JUVENILE ESSAYISTS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13160, 6 July 1908, Page 8

JUVENILE ESSAYISTS.

TO THE EDITOtt OF "THK rBESS."

Sir, —At the meeting of tho Industrial Association held last night Mr Howell, reporting on tho children's essays, regretted that "so many of the candidates did not realise what was the exact subject set." Now what on earth was the "exact subject" ? Mr Howell does not state it, tho largo majority of the essayists wero wrongly, or vaguely, instructed, and the public conclude that your reference to "shop window displays" comes nearest to the mark of what .was intended, but not previously expressed. At a glance, it must havo been evident to the president and the judge that a miserable muuuie had been made of the whole thing. Under such circumstances, would it not havo been fairor to have rejected all tho essays and called for now work on a proper statement of tho subject? As it is, nearly two-thirds of the essayists were promptly disu/tialified and prizes awarded to thoso "dealing with tho subject proposed" (whatever that may have been). The prizes would probably have gone to tho same children, but iv such case would havo been of much greater value to the recipients. My daughter attends the East Christchureh school, and was instructed to write on "Now Zealand Industries, and why we support them." This is only a sample case, I expect, of many, and unfair alike to teacher and scholar, in that "shop window displays" (if that wero the subject) was not in any way suggested or implied. In the British Parliament once, a speaker proudly boasted that ho was a self-mado man. and another speaker said, later, that his friend had at least ono good quality, in that ho evidently adored his maker. Out of b-t children, little fools have been made of 40, but it. is safe to say that none of them adore their makers to-day —on the contrary, feel like howling them down. Yours, etc.,. FATHER OF ONE-FORTIETH. Christchureh, Jul*- 4th. TO THE EHITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —In your issue of Saturday I read tlto report of the judge on tho essays written by school children tegarding colonial industries. I note that nearly two-thirds of the essays sent in were thrown out because "many of tbe candidates did not realise what was tho exact subject set." Now, I consider the twenty-four loft in were the essays that should havo been thrown out, as I infer from the judge's remarks that they dealt solely with the "shop window displays" in Local Industries Week. That, most certainly, was not the subject that was set. The advertisement with regard to +iiis matter read aa follows:—"The Canterbury Industrial Association offer prizes .... for the . best essay on Colonial Products, and Why We Should Support Them," by school children. . . .'' Not one word is mentioned about the "shop window display." and as I presume tbe majority of the children stuck to the text as per the advertisement, a grave injustice has been done those who were thrown out of the competition. I trust, as a matter of justice, tho Industrial Association will refer tho essays back to Ihe examiner, with a request that ho judge them in accordance with the subject set out in the advertisement. If the Association wanted essays on the. "shop display,"' it should have been explicitly stated. —Yours, etc., PROTEST.

THE BORER.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRI^SS." Sir,—l notice in your columns this morning the discovery of the possibility of destroying weeds by electricity, and it just occurs to mc that if vegetablo life can be electrocuted why (especially in view of the new award re carpenters published to-day) it should not also bo perfectly feasible by the same means to destroy the animal lifo of the borer, which is working such havoc and shortening by at least half the lifo of every wooden building in the Dominion.— Yours, etc., STEPHEN POWELL. Merivale. 3rd July, 1908. 1 i