ARNOLD SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 5438, 6 March 1886, Page 4

ARNOLD SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

w£'- ' [from our correspondent.] [;-j r - A meetng of the above Gommittee was r^held in the School-house, No Town, on ljj[Jfriday evening last, the 26th ulfc. Present |i|— Messis Robertson (chairman), .M'Cariffthy, Baybutt, Southwort, Parfitt, RassI imussen, and Gifford. r?i There were also present a large number luof the public from the Twelve-mile to I ?jPaddy's Gully, chiefly, if not all, sympawith Mr Scott, and some cf them K>ad not fail to show their indignation at Kttie uufounded charges got up against him ■by the Committee and divers members of ■the quill. ■f The minutes of the previous regular KnVeei.ing and. two specials were read and Blcorifirmed. Wit}. The inward correspondence was also lij^ead and received, amongst which_was a B#etter from the Commissioners of ilducajHion embodying the following resolution re I teaching on the verandah :— " That the ■^Commissioners' regret that a dispute Ittshould have occurred corcera ; ng a matter If /which- should be so easily arranged . They Klfail to see that there is anything disrespectful in Mr Scott's letter to the Com■imittee, and are of opinion that the posiBfcipnpf the Committee is fairly defined in Kne Acting Inspector's letter to Mr Scott.' ■ Mr McCarthy then informed the Com-

mittee that he had withdrawn his name from their statement. (Loud Applause.) He could give no excuse for signing it, except that he had done so thoughtlessly, for he was well aware that the sun did shine on the verandah during : school hours K and the parents had given sufficient proof that they had no objection to their children being taught on it. He did not wish to excuse himself at all in the matter, as he thought the whole of the Committee had made a mistake, and he was willing to take his share of the blame just as well as the others. Mr Parfitt followed the last speaker with a speech in which he declared that he had nothing against Mr Scott nor against his teaching. The statement of the Committee ie teaching on the verandah was then read, and Mr Scott, having obtained leave, asked the Chairman if that was the statement which the committee had signed at their last meeting. The Chairman answered positively that it was not, and that another statement must have been drawn up afterwards and forwarded to the Commissioners. Mr Parfitt said that it was the same in substance. Mr Scott then asked Mr Parfitt the names of the parents that he said had objected to their children being taught on the verandah. Mr Parfitt replied that Mrs Gillanders had objected to him. Mr Gillanders, being present, asked Mr Parfitt to repeat his assertion. On its being repeated, Mr Gillanders declared most emphatically that it was false. Neither he nor his wife had heard anything of the squabble till about a month ago, and none of them ever complained about their children being taught on the verandah, nor had the slightest objection to it. Mr Scott then asked Mr Parfitt if he had stated in the Committee room that the Twelve-mile parents objected. He said that they had objected to their children being: taught in the cold. As there are only three parents having children of school age of Twelve-mile, and two of them being present, Mr Scott asked them to say if this was the case. Mr Mullins and Mr Delaney at once rose and said that the statement was untrue. They had not known anything at all about the verandah teaching till they saw "Parent's" letter in the paper, nor had they the least'objection to it. Dr Grattan answered on behalf of the other Twelve-mile parent, Mr Thomas Kelly, Baying that he knew nothing at all about it, and was very indignant at his name being mentionec 1 in connection with the matter. Dr Grattan also repudiated the statement that the. children had suffered through being taught in the verandah. He said quite the reverse was the case. The election of members of the Education Board was then proceeded with, and resulted in Messrs Kerr, Parfitt, and Blair being chosen. At the commencement, the Chairman spoke strongly in favor of Mr'pQtrie arid Mr Kerr. He accused Mr Parfitt of having gone directly against the interest of the school 'for the 3ast six months, and, further, that he utterly ignored the Committee when he was a member of the Board. At this stage Mr Parfitt rose, but instead of defending himself and let each have his say, he merely told the Chairman that he was out of crder and would not. .listen to him, consequently the Chairman resumed his Beat. Mr Baybutt then rose and said that the whole ef the squabble between the teacher and Committee was caused by differences between"Mr Parfitt and the Chairman. Mr Scott replied that he had nothing to do with the private grievances of the committee, but he wanted to know why they had signed a false statement and sent it to the Commissioners. He could have respected the Committee if they had sent a true statement, but when they stooped to falsehood, he felt that respect was impossible. At the close of the meeting, Mr Scott asked Mr Parfitt if he had told the Committee that the Inspector had told him that the teacher had no right to teach on the verandah. Mr Parfitt tried to shirk the question by saying that Mr Scott had said in his letter that he (Mr Parfitt) had never spoken to the Inspector on the matter. On Mr Scott's letter being read no such statement was found in it. He then asked the Commissioners if Mr Parfitt had made such a statement to them. Several of them replying in the affirmative, Mr Scott stated that Mr Parfitt's statement was entirely false. The Inspector 'had never told him so. The meeting then adjourned. March Ist, 1886.