. 
 "Dear Mr. Wilson: As by the understanding had with 
 the Commissioners at our interview with you yesterday, 
 
14 
 
 I called upon Miss McQueen, and the version obtained 
 from her as to her salary as teacher, April to June, 1882, 
 was the same as given by you, viz., that her compensation 
 as such teacher was voluntarily turned over to you, in order 
 that a piano which was used by the whole school might be 
 repaired. 
 
 ''I beg to assure you that upon investigation no reproach 
 rests upon you or upon any other person connected with 
 the schools in respect to the pay of Miss McQueen or of its 
 disposition. 
 
 "This letter is written with the knowledge of my col- 
 leagues, and meets their mdorsement. It will be made 
 official, if you so desire. 
 
 "Very respectfully yours, 
 
 "J. R. West. 
 
 '^ Hon. J. Ormond Wilson, Supt Schools.''^ 
 
 Now, counsel are unable to persuade themselves that 
 Mr. West did not at that time also inquire into the months 
 of January, February, and March; but if he did not in- 
 quire, it is difficult to understand how any one could be so 
 convinced about the propriety and regularity of what 
 happened in that school in the three latter months, and yet 
 insist, as Mr. West seems to, that the three earlier months 
 are so blamable in their history. 
 
 One other matter : Mr. West was examined as a wit- 
 ness by Mr. Birney's counsel with respect to the time 
 when the charges and specifications in this case were 
 first presented to him by Mr. Birney. Mr. West testi- 
 fied substantially that Mr. Birney brought the charges 
 and specifications to him in the same shape in which 
 they now are, save that there were only five of them — 
 Mrs. Rodiers' case not being included — in March of this 
 year; that he urged Birney not to present them, on 
 the ground that it would simply create scandal ; that Mr. 
 Birney acquiesced in this suggestion, and withdrew the 
 charges. Counsel cannot perceive that the addition of 
 charge with respect to Mrs. Rodier could materially alter 
 
15 
 
 the judgment or advice of Mr. West, acquiesced in by Mr. 
 Birney in March last. The inquiry then is, Wiiat niotive 
 now urges these gentlemen on, when in March they both 
 conchided that it would he injudicious and improper to 
 present these charges? 
 
 The remaining specification is in relation to Mrs. Kodier, 
 and can be briefly stated, together with the history oi" the 
 case, thus: 
 
 Mrs. Maria E. Rodier commenced the career of a school 
 teacher in this city when she was seventeen years of age, 
 and since the year 1849 she has been continuously con- 
 nected with the public schools here as a teacher. As the 
 standard of the schools has been developed, and as modern 
 and improved methods of teaching have been introduced, 
 Mrs. Rodier has, with great industry and with commend- 
 able ambition, qualified herself — although educated under 
 the old methods — to still compete with the younger teach- 
 ers, wlio had the advantage of more recent instruction and 
 of acquiring new methods with greater readiness than can 
 be commanded by those whose early instruction has been 
 of an entirely diflerent sort. So well has Mrs. Rodier 
 persevered in this difficult course, that her school retained 
 the excellent standard that she had at first given to it, 
 despite advancing age on iier part and innovations in the 
 methods of teaching with which she had to struggle hard 
 to keep place. In the year 1881, Mrs. Rodier voluntarily, 
 and without suggestion from anyone, determined to employ 
 an assistant, whom she paid out of her own salary, to aid 
 her in her work. This assistant has been continuously with 
 her since, and is now the teacher of this school. Mrs. 
 Rodier's first purpose in employing her was to have her do 
 certain work at the black-board which required more phy- 
 sical agility than she possessed. As the months went by 
 and brought their own burden with them, this assistant 
 teacher took the place of the principal to a gradually 
 
16 
 
 greater extent, until fimilly in November last Mrs. liodier 
 ceased her active work. 
 
 We wish to call attention, first, to the fact that in this 
 case, as in that of Miss Bartlett, it is not suggested that 
 the standard of this school has not been kept up ; that is 
 admitted without question ; and the former assistant, Miss 
 Blackiston, is now the teacher of this school. Here, then, 
 is no pretense that the interests of the school or of the 
 pupils attending it have at allsutiered. On the contrary, it 
 is admitted that the standard of this school is higher than 
 the average; so that the public has suffered no loss. Here 
 is no question with respect to the compensation. It is con- 
 ceded that Mrs. Rodier drew her salary regularly and paid 
 her assistant, as the assistant confesses. 
 
