THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE ELECTION.

Cromwell Argus, Volume VII, Issue 325, 1 February 1876, Page 7

THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE ELECTION.

To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus. Sir,—A few hours ago a chance incident •drew my attention to an article in the Dunstan Times in reference to the election of the Cromwell School Committee. The article in question is so full of distorted facts, false inferences, and misleading statements, that the wonder to me is that any journal can find a circulation among a population to whom it is well known that matters of fact are so hideously dealt with —and that, too, not by a novice, but by one who boasts his "long acquaintance with the Press." Mr Marshall, he says, "is an entirely new member." This of course, if anything, is meant to be destructive, or it means nothing. But that is not true of Mr Marshall, any more than it is true of five other members of the Committee. Again, our correspondent says, " Mr Preshaw is the only one of the old stock." This is false. It is universally known that Mr W bettor and Mr Grant are both old members of the School Committee here. He goes on to say, "We have no wish to appear invidious' (oh, of course not, who would dare to think of such a thing!) "but of the nine elect no less than seven belong to the Order of Templars." False again. There are six only belonging to that Order, but then " we have no Wish to appear invidious," so we must be false to save appearances. But "two of the fresh members are basking under the happy hallucination surrounding a state of single-blessedness." What a helpless and ignorant attempt at gaudy penmanship is this ! Such frippery surely never before found its way into the pages of even an upcountry paper. Hallucination means a diseased mind or imagination ; and God help the poor bachelors of Cromwell ii 1 they have nothing bettor to bask in than a diseased mind or a diseased imagination. Now that they know their hard fortune, surely they will find something better to bask in for the future. This is goodTnews for the maidenhood of the district, — bachelorism.is on its last legs. Two single men are members of the existing Committee, and we are told " this is incongruous." Why is it so ? Two single men were elected under the same statute of election in 1875, and why not in 1876? What was right in the former period cannot be wrong in the latter. Again, our correspondent; says, "Of the nine members of the new Committee no less than four are childless." False again—utterly false. As above stated, there are two single members, for whose election the Ordinance provides, assuming always that they are respectable enough to be childless. Excluding these two, there is but one childless member, and I hope the lady hinted at, with the sympathisers of her own seX ( wh n their nails are grown, avenge the insulting insinuation in their own way. Again, "One thing is evident: that the mnjority present wre Good Templars." False again, as usual. There were 19 present, and 12 of them Avere not Templars. The Templars were outnumbered all but two to one. " Long acquaintance with the Press" has, made our correspondent sublimely indifferent to the vulgar habit of truth and- accuracy. And as further tending to show that the article of our author is not- only at mortal duel with the truth from beginning to end, but is, moreover, at war with itself, I mav notice two paragraphs. One reads to the following elfeot: " vVe know that at no former election has the attendance been so numerous." "We think that the conduct of the fewwho attended" •etc. What consistency 1 But that which lies heaviest upon the heart of our author is that the " old Committee is ill-used," and ill-used because n»t re-elected. But why were they not elected? The mass vote of the Templars is assumed to be the cause This is a false assumption, and proved to be false by the facts above stated. All the old members were strongly invited to allow themselves to be put in nomination, and all but one refused, and all persisted in the refusal to the last but our respected Mayor, and then all could see it was the Mayor and not the man that gave way. When the votes wore taken, 19 were cast for Mr Preshaw, the only member of " the old stock." Was that ill-usage? The Mayor had 14 votes, and lost liia election by only one. He would have had the next largest majority to Mr Pn shaw had he willed it. Was that ill-usage ? Now, Sir, with these facts to guide your readers, is it impertinent to ask why should a pen-proud parvenu send a howl of ill-usage through the town, creating jealousies and strifes between man and man, merchant and merchant, destroying all forms of friendly living among neighbors without the shadow of a reason, and nothing to show for this recklessness but a concatenation of falsehoods, strung together by a piece of vapouring penmanship that is only true to its author's ignorance. Our correspondent says it is pretty clearly indicated that the Templars voted in one direction—the voting was the result of combined and {(redetermined action on the part of the Tempars. This is false again. lam a Templar, and no one ever insulted my manhood by telling me how to vote, for whom to vote, or to vote at all, and this is true, as far as 1 know, of all the members of the Order present. Again, he says to the effect that as there was no advertisement many did not attend the meeting, "but the others (viz., the Good Templars) were fully prepared, and mustered in strength." What strength ?—7 out of 90 in the district. They mustered in such strength they were out-num-bered two to one, or nearly so. They had so prepared themselves that they were completely at the mercy of the other side, who could have done with them what they pleased, and the Templars must have submitted. ' The election of the rev. M r Brake troubles our correspondent, and had better have been left .alone. Why, the rev. Mr Jones was on the Committee at the Dunstan, the rev. Mr Ross was on the Committee at Queenstown, and why not Mr Drake? What has he done to disqualify himself ? But he is well able to vindicate his own rights as a citizen, and I must leave him to do so. . Our correspondent has a long piece of windy rigmarole about Education, Education. He seems to me to wish to strain at the gnat of Educaton for others, while he gulps the whole camel of Ignorance himself.

To conclude, our correspondent has shown throughout a disposition to drag the unfortunate Templars all along his slimy passage through the Dwnslan Times: Why is this? They have nothing to hope from his goodwill, nothing to fear from his wrath. His pea cannot turn them,

his power cannot crush them, as he says they, must soon be. He is as "helpless for good or for evil to thein as if he had never b. en born a common mischief-maker. Most of what they know of him as Good Templars is that he wriggled himself among them at the outset; got himself appointed as financial secretary, and left them ; and they found their affairs in such hopeless confusion that they would form an everlasting safe for ?11 the Crown jewels of Europe, for all the burglars of civilization could not find their way through them. I hope to find time to notice the reproach cast upon the Mayor and Council, contained in the same paper of same date.—Yours, &c, Cromwell.