THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1881.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6001, 10 February 1881, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1881.

The first meeting of the Board of Governors of the Auckland College and Grammar School to investigate ! the charges made by Dr. Purchas against the management of the institution, and specifically against Mr. Anderson, "was of a most unsatisfactory kind. It met yesterday for this purpose, and it determined, as far as was in its power, to keep the public in the dark by the exclusion of the Press; it resolved to abstain from proceeding with the investigation of Dr. Purchas' charges, with the object of considering whether it should not cancel a. resolution that itself should investigate them in favoiir of one asking for a Commission to be appointed by the GovcrnVnent; and it accepted the following retractation by Dr. Purchas of one of his charges—that against Mr. Anderson, of inebriety: —

Yesterday I was informed by a gentleman, upon whose testimony I can rely, that Mr. Anderson is of most abstemious habits in regard to the use of stimulants, and that the facts upon which clause 4 of my memo, was based, admit of a different explanation. I therefore beg to withdraw that clause, and to express my regret that I was led to believe that which I am now persuaded was erroneous.—(Sisrned) A. G. Pokciias. February S, ISSI.

Tlie conduct of the committee—that is the Board—in preventing publicity surpasseth all understanding. The question is a public one. The chai'ges, though not made public, have been communicated to some persons, and the Board, though conceding publication to the retractation of Dr. Purchas, withholds all information of the precise nature of the particular and the general charges. "We claim that opportunity should have been afforded for the publication in our columns this morning of the whole of the doings of yesterday that our readers might have been made acquainted with the facts, the members who spoke, the reasons tliey advanced, and be in a position to form a judgment on the conduct of the Board, and on its proceedings. The public were entitled not to what the Board might think fit to give them, but to a full account of the inquiry, and, amongst other things, of the mover of the resolution to consider the substitution of a Commission for the committee, and the reasons adduced; and a list of the charges, including that made ■against Mr. Anderson. Here is a Board which has sat as a committee of investigation, and yet withholds the charges .against the management of the institution and Mr. Anderson, and except for the letter of retractation by Dr. Purchas, there would be 110 knowledge of the nature of the charge, and of its precise terms the public are still left in entire ignorance. We hold the decision of the Board to be ill-judged, an infringement of the public rights—for the College and Grammar School is a public institution, and unfair to everyone concerned. That we sTiould have the retractation of a charge, and not the charge itself, is a state of things to which it is astonisliing that a number of sensible men —that is a majority—should have given their concurrence. And let us observe, with regard to publicity, that, but for special sources cf information, the fact of the Board's intention to consider whether it should not suggest to the Government a Commission, instead of itself as the instrument of investigation, would have remained a secret. That we are able to announce this fact, shows what seeresy is worth. The retractation by Dr. Purchas of one of his charges against Mr. Anderson is as unsatisfactory as it is astounding, and it can create no surprise that Mr. Anderson refuses to accept it. The remarks in which lie deprecated its withdrawal were justified by all the circumstances, and it is amazing that the Board should have listened to the retractation, heard Mr. Anderson's indignant remonstrance against the withdrawal, and then, having gone thus far, decided nothing, but adjourned to consider whether its functions should devolve upon some one else. This is a most extraordinary procedure, and eminently suggestive of some sinister influence at work, of which the Board, as a whole, is not aware. The matter now stands thus; that Mr. Anderson rejects the retractation, and demands to be vindicated by evidence, and that the Board has placed him in the position that, if it resigns its duties into the hands of a Commission, the charge against Mr. Anderson will no

be investigated, 'though lie demands it because Dr. Purclias having it will not present it to this Commission. But the man who was assailed" and wrongfully assailed, has a mht to demand that his innocence shall not he conceded by the person who assailed him, but proved. The public may take any . view of the retractation, but he is entitled to insist on his right to submit to them the proofs of his innocence and convince them. It is true-that the Boai-d has not accepted the retractation, but it cannot force Dr. Purchas to proceed before a Commission and though it could not yesterday compel him to proceed, it was bound, in the face of Mr. Anderson's objection, to afford him the opportunity of disproving the charges. It was his right, and- would be the right of anyone under similar circumstances. It "cannot, be granted that groundless charges can be made and then, withdrawn at the option of the person making them. If that were tolerated charges inio-ht he made with impunity. Mr. Anderson, has not only the right to disprove them but to disclose, if he can, how they came to be made. The retractation itself is of a qualified character in some x-espects. It is based on the information of one gentleman, and ill-natured people may attach their own value to that, and it says that the charges "admit of a different explanation," which may mean anything. -Underordinary circumstances a retractation should be accepted, but Mr. Anderson pointed out to the Board, and with much force, what were the circumstances:- in this case. The charges have been hanging over his head for six or seven months, during which time Dr. Purchas had ample opportunity of ascertaining their truth, and it is only at the last moment, when there is no escape, that lie attempts to retrace his steps, and do justice to the man he has injured. A retractation, to be of value, should be prompt and spontaneous, but it looks very much in this case as if it were wrung from a fear of consequences. It is unnecessary in express terms to condemn the conduct of Dr. Purchas— terms which would be inadequate if they were not unqualified, and they mus.V be unqualified, for there is not a single redeeming feature in the case, unless a retractation made at the eleventh hour is to be deemed one. The events in their sequential order tell a sad tale. A verbal communication to Dr. Campbell, an unworthy proceeding —next, a memorandum, and an an signed memorandum, then, when there was little option, a charge written and signed, and, at the last moment, a withdrawal. Dr. Purchas, a minister of religion, and who has pleaded as a justification for his accusatory position that he was influenced by public spirit, makes a retractation which virtually admits he took a course which mighthave ruined Mr. Anderson for life, ou nothing better than hearsay, the detestable tittle-tattle which is the curse of small communities. He has discovered at last that it is worthless, but it was his business to have investigated it, and not recklessly have accepted it to the detriment of another, and as the basis of a charge of drunkenness which if true would have shown Mr. Anderson unfit for his position. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mr. Anderson rejects a retractation made at the last moment, and deems it imperative, for the sake of his own character,' that he should have a quittance, not from his assailant,' but from proofs of his innocence, the result of a public investigation.