 The question of regularity under the rules is not difficult 
 to determine. This is not the case of a substitute, for a 
 substitute, by force of the term, takes the place of the prin- 
 cipal. Tliere cannot be a teacher and a substitute doing 
 duty at the same time in the same school ; but, from the 
 evidence, there can be no doubt that Mrs. Kodier has been 
 at her school daily, with few exceptions, until the month 
 of November last. The rules are silent with respect to as- 
 sistants, save in the eighth grade, where a sub-assistant is 
 provided for ; but this, it is conceded, has no application 
 here. The question presented by this case of Mrs. Kodier 
 is as follows: The rules neither permit nor refuse the em- 
 ployment of an assistant. Can an assistant ever be properly 
 employed when the rules are silent on the subject? 
 
 Now, while this might properly be made the subject of 
 discussion at a meeting^of the school board with reference to 
 an enlargement of the rules or a greater strictness in defini- 
 tion on their part, it can hardly be urged that the employ- 
 ment of an assistant, while the rules remain as they now 
 are, would furnish ground for a criminal charge ; and yet 
 this is exactly what the charge is here— that Mr. Lovejoy" 
 falsified the pay-rolls, in that he certified that Mrs. Rodier 
 
17 
 
 earned her money, when in point of fact the services were 
 rendered by her and her assistant, and later by the as- 
 sistant almost entirely. These are the facts in Mrs. Rodier's 
 case. 
 
 Now, inasmuch as the pay-rolls and their alleged falsifi- 
 cation are often mentioned in this inquiry, it will be well 
 to understand exactly what connection Mr. Lovejoy has 
 with them, and the counsel will call attention to certain 
 precedents illustrating the course of procedure with respect 
 to these rolls. 
 
 The public-school teachers of the District of Columbia 
 are paid their salaries monthly. There are certain divisions 
 of these schools, and each division has a supervising prin- 
 cipal, who has immediate charge thereof, and who prepares 
 the certificate each mouth, giving the names of teachers 
 and their salaries. The accuracy of this list as to matters 
 of fact is vouched for by the principal of eacli district. It 
 would be physically impossible for the chairman of the 
 committee on teachers to go over and verify all of the lists 
 from all of the divisions every month. This certificate of 
 the supervising principal is certified to in turn by the super- 
 intendent and the chairman of the committee on teachers — 
 Mr, Lovejoy. Formerly, the trustees performed the duties 
 of supervising jjrincipal, and then he properly signed the 
 pay certificates, and vouched as to their correctness as to 
 matters of i'act contained in them ; but since the introduc- 
 tion of the supervising principals (about twelve years ago) 
 they have been looked to as vouchers for the statements 
 of fact in the pay-rolls contained. 
 
 Now, this certificate prepared by the supervising princi- 
 pal in each district, and then signed or certified by the 
 superintendent and by Mr. Lovejoy, is taken to the 
 finance committee, and the pay-roll is made from that, and 
 this pay-roll is not signed or seen by Mr. Lovejoy. 
 
 With respect to the case of Miss Bartlett's school, this 
 circumlocution office business made no difierence at all, 
 3 
 
18 
 
 for Mr. Lovejoj knew all about her case from the outset, 
 and certified t6 the list of the principal, well knowing 
 all the facts. But in regard to Mrs. Rodier's case, Mr. 
 Lovejoy relied, as from the necessity of the matter all 
 have to rely, on the supervising principal. He did not 
 know that Mrs. Rodier had an assistant when he renom- 
 inated her in 1883, nor did he know it in 1884, when he 
 again renominated her, in accordance with the custom of 
 renominating all teachers who appeared to have done their 
 duty during the preceding year. It was not suggested to 
 him that Mrs. Rodier had to have an assistant. Counsel 
 speak of this in order to have the system understood. Mr. 
 Lovejoy does not wish to shirk any responsibility properly 
 resting upon him, and he is free to say that in view of the 
 exceptional features of Mrs. Rodier's case, and as the rules 
 did not prevent the employment of an assistant, he would, 
 had he been consulted, have done all in his power, satis- 
 fied that the school was keeping up its high standard, to 
 avoid casting out a woman who had given all the strength 
 of her youth and prime to the schools — he would have 
 avoided throwing her aside as a worn-out, useless thing 
 could he possibly have done so. 
 
 To resume, then, so far as the pay-rolls are concerned, 
 Mr. Lovejoy did not sign or see them, and his name was 
 not on them, nor did he have anything to do with them. 
 The monthly certificates were signed, or rather approved, 
 by him in the case of Mrs. Rodier on the faith of the su- 
 pervising principal's certificate, and in the cases of Miss 
 Bartlett and of Miss McQueen with a full knowledge and 
 approval of all the facts. 
 
