THE EDUCATION SCANDAL.

Evening Post, Volume LXII, Issue 130, 28 November 1901, Page 4

THE EDUCATION SCANDAL.

* » The proceedings at yesterday's meeting of the Education Board have not in the least improved the position of Mr. A. W. Hogg and 'his friends who procured the dismissal of the Chief Inspector, nor have they thrown any new light upon the questions raised by Mr. Lee's criticism of the Board's administration. Mr. Hogg has had 'his say and apparently made the best of his opportunities in trying to discredit the Inspector.' Mr. Lee in reply stood his ground, and the public can have little, if any, clearer idea of the merits of the charges brought against the Board than it had before this extraordinary discussion of yesterday took place. Mr. Hogg, as one of the accused, could not in any sense of the word be regarded as a judge or jury. His statements were" necessarily of an ex parte character, and are no more final than \hose of Mr. Lee. Nothing short of an exhaustive judicial enquiry by a tribunal entirely independent of both parties could be satisfactory, and in the interests of public edu< cation as well as for the removal of suspicions that \ have naturally been aroused such an investigation ought to take place. We have not attempted to justify all Mr. Lee's accusations, nor have we defended his entire course of action. Whether hd chose the best time and method of lodging his complaints we are not prepared to say, but he has made serious charges against the Board's adnilriißtfatiion, charges for which, in some cases at least, there is reason to fear there was foundation. He has, in short, established a prima facie case which demands careful' examination by some other authority than the Board itself if the Board's reputation is, to be completely cleared. Such seems to be the" preserit indecisive situation so far as Mr. Lee's criticism of the Board's administration i§ concerned. Besides the matter of the Board's administration there is the further question of Mr. Lee's dismissal. The two issues hay** bfeen confused in the public inkid owing to Mr. Hogg's having attacked Mr. Lee on account of his evidence before" the Royal Commission, and also having been a prominent advocate of his dismissal. The course of events, as we have previously indicated, leads to the conclusion that evidence Was extracted from Mr. Lee before the Commission and then used to discredit "him with the 1 Board. The motion touching his evidence, proposed by Mr. Hogg, was immediately followed up by a motion for his retirements strongly supported by Mr. Hogg. The ostensible reason,given for the dismissal was retrenchment, but the motives seem to have included, among others which need not be discussed again in the present instance, resentment a£ what Mr. Lee had said about the Board's methods. Mr. Hogg and his friends, although they have not shown any "effective demand" for an enquiry such as should be held, have been anxious to give 9i& pflbßc the idea that in making his charges Mr. Lee was prompted by self-centred hostility to the Board, and at the same time Mr. Hogg has trusted to his own flood of words to refute the accusations and bring such suspicion upon Mr. Lee as would lead the school committees and the public, generally from the contemplation of the dismissal unclouded by other, and to a certain extent irrelevant, matter. Although there may be some point in the argument that Mr. Lee should have kept on complaining to the Board of its actions when he thought them wrong, it is easy to understand the difficulties in the way of such a course. But if, as we feel confident was the case, - Mr. Lee thought that certain methods pursued by the Board in the making of appointments were improper and detrimental to the interests of edu-, cation in, this district, he was not only justified in speaking about them when cross-examined by the Commission, but it was his bounden duty to say what he believed to be the truth. Mr. Hogg made the, great mistake of confounding his two .positions of Chairman of the Commission and member of the Wellington Board of Education. He did not confine t his cross-examination to eliciting facts pertinent to the subject upon which the Commission was engaged, but in what appears to have been a hectoring manner proceeded to act as counsel for the Board and demand from Mr. Lee statements which in the circumstances that gentleman was quite right to refuse. It seems unjust that for what he did say, and as a truthful man he could not. say other than he believed, Mr. Lee should have been made the subject of an attack which culminated in his retirement from the Board's service. We agree entirely with Mr. Buchanan that the public verdict is .against the Board in its treatment of an old and tried servant, and we cannot avoid the inference that personal considerations operated in a Way that is not creditable to certain members, of the Board.