TRINITY COLLEGE EXAMINATIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 July 1915, Page 2

TRINITY COLLEGE EXAMINATIONS

(To the Editor.; _ - Sir. —Your correspondent 3 Lul:u, wi.i-h had not yet loft Scotland when i was studying classics, is i.-j -P 10 * latu tor me. What a strange turn ho has taken since his iirst letter hu as to believe he was going to give us some iniormatioa,. In my ignorance and natural thirst for knowledge, I put a lew questions to him ; hut, nut being able to answer them to his own satisfaction, he has despised them, For e.w.i.-K, 1 ed with reference to point i—" >'iil . VJ j ,r correspondent kindly s-ate whother he considers a person who ,ha.j supervised these oxaminations for 25 years, and signed all the necessary documents during that time, has the required approval.' But in answer to the above he gives the question this enormous twist, and asks himself—“ Was the examination conducted under the supervision of (one or more) presiding honorary visitors.' He mign as well have asked himself “Was the ; moon made of green Neil her question is in my letter. He did well to apologise to you, ‘Mr Editor, tor wasting space, in your valuable paper, bul l am of opinion he would have none ceiiei L< - apologise to his own honour. I cr..a..s preferred to apologise to that w ;cli surely exists, than to that which bos a doubtful existence. If he is sincere in his desire to give reliable information lo the public he will do well to answer my questions; for the public knows that too man who will not face an honest question has a very poor case to defend, 1 expected him to answer my question me pc oi three ways, by—l, ‘Wes ;2, Ao : X “quibbling.” He was jus* ns wise .n avoiding “yes” as ho was lU “No”; but iust as foolish in qmb ■bn., as he would have been in answering cither “Yes” or “No.” . , Y<bur readers will soon be convinced that “Rationalist” is not such a groat model of honesty, if he docs not make a genuine effort to answer my phcrLioiis He seemed ‘ overbrimming with ll f l 0!1U I ; but I find he is now looking foi t 1 self. Perhaps he is now convinced that t.c should have possessed it before he attempted to give it to your rcntlei.,. is now aslc&ig me questions, but 1 am quite in the dark, though I really h«P|d he would enlighten mo. If he will be kind enough to answer my quosoions l shall be enlightened and so will you rC \Vhv this excitement about, my innocent question —“Did his daughter and Uvo others leave the room ruiJA fifteen minutes before 1 p.rn.” \ would not quarrel over fractions. Perhaps it us minifies; but I shall inquire and h t him know the truth. I hope he that SHE is his AUTHORITY 101 Mh.it hap pened or did not happen in the room at 1 p.m.—Yours, etc., j; g , M . Greymouth, July Ist, ICIS.

[to THTI VTVTOI- • Sir—We have noticed that ‘nationalist” declared that ‘‘When my and two other candidates left the .i,n_ at T p.m, the Dean was not t.ior, . *Vt. understand •bv that statement that: , T hen Rationalist’s daughter and nor two companions left the room the Dean was not present; That is true. 2 d that “Rationalist’s’’ daughter and M M companions left the room at . p. ■,l- - absolutely wrong. These three left the room long before that time, for when the town clock chimed 12.45 we were Ihe only candidates left in the room, and wo have had no communication with Rationalist.”—We are, etc., (Signed) VIOLET LARCOMBF. 1 ° ’ LUCY CONAGHAN. ' LILIAN ELLIOTT-

(To the Editor, 1 Sir,-“Rationalist” says: Vben my 'daughter and two other candidates let., the room at 1 p.m. the Dean was not there”' By the method of residues we SU «. t. the conclusion tot three three were the non-Convent pupils. Wo beg to state that not only had these thico ' , ANNIE KELLY

MARY PHELAN. INGA H ANN AM. f Another letter on The same sublet is refused publication out of regard to the libel laws. —-Ed., E.S.]