The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1867.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 289, 6 December 1867, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1867.

It appears that a question of some interest to tho comm unity generally has arisen at the Central Board of Education of this province, viz., whether Local Committees have, under the Education Act, the power of dismissing a schoolmaster or not ? Under the 23rd section of that Act they are clearly iuvested with the power of appointing a master, and with the responsibility of the management and direction of the school ; the question is whether by impjication this can be held to give the power to remove the master. It is argued on the one side that this follows of necessity. On the other hand, however, the Central Board is authorised by the 34th section of the Act to revoke a toaster's license, and to remove him in any case of proved moral delinquency. And in the case of the committee's power to appoint a representative at the Central Board, the Act gives them express authority to revoke their appointment, though it is silent as to their discretionary power as regards the dismissal of a master. No light is thrown on the subject by precedent or experience, for in all the numerous cases which have occurred in ■which it had become necessary that a master sliould leave his school, with one

solitary exception, the master has given iv his resignation; and iv the one excepted case, in which the master refused to resign, he admitted the truth of the accusations made against him (that he had refused to obey the instructions of the Committee), but he gave up possession of the house which he was occupying in virtue'] of his office, and thus he iv effect gave in his resignation. Although there is a power vested in the Central Board to remove a master in case of proved moral delinquency, it does not appear that there is aay express power to remove for incompetency or any other cause short of moral delinquency. Of course the question suggests itself, is this not also implied? If we suppose a case in which the majority of any Local Committee were desirous of removing a master without any just cause, and compelled hiai to turn" out, it is pretty clear that this would constitute a wrong for which the master would have a remedy in an appeal to a

jury; and it is by do means certain that a jury might not, if they took a strong view of the case, award rather heavy damages. This would doubtless be exceedingly inconvenient, as the defence of his character might induce a master to prosecute his claim iipon the Committee in this fashion. As every master holds his house, that is so say, wherever there is a house, by virtue of his office, it seems clear that he should give it up as soon as he ceases to be master of the school, feut the power to eject rests not in the Local Committeo, but in ihe Central Board, wlio are by the Act, the owners of the freehold.

It is evident that either tlie Local Committee or the Board should be invested with this power. Probably the Committee should have it, but if so, it is equally plain that there should be a power of appeal, and it does not appear that this could be appropriately vested iv any but the Central Board.