CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 28 April 1922, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

HAWERA HOUSEHOLDERS' MEETING.

,To the Editor)

Sir, —The indignation meeting which voted on a knowledge of Mr Hobbs' letter to the Star required to have that knowledge supplemented before a judg ment of value could be. pronounced. Let us submit the facts to the public. South Road, Hawera. April 21, 1921.

Dear Mr Liversedge.—l received your | letter of the 18th and 19th inst. on arj riving home last evening. I took occaj sion last evening to look up the matter i m the minute book, and I find out that j I had misinformed you in regard to the j subject matter of the resolution sent ■ forward to the Minister. I regret having done this, but it was quite unintentional. At the meeting of the School Committee I mentioned the matter, but as your promised letter to the -secretary was not to hand it was decided not jto reopen the question.—l am, etc.,

T. C. HOBBS.

Ihe interview referred to took place i I 7" l then €xP^ssed approval of M r Strack's indignant but cour\£S?J c Tai S^ Pply the formation desired. I hold that no self-respecting [public servant would reply to a quesj tion concerning a town rumour, which I assumed by its very form, his guilt. | Ihe only legitimate form of enquiry I open to the chairman was to ask Mr btrack if, in view of the rumours, he would state what actually took place for the information of the committee 'But not till after reading, two weeks "later, the committee's resolution sent to the1 Minister, did I discover the really grave act of injustice. It was then I resolved to see a palpable wrong righted. The inrormation given to the meetino- was i not supplied to me by the headmaster It was obtained on my own initiative during a. fifteen minutes' investigation! or the committee's charges, which. wa« ! open to every committeeman. I would! champion to-morrow any similar case of ! injustice. The letter "I had purposed f sending to the secretary was a strong I Plea for a submission of the whole issue! to the judgment of the householders for I their approval or disapproval. On Mon- I day last 1 sought to* arrange an amic-' able and satisfactory settlement of the! issue with Mr Taylor, but was informed J that it could only be dealt with at! that stage, at the householders' loeet-1 ing. One jyas therefore surprised at' the opposition to its consideration there. May I again point out that the headmaster received no "notice" whatever of the principal allegation in the committee's resolution to the Minister Mr Hobbs' "substantial" justification of the resolution does not even attempt to justify it, but thereby raises new controversial points. For example, while the quotation from the Dean's brochure reveals how he chose to interpret the action of the headmaster, it I does not express the headmaster's in-! tention, nor does it claim to do so. This brochure was evidently quite unknown to the committee rjrior to the householders' meeting? Mr Hobbs' last quotation is quite legitimate, but is entirely new. Whether the headmaster has the right to line up the scholars on such an occasion, without consulting the parents, is a fair matter for consideration. But the point never appears to have occurred to the two inspectors, who | approved of the action, nor to Mr i Strack. nor I judge to the nine Protestants out of ten who lent countenance to the proceedings and cheered, no doubt, the heart of the Dean by "lining up" on the roadside to witness a much advertised and imposing procession. But this last point has nothing to do with the .committee's indefensible resolution.

JN.B.—The last clause of Mr Hobbs' letter to the headmaster was nnittea in last night's version.. It re ids: "If you can give me any infor;niit'on re the above I will place it before the inquirer at our next meeting, as requested by him."

ARTHUR LIVERSEDGE,

[It true that the letter signed by Mr Hobbs said:* "I thereupon wrote to the headmaster a letter, a copy of which I have not retained, but which was as I follows, as far as I remember." At our I request Mr Strack showed us the original letter to-day. We have checked off the copy published last night with, the original and find that except for the word "asked" being substituted for the word "request" in the original letter, it is word for word the same down to the words "lined up on the roadside or adjacent thereto in order tc salute the delegat or at least to greet him." The original read "lined up in order to greet the delegate," and then followed the sentence which Mr Liversedge quotes and which we have also checked with the original. The copies of the letters quoted in Mr Hobbs' letter were published by us without alteration, and we feel that if the sentence quoted by Mr Liverbedge were left out purposely and not by accident it was an abuse of the generous privilege, of the Star, which was quite willing to publish the correspondence between the parties, but which does not bargain for having any portions of such letters omitted, especially when the omitted portion is of the nature of that! brought to our notice by Mr Liversedge. if we have any reason to think that such methods, are to be adopted by correspondents we shall cut the whole of the letters but. Naturally, we trust to writers quoting fairly in such a- case, and we insist that the paper shall be treated with proper respect and honour by all parties in any correspondence. We also find that the words "and the procession stopped at the school" quoted in Mr Hobbs' letter, were not published in the brochure printed as a souvenir of the Papal delegate's visit, and are surprised to think that such methods should have been adopted, and we are sorry that we have in good faith publifihed a letter containing such sin 1 omission and an inaccurate quotation. Let us at least have fair play in such matters. —Ed/]