 The matters proved, then, in this whole investigation 
 are those, and those only, that were admitted at the outset 
 by Mr. Lovejoy's counsel, to wit: 
 
 Mr. Lovejoy certified that in January, February, and 
 March, 1882, Miss Bartlett rendered services as teacher in 
 her school. This was not true in point of fact, as Mr. 
 
19 
 
 Lovejoy knew. The services during these months were 
 rendered by substitutes — Miss McQueen and others. But 
 the untruth is only in form ; for under the rules and the uni- 
 versal practice then the teacher's name was always signed 
 to the pay-roll, although the whole service was rendered by 
 a substitute. This is done to-day in all of the Departments 
 of the General Government in numerous cases. The reg- 
 ular appointee signs the pay-roll, although the services may 
 be rendered for months at a time by substitutes. In the 
 case of the public schools, this matter was perfectly under- 
 stood, for in September, 1882, the Commissioners, through 
 their secretary, called the attention of the school trustees 
 to an opinion of the First Comptroller of the Treasury in 
 regard to this very practice. The matter was referred 
 by the trustees to a committee, and they reported that they 
 found no reason to change anything with respect to the 
 pay-rolls. You will find the report of this committee, to- 
 gether with the minority report of Mr. Birney, in the min- 
 utes of the Board of Trustees for September 28th, 1882. 
 The School Board adopted the report of the committee, and 
 the certificates remained as before the Comptroller's opinion. 
 Moreover, the uniform practice prior to November, 1882, 
 was to use the name of the teacher on the pay-roll, and not 
 that of the substitute, for obvious reasons, principally be- 
 cause the name of the teacher was the one known to the 
 authorities. This teacher might have at different times 
 one or more substitutes, whose names would not be on the 
 rolls of the schools, and who were strangers to the account- 
 ing officers and to many of the school officials. Their 
 names had no place on the rolls, provided they were ac- 
 ceptable to the teachers whose work they performed and to 
 the immediate superior of that teacher, and were paid 
 their compensation. They had no further part in the 
 school economy, and there was no reason why their names 
 should appear. If any teacher employed substitutes too fre- 
 
20 
 
 quently, that became a matter for the attention and report 
 of the supervising principal of that district. 
 
 Counsel produced certain witnesses at the hearing, to 
 wit, ex-Trustee White and Supervising Principal Gage, to 
 prove certain instances, notably those of Miss Ella Dunn 
 (whose name was signed to the rolls and who drew pay for 
 months until she died, a substitute doins: her work) and of 
 Miss Childs, whose case occurred recently, and the case of 
 Mr. Gage himself, whose name appears on the certificates 
 and pay-rolls in Mr. Birnej^'s own division as having done 
 all the work in April, 1885, although for a few days of that 
 month his place was supplied by Miss Wroe, and he drew 
 all the pay for that month and signed the roll. Some 
 time further back (in 1882,) Mr. Gage was sick for 
 more than a month, he being then, as now, supervising 
 principal; the certificates and rolls for that time have his 
 name only, although his work was done by substitutes. 
 Counsel made a mistake in calling these cases precedents; 
 they find that the universal rule was what Mr. Lovejoy 
 followed, to wit, that prior to November, 1882, the name of 
 the teacher always appeared, and was the only one that did 
 appear, in the certificates and the rolls, although the actual 
 service was for months rendered by substitutes. That 
 this was well known to Mr. Birney when he preferred these 
 charges and to Mr. West when he received them, there can 
 be and is no doubt. 
 
 Under the new or moral rules, as they are designated by 
 Mr. West (as appears from his statement a few pages back), 
 which he and Mr. Birney are contending for in this assault 
 upon Mr. Lovejoy's character, under this system it appears 
 that the certificates are on their face as far from the absolute 
 truth as they ever were. Formerly, these rules were under- 
 stood to mark out the way in which the school accounts should 
 be settled. It was not thought that they were perfect, or that 
 they could in the nature of things be entirely accurate in 
 
