ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, AUCKLAND. TO THE EDITOR.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 37, 12 August 1905, Page 9

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, AUCKLAND. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir — Your issue of 2nd August contains a letter signed by Dr. Ansonj containing some extraordinary statements relative to the incident in the College of St. John, Auckland, from which institution I was expelled by the Warden and reinstated by tho Governors. Dr. Anson states the Auckland Observer evidently got -its information from one side only, but his own letter gives clear and emphatic evidence to those in a position to know both sides of the question that he knows neither one side nor the other of the trouble in that institution. His statements are wholly incorrect, and I now publicly challenge Dlr. Anson to givo proof of them, by asking him to be good enough to answer the following questions: — (1) Whether it was not a fact that one of the governesses concerned had sole administration during the absence or illness of tho wife of the Warden, and whether tho students generally had not been ,taught by tho sad requirements of necessity to appeal to that particular governess to get their wants seen to? This '.question was answered in' the affirmative during the hearing of the enquiry by the Board of Governors. (2) Will Dr. Anson state the rulo that' was broken by myself and the other student; and also how we defied the Warden's authority? — as Dr. Anson has seen fit to state "they deliberately with their eyes open broke a rule and defied the Warden's authority." We hav6 been tried for three days by tho Board of Governors ; they found no rule broken, ■ even though we received every injustice and hostility at the hands of tho Bishop of Auckland. So far did the Governors think . tho Wardon had acted harshly and arbitrarily, and so far did they think he had exceeded his authority, that they emphatically declined to allow him the right of expulsion, and thereupon handed us back our^ scholarships ; and this was -after a Star Chamber trial at which the Bishop of Auckland refused us the legitimate right of per-" sonal defence. One rule, says Dr. Anson, which in a college for , young men is obviously of tho utmost importance and quite indispensable, had been made and insisted upon by the Warden, and ho had particular reason for specially emphasisingit at this time. This remarkable statement is wholly without foundation; nothing of the kind has ever been mooted or has ever happened. The purport of tho chargo made by the Warden against me was, that I protested against jvhat I considered the unjustifiable expulsion of another student, and that the expression of that protestation was offensive ,both to the Warden and his wifo. , The strange statement of Dr. Anson, , as above, tog-ether with his unstraightfoTwaTd innuendo, was apparently made with' a specific object. It seems to convey the idea that the writer would havo people believe something -which he himself is afraid to straightforwardly uphold and stand by. To meet this innuendo, I might state that tho Governors, after a most exhaustive enquiry, found there, was nothing whatever of the natur© which Dr. Anson 1 seems to imply — that is, as far as the actions of the governesses and th© students wctc concerned. Further, tho Board of Governors made, no attempt to curtail , the Warden's authority whatever ; all they wanted «was a little more- judgment and -common-sense. To the Warden and to the Bishop of Auckland it may have seemed a trifling thing -to "wreck th© lives of two students, brand them -with a stigma of disgrace, and turn them out into the street at a moment's notice, not knowing whether 'they had sixpence in their pockets or a bed that night, on most childish charges ; but to •jhe Board of Governors the, matter -a.ppe.a.re<l far fi-oxxi txxfluig. .Authority abused in such a fashion did not, according to their thinking, contain the essence of modern Christianity., Tho Warden held identically the same powers as all -preceding Wardens, and they had always maintained discipline. Tho authorities of St. John's College, therefore, have done nothing to detract from the Warden's disciplinary powers, nor are they altering pre-existing rules; J nor are they trying any <ixiperimeiit whateveT, as Dr. Anson "would have us believe. Again, Dr. Anson plainly states that •the students of St. John's College 'did not uphold our act. Would he please ' explain how it was that the students at the time of the. expulsion almost in a body assembled at the gate of the college, before an omnibus-full of people, s cheering us individually and collectively, and further showing their -indignation •by "their continued uproar? ' In conclusion, I ask why -the Governors, after months of delay and with the advice of 'Messrs. Hesketh and Richmand^and Thos. Cotter, barristers and solicitors, have decided to .publicly apologise and pay all my !egal expenses, together with. a sum' amounting to £150, if the acbion v of 'the Warden and themselves was right? The -apology and the compensation speaks for itself. Appended is a copy of the apology and tho letter in Teply by the Rev. Canon Beatty, M.A., member of the Board, of Governors. — I am, etc., *•• • " HALL SKELTON: Stonehurst, -Symonds-street, Auckland, " Bth August, 1905. (From the Auckland Star, Monday, 24th July.) - APOLOGY. The St. 'John's College Incident. Auckland, July 19th, 1905. A. H. Skelton, Esq. : Dear Sir, — Tho Governors of St. John's College havo learned with surprise that a rumour has been, or is, in circulation to the effect that you were expelled from 1 the College, in consequence of moral misconduct on your part ; and lam requested by them to state that such rumour is absolutely unjustified and without foundation, as is, indeed, any statement that you wero expelled from the College. 'The Marsh Scholarship which you held was, , the Board considered, an annual scholarship, and after it had been granted to you , tho Board of Governors decided not to renew, it on grounds relating to the general management of the College ; but in coining to that decisiqn tho Board in no way in- | tended to cast any personal reflection on . yoursolf. As doubts have arisen as to i whether Marsh Scholarships should not be tenable for five years, and 3011 having I stated that youtconsidered the Scholarship was for five years, nnd that the non-re-nowal has caused you heavy monetary lots, tho Board instructs me to enclose chequo for £150 towards recouping that loss. The Governors regret "that any pain should { havo been caused to you or the membeis of your family by such a baseless rumour, for which there was not the slightest ground whatever. — Yours obediently, W. S. COCHRANE, Secretary. All my legal expenses have been paid by the Governors. — A.H.S. Our -correspondent also encloses a copy of a letter from Canon Boatty to the Auckland Star of 25th nit., stating that the writer and Canon Nelson voted for the renewal of Mr. Skelton's scholarship, and wher the proposal was rejected by the majority of thu Governors, placed in the minutes a record expressing their dissent. Canon Beatly agiced that the treatment to which Mr. Skelton was subjected by the College authorities demanded ample apology and compensation, but held that J thoso persons who were responsible for the wrong should be made to suffer. The payment of the indemnity out of the funds of the March Scholarship he legarded as v breach of trust.