CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 29 April 1922, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

HAWERA HOUSEHOLDERS' MEETING..

(To the Editor.. Sir, —Your strictures upon the. letter above, my name in your issue, of the 2.7 th inst. would.have been well merited had the inaccurate quotation been: intentional. In regard to the omission; of the last clause in the letter referred to, j the position was as stated, viz., penning' the letter in December last and: failing:to take a copy, I had to trust to memory. The omisison was not intentional. The utmost I can plead guilty to is carelessness in regard to the quotation,.and) both to you and your readers I tender sincere apologies.. The last paragraph of the quotation as appearing in. my letter, reads: "His Excellency was touched by the compliment, and' stopped his car to thank personally Mr Strack, ana ' the procession 'stopped at. the- school." I The quotation mark should have been after the word Strack. Wishing to em-j phasise the word "stopped" and not daring to do 'so in the quotation,, my intention was to repeat the word with emphasis. The sentence then would be: "His Excellency was touched by the ' compliment, and stopped his,, car to thank personally Mr Strack.'- 1 The cai "stopped"-at the s&hool. It is obvious the last sentence of the' quotation, as it appeared in my letter, was not parti of the original statement appearing in. the brochure, as its inclusion would, have been needless repetition. The broad' *ni*in ip'.e, that the committee, being trustee for the* parents and children, could not permit the compulsory lining* up of tbe children in honour of any sectarian procession to pass unchain leiiged, remains unimpeached. Let iB be- remembered the public school is a> free, "secular," and compulsory institution, and any committee failing in their endeavour to maintain it as such- are not worthy of the trust reposed in them. The committee has attacked no one's religion, and- arc not responsib?e> for any disturbance there may be between religious denominations. We have friends in- all'.—T am, etc. T. C. HOBBS.

i (To the Editor ..> Sir;— Kindly allow me space to make an explanation. At tha householders' ■ meeting on Monday last I seconded the amendment moved by Mr. Liversedge. After I had; taken my seat the chairman of the meeting explained that I seconded the motion which we now desired to remove. from the books. I J challenged his 'statement,' saying that * I had not done so, and Mr. Evans rel ferred to the minutes, where my name ; appears as seconder. Now. sir, I have now taken over the minute book, anU j I 'md that although my name appears in connection with this particular mo- , tion I was not present when the I nrnutes were confirmed. The minutes |o, this particular meeting were con- ' tinned on February 24, 1922. On this particular date there was no meeting of our committee, and at the meeting of our committee held on February 23 . the list of those present does not include my name. The Star report of that meeting also omits my name irom tho list of those present. The position was this: I was working out of town at the time and did not return until 8.20 p.m., and was unable to be present at the meeting until 8.35. Had I been present the minute would not have been confirmed, as it appears now that I ! did not second the motion. _ However, had I done so I think I would have . been quite within my rights in acting 'as I did when I found I had made a mistake. I have acted in the cause of justice in this m£_tfef; as I do in every ; other matter. Thanking you for your "space.—l am., etc., - CHAS. H. BROUGH. (To the Editor). Sir, —The publication by the late chairman of the Main School Committee of the correspondence relating J;o the charges made against the headmaster has failed to throw any light upon several of the most important points at issue. Eor the publication was defective in several notable respects. Minor inaccuracies such as those commented up- | on in your columns last evening may ad-

Mit of explanation as "printer's errors." But it is to more glaring omissions that 1 take exception. In the first place, the two most important letters are omitted. These are the letters to the Minister and his reply. For, if I am correctly informed, the letter to the Minister contained charges niortv extensive than those hinted at in the initial letter of the chairman. Publication of the letter to the Minister would, in this event, have revealed the fact that complaint was made to the Minister of certain alleged acts of the headmaster to which he was never asked to reply. In short, though he had been asked to contradict a statement of some seriousness, he was given no opportunity to reply to a definite charge so grave as that which was finally formulated. I will assume, though not admit, the truth of the committee's assertion that the headmaster's reply was evasive and unduly abrupt. But a very superficial perusal thereof will show that it is tantamount to a denial. It certainly discloses a willingness to answer a definite charge if brought by the committee, but a reluc- ! tance to be "drawn" by a "feeler" beiore the matter had been considered by the whole committee. In any case, the reply was sufficient to throw upon the committee the dut^ of further enquiry ! and substantial verification of the rumour before taking the extreme step of approaching the Minister. We now come to the stage when the Minister's reply was received. By this time we are told that the matter had grown i "stale," and the committee resolved to ' drop it. One would like to suggest several interesting questions, as, for in- . stance, whether, if the reply had been more favourable and had promised an enquiry, the matter would still have been regarded as "stale." But on such questions we can only conjecture. Let us examine the. validity of the plea of stateness. Had there been undue delay in any quarter? I hardly think so. The ; committee in resolving on December 22 ito approach the Minister, must have '■ known that with the intervention of the j holidays and the pressure of Parliamentary business, the Minister could hardly have forwarded a reply in time for con- ; sideration before the end of January. .' Yet, by the 23rd of February the matter ! was too stale to be proceded with. Because the committee was unable to take ' the next step until some three weeks later than the earliest they have anticipated being able to do so, the next .stop must not he taken. Information, $s. t.Q

the date of the Minister's reply would probably throw some light on tiie question of responsibility for the "staleness.". For, unless the committee met immediately npon receipt of that reply, as they should have done in view of the gravity of the matter in their opinion, it may be they were to some extent to blame for the matter becoming stale. Evidently apart from such a suggestion, and on a very superficial view of the case, the whole plea of staleness falls to the ground. The members of the committee will require to produce stronger reasons for their action than, the very inadequate one of "staleness." Perhaps there is substantial truth in the prevailing opinion that the committee had in the meantime found there was no foundation to their charges, and so shrank from carrying them to a more responsible body. If this io so, their duty was to follow the usual course of j removing the wrong impression by withdrawal and apology, as the only clear alternative to proceeding with the charge. In view of the imperfect, not to say distorted, outline of th© facts which has been placed before the pub- ' lw up to the time of the "indignation meeting," no greater weight can be attached to the opinion of that meeting than to the opinion of the substantial majority which, at the householders' meeting, carried the obnoxious resolution. In conclusion, I -^tmld suggest that in view of th© confusion apparently caused at the "indignation meeting" by the "printer's error" in the original notice, it would he well for you to extend to convenors of important publio meetings the opportunity of perusing a proof of the notice of the meeting. For publio men can, with safety, denounce "Tammany tactics" and corrupt I methods in others, only when they have 11 made doubly certain that no suspicion ; can attach to any act of their own or *| of those with whom they are associated '! in nubile matters,. —I am, etc. ' H FIAT JUSTT/TIA.