OCR Text |
Show SUPERINTENDENT JOHN M. MILLS IS NAILED TO THE RACK By His Own Satellites Rushing to His Defense, He Is Slowly Being Proved Unfit to Longer Direct Ogden School Children Chil-dren Proof Positive That Mills Deceived the School Board Teachers' Names Are Called For., It Is an old saying, "Give a calf lots of rope and it will hang itself," and wo might repeat that by permitting permit-ting Mr. Mills and his satellites to talk the proof will be forthcoming that Mr. Mills Is not the proper man to head our school system. On Sunday morning there appeared an article in the Ogden Examiner which. It Is alleged, was furnished by a largo number of teachers, but the names aro withheld from tho communication. commu-nication. Now the Standard demands that the Examiner publish, or turnish to tho Standard, the names of the teachers for the benefit of the public Are some of the teachers double crossing cross-ing somebody? Some of tho teachers have said that Mr. Mills had informed them that he could get no raise for them from the board of education. Thir. statement Is the only statement that Is denied by the teachers con-corning con-corning tho publication In Saturday evening's Standard, publishing in full Mr. Mills' request for increaso of the school teachers' salaries amounting to over $1-1.000 Surely the people will say it is not important whether Mr Mills told the teachers or not; but it is Important It has a tendency to prove whether Mr. Mills himself is a trickster and undertook td undermine the board of education. Following this article, -wo reproduce repro-duce the alleged statement published in Sundav morning's Examiner, for the benef'it of tho Standard readers. The Standard Is prepared to prove the following statement and challenges chal-lenges Mr. Mills to bring a libel suit against the Standard and permit us to furnish the proof in court- First, wo charge that when Mr. Mills presented the proposed Increase of salary list to the school board, Mr. Mills said to the school board that from one-half to ninety per cent of the teachers would quit, unless they received the raise. The teachers now say they did not demand any raise, did not expect any and were surprised when the Standard Stand-ard published Mr Mills' proposal to Increaso the wages of 196 teachers. Further proof: When the school board turned down Mr. Mills' $14,000 increase of wages for the teachers, Mr. Mills advised the school board that the principals could appear before be-fore tho board and each represent the teachers in his own school. Thereupon, There-upon, the board invited all tho principals prin-cipals to appear before tho school board and all the principals appeared before the board, and, after discussing discus-sing the question pro and con, and after the school board had proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to the principals that it was impossible for tho school board to raise the wages as they could not get the money lawfully law-fully to pay the same, the principals set out to the school board that the teachers would bo very much disappointed disap-pointed If they did not get the raise, that they would be very much dis-satlfcfied dis-satlfcfied and that many would quit, and finally and it may be said to tho credit of the principals each and every one of them offered to forego any raise for themselves if the board would raise the salaries of the teachers teach-ers under them. The Standard offers to provo this statement also if Mr. Mills will challenge It In court. Now then, If the above stacements are true, how could all the teachers of Ogden send a communication to the Examiner and say they had no knowledgo of the proposed raise of wages until it appeared In tho Standard Stand-ard last Saturday evening. True, it may be that the teachers did not know anything about It, but If they did not, then Mr Mills deliberately lied to tho school board, and each nnd every one of tho principals deliberately de-liberately lied to the school board If they represented that the teachers demanded, expected or would bo dissatisfied dis-satisfied if they did not receive a raise, because the teachers must have known that a ralso was being asked for and was expected, If they were demanding it. Now either the teachers, teach-ers, who arc alleged to havo signed the communication published In the Examiner, are densely Ignorant of what took place or tho teachers have borne false witness Now the Standard Is using strong words because Mr. Mills and his satellites satel-lites have been telling tho peoplo that tho Standard Is lying and we want tho public to understand that the Standard has been talking truthfully. truth-fully. There may have boon somo minor errors that did not affect any of the charges made, but would give just enough of an excuse to say that that particular point was an error, hence tho Mlllsltes cry "liar." The Standard undertakes to provo every charge made against Mr. Mills and challenges him to test the matter. If what the Standard has said about Mr Mills Is falso and malicious, ho not only can bring a criminal libel suit against tho Standard but can collect damages. Hero is tho communication published publish-ed in yesterday morning's Examiner in full, alleged to have been handed In and signed by many teachers. The Examiner says the names were withheld with-held for obvious reasons. Let the peoplo read the communication and judge what tho obvious reasons are Here it is: "January 15, 1916. "To the Editor Morning Examiner. "Dear Sir: The teachers in the Ogden Og-den schools will be very grateful If you will permit them to correct an-oiher an-oiher of tho misrepresentations with which the Ogden Evening Standard is attempting to enforce its command to the school board to remove Mr Mills. All the teachers In the schools, so far as we know, were surprised to read this evening that Mr. Mills had proposed to the board a new salary list last spring. The only intimation in-timation they had ever had that the salary question had been discussed was tho superintendent's address to the teachers at the Lewis school at a meeting held just before the close of the school year. Mr. .Mills fervently appealed to us at that time to support sup-port the board of education in its decision de-cision 'not to raise salaries ' He said tho board would be justified in even reducing salaries because of Its financial fi-nancial condition, but that because of Its kindly feeling for the teachers and appreciation of their loyal service serv-ice the board had decided not to reduce re-duce salaries even though, to the regret re-gret of tho board, It could not raise them. The Standard declares, as a matter of its own knowledge and truth, that Mr. Mills told us he had tried to raise our salaries and failed. Instead the above was the case. Is there no way of reproving an editor for such misrepresentations ?" Tho Standard desires to comment on the concluding sentence. "Is there no way to reprove an editor for such misrepresentation?" Just think of It, dear reader. Last Saturday tho Standard published tho names of 19C teachers, tho salaries of whom Mr. Mills wanted to increase. One week ago the Standard published onlv a. few names of those proposed to bo raised by Mr. Mills, and Mr. Mills came out and stated that ho simply proposed to raise a few of the teachers who were to do extra work in the night and summer school, but when wo published tho full list and showed that very few of those teachers teach-ers would bo working in the night and summer schools, and proved that Mr. Mills had deliberately misrepresented misrepre-sented the matter, this alloged communication com-munication above appears in the Examiner, Ex-aminer, and the only thing the teachers teach-ers objected to of all that long article, ever two columns long, is that the Standard said Mr. Mills notified tho teachers that tho board refused to support him in the raise, and thon in their own communication concede time tho superintendent did address the teachers at the Lewis school asking ask-ing them to stand by the board In the refusal to raise the salaries. Thus the proof In the teachers' own communication com-munication proves what the Standard charged. Now, as to tho last sentence, ,rls there no way to reprove an editor for such misrepresentation?" We answer an-swer "NO," because thoro wero no misrepresentations. The Standard's statements wero all facts, truths proved by Mr. Mills' own statement, by the teachers' own statement, by the school board's statement, by tho records. Wo repeat, if a newspaper does misrepresent matters under tho laws of Utah it can be forced to apologize very quickly or suffer the penalty of a jail sentence and pay damages. Tho Standard Is advised that the Mlllsltes are telling It around that the Standard refuses to publish a reply from the Millsites. The statements are positively false. No communications from tho Millsites have been sent to us that have not been printed in full. The Millsites do not want to have anything printed from their side in the Standard because they know the Standard Is in possession of facts to disprove misrepresentations they may make. Henco they want their communications com-munications published In the Examiner Exam-iner which has failed to reproduce any of tho Standard articles against Mr. Mills |