Show i TEACHERS TO BE PAID 3 1 11J Supreme Court Decides the 0 Salary Case r THE OPINION IS UNANIMOUS tf Tho Court Handed Down an Opinion Yesterday Holding That Teachers in the Public Schools are Entitled to Receive Pay for the Period tho Schools Were Closed on Account of the Smallpox idemicOpinion Was Written by Baskin and Concurred I Con-curred in by Bnrtch and Miner I q t The Supreme court yesterday relieved I the suspense of the teachers of the public pub-lic schools by handing down an opinion that the teachers are entitled to receive calary for three weeks and one day j during which the schools were closed by order of the Board of Health on account I I ac-count of the prevalence of smallpox In j the city A writ of mandate was or I dcred Issued directing Josiah Barnett I j treasurer of the Board of Education Ito I-to pay the warrant issued by it to Mrs I Mattlc E McKay In whoso name the I I test case was brought By agreement the Board of Education I Issued to Mrs McKay a warrant for 5p the amount of her pay for the period pe-riod of the enforced vacation The 1 treasurer refused to pay the warrant and Mrs McKay made application to the Supremo court for a writ of mandamus manda-mus to compel tho treasurer to honor the warrant The Supreme court took original Jurlsdlcatlon of the case which I was argued about a month ago and taken under advisement Tho chief I contention of the defendant was that under the contract between the Board of Education and the teachers the former was required to pay only for tho time actually taught This decision of the court means the disbursement of about 1000 among the teachers and principals and on account ac-count of lack of funds the schools will have to close about the middle of May for the summer vacation about three weeks earlier than the usual time The opinion of the court was written by Justice Baskin and the result concurred con-curred In by Chief Justice Bartch and Justice Miner One clause In the opinion states that tho Board of Health had no authority to close the schools Justice Miner takes occasion to say that ho docs not concur In that part of the opinion Chief Justice Bartch contents himself with the remark that he concurs In the result so that In tho case involving the power of the Board of Health in that regard which the court has under advisement Justice Baskin Is committed commit-ted to one view and Justice lIner to tho opposite while the attitude of the Chief Justine Is not disclosed The salient points of the opinion handed down yesterday are expressed as follows CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT CON-TRACT lThe first point of contention Is whether the plaintiff under said con atlon for tract Is entitled to compensation the period of sixteen days during which during the schools wore closed and which she wn not actually occupied In teaching In construing the contract each of Its provisions must be considered In concctlon with the others and If 1 possible possi-ble effect must be given to all A construction con-struction which entirely neutralizes one provision should not be adopted If the ntnri lu I an rv ntihlf of another which gives UIlVl effect t frJVa to wwj all of Its provisions By I the terms of the contract the plaintrt bound herself to give her entire time and best efforts in any of the schools of said city to which she might be assigned L as-signed for four weeks of five days each In each month from September 11 1890 until June 1 1900 or until tho termination of the contract by tho Board of Education for misconduct etc or for any other reason than those specially mentioned on four weeks notice I no-tice i1 DUTY OF THE BOARD From the foregoing provisions the following provisions are clearly Implied as If they plied and arc OH apparent I had been exprciwd In direct torms lo I wit that the Board of Education shall I oil her furnish plaintiff with employment I employ-ment as teacher or pay her the stipulated stipu-lated wages during the time mentioned or until said board terminated the contract i t con-tract as therein provided Clotting the Krhools was not therefore a breach of the contract and did not release the P1 plaintiff from her obligations under the same Her rights were In no way affected by 1 closing the schools nor was the obligation of the Board of Education I I Educa-tion changed In the least The only Infraction of plaintiffs rights In tho I premises was the refusal to pay said warrant It Is claimed by counsel for t the defense that by the following terms of the contract towit For the time actually occupied In school the right n of the plaintiff 18 i limited to that exclusively ex-clusively and as she was not actually I occupied In school during the period of the sixteen days that the schools were closed the treasurer properly refused t fused to pay said warrant UNREASONABLE CONSTRUCTION Such a construction of that clause would neutralize fine clearly implied provisions of the contract before mentioned r ij men-tioned and permit the Board of Education Educa-tion to close the schools as often and p for aa loins periods of time nH they i might choose to do BO during the life of the contract without the consent of I r the plaintiff and without compensating her for the low of employment notwithstanding not-withstanding she Js J bound to serve for the whole period mentioned In the contract i con-tract or until It is terminated by the board In tho manner therein specified and keep herwlf l In rcnillni to perform per-form her duties as teacher whenever required r re-quired to do BO by the board During such periods tim plaintiff could not without violating the contract enter nee Into any other permanent engagements Such a constrUction would make tho 5jf i 6 i contract unreasonable and oppressvc u INTENT OF THE PARTIES We are of the opinion that the par UPS did not Intend that said clause j should have too uffecl contended for by counsel for the defendant It was simply Inlcmdcd to prohibit the plaintiff I 1 plain-tiff from drawing her salary during any vacation which the board might grant her or during tho lime which she might from alckncss or some other ex I cunable cause be unable temporarily f to discharge her dulles when the schools wero in session ort t k S S II BOARD OF HEALTH LACKED AUTHORITY 0 If the local Board of Health had t pOflbopHed at the time said contract was entered Into lawful authority to order hip I the schools closed whenever smallpox o should become prevalent and continued to possess such authority up to the 0 time when It acted In the premison and albo had lawful authority to enforce I 10 of Mich an order then the defendant In i that event might with much better IA show of reason Insist that the partlM I bit contracted In view of such authority I and contemplated If j a smallpox cpl nd dcmlc ahould occur during the life of the contract the Board of Education might be legally compellnd against Its will and without fault on Its part to f close the schools and during the time vO t that the schools were so doMed under I 1 such authority no salary should hi 1 Paid to the plaintiff but tho local + Board < of Health had no such authority I at the time the contract was made and I I has not since had any such authority NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR SCHOOLS TO I OPEN 3The third point Is whether the closing of the schools by the Board of Education on the ground of prevalence of smallpox rcaleaacd tho board from MB obligation to pay the plaintiff her wilary during the time the schools were I closed S a Where the contract Is I Ito I-to do acts which can lie performed I nothing but the net of God or of a I public enemy or the interdiction of the i Jaw as a direct and sole cause of the failure will excuse the performance This principle Is elementary Tha J I schools were not closed for any such 1 cause by the Board of Education While the closing of the schools may have been wise and prudent the closing clos-ing was not due to any cause whl h made tt Impossible for the schools to keep open The Board of Education might havo stipulated that the plaln tilT should have no compensation during dur-ing the time the schools should be I closed on account of the prevalence of contagious diseases but not having I done so It cannot deny the compensation I compensa-tion during such time on account of I the prevalence of smallpox |