21 
 
 the respects brought into prominence here. The new rules 
 are professed to be strictly honest, Messrs. Birney and 
 West being sponsors ; yet it appears that these rules do 
 not state the exact truth, first, because they are made up 
 before the first of the month, generally about the middle, 
 and yet they profess to certify that certain work has been 
 done by certain persons up to a day, which is generally 
 about twelve days ahead of the certificate in point of time. 
 It is said that they are made up subject to correction, and 
 for the convenience of the teachers. But what has that to 
 do with the claim of superior sanctity made by these 
 sponsors? In point of fact, in the case of Mr. Gage, who 
 did not do the work for the whole month of last April, 
 they were not corrected so as to speak the truth, nor does 
 Miss Wroe's name — she did part of the work — appear on 
 them. It is said that the rules allow the names of the 
 teachers to appear only alone when they have done more 
 than half a month's work. This is very proper. So did 
 the old rules allow the teacher's name to appear, although 
 he or she had not done work for months. The new rule 
 may reduce the time of the untruth, but the inaccuracy is 
 as great for five days as for fifty, so far as the truth is con- 
 cerned, and it does not become the sponsors of these rules 
 to dress themselves in Sunday attire when these children 
 of theirs have to tell even such a little lie. In sober, 
 common sense these rules, like all others made for the ac- 
 tual conduct of life and its concerns, are not perfect ; nor 
 are they understood to be. It is only when they claim to 
 be such that they injure both their parents and the system. 
 There remains one case to which we ask especial atten- 
 tion. This is the case of the drill-master of the High School. 
 It ap[)ears froin the testimony that Captain Burton Ross, 
 of the Washington Light Infantry, was employed to in- 
 struct the High School cadets in tactics, at a salary of |25 
 per month. At the end ot the first month, when Captain 
 Ross had signed the pay-rolls, it appeared that, inasmuch 
 
22 
 
 as he was already in Government employ, he could not 
 receive two salaries. It was then sug^^ested that a High 
 School pupil, a Mr. Frederick Sohon, should sign the rolls 
 aiid draw the money, and then it could be paid to Captain 
 Ross. This was done with the full knowledge of Mr. West, 
 at whose suggestion we are not prepared to say ; but Mr. 
 West knew all about it. He knew, further, the force that this 
 instance had in this case, for he hastened to claim that 
 Sohon was instructor and Ross only coach. When Ross 
 drew the money in September or October last he was in- 
 structor, and got $25 per month for that. When it was 
 found that he could not sign the pay-rolls, then he became, 
 as Mr. West says, "coach," (for a graphic description of 
 what he understands to be the duties of a coach in action, 
 we refer to his own words on page ,) and Sohon be- 
 
 came instructor. The change was, however, one of name, 
 and not a financial change, for Captain Ross still got the 
 monthly salary of |25. After this recent instance the com- 
 plaint of Mr. West about irregular pay-rolls culls to mind 
 what we used to read about in college of the Gracchi com- 
 plaining of sedition. Let us state here as a matter of jus- 
 tice, since we have been compelled to mention the names 
 of Captain Ross and of Mr. Sohon in this connection, that 
 not the slightest blame can rest upon them in this matter. 
 Counsel have tried with patience and with no more com- 
 ment than the case required to review both the charges 
 and the proceedings in the case at some length. They 
 have tried to do so fairly and to make no inaccurate state- 
 ment. If they have made such, it can be very readily cor- 
 rected by the record, which you have before you. Let us 
 now say a few words in conclusion, and then we will leave 
 the matter with you to deal with, as honorable men who 
 have undertaken to act as judges in this case, at the request 
 of a man who says that he has been most unjustly and 
 maliciously assailed with a most base charge for conduct, 
 
23 
 
 that be thought was certainly not blamable, iti connection 
 with an institution to which he has given much time and 
 thought, and the welfare of which is very dear to him. 
 The case submitted to you is this: 
 
 Mr. Benjamin G. Lovejoy, an old resident of this city 
 and one of good repute among liis fellow-citizens, has been 
 charged ostensibly by Mr. Birney with the falsification of 
 the pay-rolls of the public schools. This charge has been 
 published in the press of the country, and Mr. Lovejoy 
 has been branded as a falsifier of records, which, as trus- 
 tee, he was bound to protect. Undoubtedly the impression 
 made upon the minds of those reading the published charge 
 is that Mr. Lovejoy has corruptly falsified the school rec- 
 ords. His defense, or a correct knowledge of the charges, 
 will not reach one out of every thousand of those who 
 have read the charge. A harm has been done him which 
 no remedy can atone for or palliate. Aiid this has been 
 done to him about the public schools of Washington, to 
 which he has, without compensation, given the best years 
 of his life both in time and in thought. All the worth of 
 his nature lias been lavished by him over these schools. 
 Such is the charge which has been made against him and 
 such are its effects. 
 
 What has he done to deserve this ? 
 Li Miss Bartlett's case he followed the precedent in ap- 
 proving certificates which enabled her to draw the salary 
 of the school for three months before her death. He did 
 this in accordance wnth the rules, and with precedent, and 
 with the knowledge of all of the school officials who were 
 in any way concerned in the matter. What he did has 
 been sustained by all who were connected with it. 
 
