The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, August 28, 1888. WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY IT?

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 188, 28 August 1888, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Tuesday, August 28, 1888. WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY IT?

Be jnst and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

Ths school trouble at Patutahi has assumed a phase which will not admit of its being longer ignored, for it is now nothing short of a scandal which reflects anything but credit on some of those mixed up in it. A slur and an ipsult have been cast on the householders of that district, and they cannot, in fairness to themselves, sit tamely under the grave aspersions. We can well imagine that in a small district like Patutahi a schoolmaster’s office may be made far from pleasant, not necessarily through the existence of any bad feeling, but from the thoughtlessness of parents whose commendable anxiety for their children sometimes leads them to interfere when wisdom would dictate otherwise, In

Gisborne the public school had. to struggle through disadvantages of a similar nature, until the householders were aroused to a sense of the danger, and the result was that the school has long been able to claim the premier position in the education district. But even allowing for the sake of illustration that there is a certain amount of truth in the charges made against Mr McClintock—and this that gentleman stoutly denies—the case is in no wise altered. The Committee seem to have got ashamed ot their action, and if they (meaning the majority, of course) cannot justify their own conduct, their endeavor to do so only aggravates the slur that has been inflicted on the district. To us the position then appears to be this: The majority of the Committee made charges to the Board —charges that have been warmly resented by the master, and by him denounced as false, the action of the four Committeemen also being strongly condemned by a large public meeting —and it immediately decides to give the master three months’ notice. Were more serious charges actually proved against the master, he ought to have been given the option of resigning, and not had a lasting disgrace heaped upon him because he had given way to indiscretion. The Board appears to have treated the petition with scorn, but when we read the following extract from a Napier paper, the members of the Board can be acquitted from any supposition of bias. A letter was read at the Education Board meeting this morning anent the antics of a schoolmaster, which was very amusing in the extreme. He is a Scotchman, and is evidently fond of a ‘ wee drop of whiskey,’ as the letter states he entered a certain house in his township one evening without even going through the ceremony of knocking. In the house were two members of the School Committee whom he violently attacked, calling them ‘ dommed scoundrels,’ and using other language not usually detailed in the columns of the press or heard in a private drawing room.

If these charges are true then only one course can be honorably taken, but we understand that Mr McClintock stoutly denies the imputation. Supposing them to be true, the Committee would still stand in anything but a pleasant light, for when their action was condemned by a large public meeting they should have resigned, or at least have proved their case. What, then, are we to think of them ? We contend that the householders have a right to be listened to, for it is always possible that what has happened in this instance may happen in other districts, and it is monstrous that a few men in whose administration all confidence has been lost should be able to carry a thing so far as it has been in this case. A schoolmaster, above all other public servants, has a right to protection, for goodness knows he has enough to contend with without being subjected to imputations that may disgrace him for life, though they are not even proved. His most arduous labors are only too often the most thankless ones, and his pupils may go through life without ever thinking of the person to whom they are indebted for their success. There is something peculiar about this case which we fail to understand. Our contemporary of Saturday evening’s issue contains two separate references to the affair which either prove that there has been much thoughtlessness on the part of the Committee, or a something else which we fail to comprehend. The journal in question states that the Committee deny having recommended the master’s dismissal, but in an authoritative statement, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, the fact is blazoned forth that the Board has decided to disregard the petition. Was ever such an act of—well, unkmdliness, heard of? It is enough to make us blush for the signatory. With regard to the first statement, we say that if the Committee have full proof of the truth of their assertions, the admission is one which does not reflect credit upon them, and shows that they had not the courage to fulfil the duties of their office, which made it compulsory on them to recommend that the master be called upon to resign. The second and official announcement savors of a feeling which it is impossible to commend. Ordinary politeness simply required the Board s communication to be given to the Chairman of the public meeting, whose duty it was to convey its import to the petitioners. There is too much of the “tramp-the-devil-in-the-dust” style about all the Committee’s actions, and this last high-handed proceeding must be condemned by any impartial person. If we are not very much mistaken, it will have an effect the very reverse of that apparently intended. Apart from the differences between the schoolmaster and the Committee, there is a fact which cannot be lost sight of. The householders have received a snub which was most undeserved, though it may be otherwise if they do not resent it. They have to pay dearly enough indirectly for the education of their children, but they have been denied the privilege of advising on a question in which they are deeply interested—they are treated, in fact, as if they were sending their children to a pauper school which educated them out of charity. On the contrary they have heavy taxes to pay, and are entitled al least to be treated with respect when they make a fair and moderately worded request. Still, if the Board has been misled we cannot blame it for its action —we must come nearer home before we lay the burden of blame on anyone.