Considerable discussion attended the trials of the New York City teachers. To some there was no substantial foundation upon which to base charges of disloyalty, and the question resolved itself into whether a teacher need forfeit his rights to a political faith in which he believed. The answer of the school authorities came in the statement of Dr. John L. Tildsley, Associate Superintendent of Schools: “No person who adheres to the Marxian program, the program of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party in this country, should be allowed to become a teacher in the public school system, and if discovered to be a teacher, should be compelled to sever his connection with the school system, for it is impossible for such a person to carry out the purpose of the public schools ... [the purpose] that the public schools of any country should be the expression of the country’s ideals, the purpose of its institutions, and the philosophy of its life and government.”[398]
But even in the eyes of the New York City school authorities the great mass of public school teachers were loyal, for out of approximately twenty-five thousand employed in the system less than half a hundred were called to account for the views they held.[399]
Outside of the city of New York other cases of alleged infringement of the Lusk Law occurred. Among these was that of P. Hiram Mattingly, of Poughkeepsie, dismissed from the schools because at a Socialist meeting he characterized the Espionage Law as a measure of despotism, and declared that it was time that the republic be restored to this country, a first step toward which would be the acceptance of a Socialist administration in that city.[400]
Membership in the Communist Party cost Miss Julia D. Pratt her position as a music teacher in Buffalo in 1921. In passing upon her case, Frank B. Gilbert, deputy commissioner and counsel of the State Department of Education, set forth the opinion of those with whom final judgment rested when he declared: “A teacher in the public schools is a member of a state system and a servant of the people of the state. A teacher cannot properly perform the duties of her position and give expression, either verbally or by affiliation with any political or other organization, to her belief that our present government should be overthrown by revolution or by force and violence through direct action by any group or class....”[401]
Teachers beyond the confines of New York suffered similar penalties, although the hand of the law did not press so heavily upon them. They, too, found it necessary to guard their speech and to abstain from proscribed political tenets, or else pay the price of reprimand or dismissal. Precisely this kind of a condition was brought forcibly upon the teachers of Washington, D. C., in the spring of 1919, when one of their members—Miss Alice Wood—was suspended for a week without a hearing, charged with discussing “Bolshevism and other heresies” in her classroom. Among the topics which Miss Wood later found forbidden was that of the League of Nations.[402]
The suggestion made by a supervisor of primary education in Des Moines, Iowa, that a blind patriotism might be fostered through the selection of songs and poems narrowly patriotic led to an investigation of her Americanism by the commander of the Sons of Veterans.[403]
Since 1917, however, in only twelve states besides New York cases involving disloyalty charges have been brought before the office of the state department of education. In Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina and South Dakota the charges resulted in the dismissal of teachers. In California, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota, although charges were preferred against teachers the cases were dismissed for insufficient evidence.[404]
In Montana, school authorities in some cases failed to reappoint teachers at the end of the year because of alleged objectionable “utterances,” although “no proof of disloyalty was ever made positive.” The Department of Public Instruction of Indiana reported “a few instances” in that state where positions were lost because of disloyalty charges.[405]
In Louisiana, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction reported the revocation of a man’s certificate because “he capitalized the patriotism which ran high in his community, to lend money to a number of small farmers in the community for use in purchasing War Savings Stamps and Liberty Bonds, and for the use of which he charged an exorbitant rate of interest.” The teacher was said to have bought “no stamps or Liberty Bonds,” and boasted that he could make more money by lending to “the suckers in the community than by buying the low-interest paying Federal obligations.” This state also revoked the certificate of a woman whose religious scruples forbade her endorsement of the War and whose zeal led her to advise against the purchase of Liberty Bonds.[406]
North Carolina’s case of dismissal was that of a county superintendent charged with pro-Germanism shortly after the entrance of the United States into the War. Although most of the pro-German utterances of this man had been made prior to the declaration of war by the United States, the County Board of Education held that his influence and usefulness had been lessened and therefore asked his resignation.[407]