 In the matter of Miss McQueen, what he did has been 
 months ago examined and approved by the Commissioners, 
 as is not controverted. What lie did in the case of Mrs. 
 Kodier was to certify that a teacher had done her work, 
 although in point of fact she had been assisted in that 
 
24 
 
 work bj an assistant teacher — a thing not forbidden by the 
 rules. Now, this is the whole of the charge. It is con- 
 fessed that he received no luonej' or gain of any kind for 
 any of his acts. 
 
 The most that is suggested by the counsel for liis accuser 
 is that he has been trying to do charity at the expense of 
 the school ; and the proof shows this charge oven to be 
 false. Let us state the case briefly another way : 
 
 Mr. Lovejoy,in January, 1882, (he being then a school 
 trustee,) had a certain case brought to his attention. It 
 was that of a Miss Bartlett, an orphan, who, despite con- 
 stant ill-health and lameness from childhood, had yet per- 
 severed in her studies in the public schools here, and had, 
 by au energy which seemed almost unnatural in contrast 
 with the feeble body which it animated, succeeded in win- 
 ning for herself a foremost position at her graduation. 
 Unable to take needed rest by reason of the daily neces- 
 sities of bread-earning for herself, and partly for others, 
 she commenced her career as teacher in one of the schools 
 here, and in a short time she had made that school a 
 model, as she made everything that she touched. But her 
 will could not do everything. Under the constant labor 
 which she forced herself to discharge, her strength failed, 
 and she had to give up her regular school and to take one 
 for small children sitting for a half day only — this also 
 taught right under the eyes of the superintendant of the 
 Normal School and of the general superintendant, she made 
 so excellent that the teachers who saw it and knew of her 
 methods of work used to exhibit it, and the pupils study- 
 ing to teach went there to learn from this sick, lame, dying 
 girl how to do their work well. This woman's work and 
 history have been somewhat dwelt upon because it is pleas- 
 ant to know that all who came in contact with her were 
 impressed with the lesson taught by her determined strug- 
 gle to do her duty in spite of disease and many physical 
 hindrances. It is a pleasure to turn aside from the malice 
 
25 
 
 that prompted these charges against the man who wanted 
 to help her, to the lesson of her life. When we come 
 across such traits of character in every-day life, and iind 
 how they procured for this woman love and the death-bed 
 of home in a stranger's house, we think better of human 
 nature, despite this case which brings her to our notice. 
 
 Now, in this matter, all that Mr. Lovejoy did was to ap- 
 prove the certificate allowing her to draw the pay that her 
 substitutes earned. It could not be called charity, for she 
 was rightfully entitled to all that he did for her. What 
 Mr, Lovejoy did for Miss McQueen nominally in this same 
 connection has been pronounced by you after inquiry to 
 have been well done. What he did in Miss Rodier's case 
 has been explained in full. It cannot be called charity. 
 It was what under the rules she was entitled to. So 
 that Mr. Lovejoy in these three matters about which he is 
 accused has really done nothing. Yet he has been in- 
 famously accused of crime. You cannot hesitate to pro- 
 nounce him innocent ; but what redress will that be to him ? 
 You will not have read this argument without being con- 
 vinced that it is not intended merely as a vindication of 
 Mr. Lovejoy. The reading of the specifications will have 
 satisfied you of his innocence. No argument was necessary 
 to defend him. So soon as the accusation was plainly stated, 
 it was seen that it was meant to be a base, malicious lie. 
 Counsel have not been concerned with that. They have 
 been impressed with the enormity of this whole matter. 
 They have wanted to know who was behind this charge so 
 wantonly made with the full knowledge of its falseness, both 
 on the part of the accuser and of Mr. West. They have 
 gone over the whole matter in detail to answer that inquiry. 
 It touches the best interests of all good citizens to know who 
 the men are who are willing to gratify their purposes either 
 of revenge or of turning aside public attention from their own 
 records at a critical period, by making a charge of this kind 
 against a kind-hearted, honest, self-sacrificing man — one 
 4 
 
26 
 
 who has done much to serve the public without compensa- 
 tion ; one who is liimself no longer in the full strength of 
 manhood ; one whose name is endeared to very many to 
 whom his good-will has overflowed in substantial acts of 
 kindness — it touches all of us to know who the men are 
 who wantonly charge this man with forgery. Mr. Birney 
 is only the puppet. When he shall have been deprived of 
 his factitious individuality as trustee, there will remain 
 nothing of him that an honest man will care to investigate. 
 But who is behind him ? When we know who it is, we 
 need inquire no further; for any person who would be 
 behind Birney pushes forward a sign-board as to his own 
 character. 
 
 Reginald Fendall, 
 R. Ross Ferry, 
 
 Of Counsel. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 310 456 4 
 
 I 
 
 "¥