THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL INQUISITION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6054, 13 April 1881, Page 6

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL INQUISITION.

TO THE EDITOH. Sie, —If a love of fair play be really a characteristic of the English race, few of us will be disposed to allow the late Grammar School inquisition to pass without some further notice. Nor -would it become us to stand by and behold with indifference a public body, entrusted with an important public trust, prostituted into an engine for wreaking private malice upon a fellowcitizen. Every accused person—even the greatest criminal—is entitled to a fair trial, and probably seldom fails to obtain it. Yet the head-master of our Auckland Grammar School, a good citizen, respected by most by many, being arraigned before the Governors on trumped-up charges respecting school management, has been absolutely denied a fair trial. Nay, certain of bis judges (for happily we must distinguish) —certain of his judges, who may not unfitly be named " the Inquisitors," actually seemed to-clutch at an opportunity to ruin him. For what lighter term than "ruin" can be used when we consider how charges insignificant in themselves have been falsely invested with an absurd appearance of importance, and unjustly wrested into an occasion for injuring the accused in reputation and in fortune. The inquisitors, therefore, assuming the functions of judges, yet denying common ' justice and abusing their public position, have done the head-master a grievous private injury, and are also' guilty ef a grievoue public wrong against the community. Should, then, such men be suffered any longer to retain a position for which they have shown themselves so nnfit? or should such wrongs be allowed to go unredressed ? Most of the principal facts are doubtless fresh in the public mind, and probably but few will deny that they more than justify the above statements. Still we might glance briefly at a few details. i

Take, for instance, the constitution of the tribunal which sat in judgment on the headmaster. An interested judge or juror is, of course, always disqualified. In this case, however, an enemy of the head-master is an active member of the tribunal. This member has also nominated and got appointed in some mysterious way three others of the tribunal. Two at least of these seem to be sworn coadjutors of the first, and act accordingly. Besides, is not one of the inquisitors connected by marriage with the accuser—that medical divine of convenient memory ? Has not also one of the accuser's principal witnessees—l mean that notable examiner who shirked out of a cross-examination—has he not some sort of a family connection with the Native Judge? These things may or may not have had an influence prejudicial to the accused; but it is very apparent that Dr. Purchas, Mr. H. H. Lusk, and their friends, openly enjoyed the favour of-the inquisitors ; whilst, on the other hand, the inquisitors treated the head-master with a harshness, a prejudice, a disfavour, most markedly at variance with the usual behaviour of a criminal judge towards even a prisoner. Thus Dr. Purchas was allowed to do very much as he liked, to give or withhold the names of witnesses, to ask what lie pleased but not to answer unless he chose, to forget when convenient, to bully the accused; and generally to behave with an impudence'j that ought never to have been tolerated. (His friend Mr. H. H. Lusk also w_as allowed to indulge his. very virtuous indignation, to claim as his private property what was really public property ; and in one ingenious way or other to shirk a disagreeable cross-examination. But no similar indulgences were extended to the head-master. Refusal of his requests for definiteness in the accusations, encouragement of hostile witnesses in refusing to answer him, disalowance of his questions, sneers, bullyiugs, and the like—all too plainly indicated the hostility of the inquisitors and their prejudgment of the head-master. If then the judges or some of them were unfairly biassed, it matters little to inquire

here as to the charc-es m- +h ~~^~~^ 3 besides, I fear to tree's to mLT dence V space or your V? yOnt the charges, it may oe rem,\.i j M *»■' whilst making allowance for cS tta V opinion, yet but verv few ir™ a :P«2nce O jt will consider any of them 3 ' al pers <"« anything that S^r^S*, 1 * 8 the head-master r 'uloral of that, notwithstanding til „L kabl « which the head-master ™ 3 h»« enemies could find m ailege against his character. Few tl S to such an ordeal with such a result etgo the head-master and the under m, respect to the organisation of the school," &c Thi- T™. ulss,llc atioa sam thing as that gamsation of the school." But if >- W the same thine then t),o ; • ■ * w n °t «£ wMcl. tifi tI, M tim« L, ignorance? M lett m management from his MbofftL (whS?! the fact of Judge Fenton's underlines col sidermg themselves as good a Jud™ afh* T or that his official actioL are not sSch as fe approve-would he think this a good ground for his removal from office' Besides W possibly could the head-S* beSecSd *° \V U T COr r With SUch ' M Mr " zSS or Mr Tomhnson or Mr. McArthur' the conduct of the last being plainly calcuktk to. do nothing less than to spread disaffection and disorganisation in the school. The wonder is that his instant, dismissal was not "»"■*«* on by the head-master; but perhaps youth and inexperience excused The fact is that the head-master should have been empowered to select and dismiss his assistants, and the want of such power doubtless enabled such as were inclined to scheme to oust him, and perhaps to defy him. He should have had the like power of selecting and dismissing his subordinate as Judge Fenton, or any other head of a department. Had he possessed it, probabr? nothing would ever have been heard of that want of accord " which was so unreasonably urged as a charge against him. Xet, this absurd pretext of a " waEt of accord, &c.," is practically the only one which even the inquisitors could discover upon which to condemn the accused. And if they distinguish and say the question of disorganisation" ia a different thing, then I answer, as before, that they have wrono« fully proposed to find him guilty upon a charge of which he was not accused, and had no notice to defend himself against; and, besidee, the charge was never proved. But in any case, even supposing, for argument sake, that the head-master was to blame, yet none can fail to be struck with the fact that the harshness of the judgment is most grossly disproportionate to the fault. What grounds, indeed, are there to justify so severe a measure as the removal of the head-master?— a removal sudden, decided with indecent haste in an unseemly way, and betokening all too plainly that he was a man prejudged and condemned beforehand. The whole affair is so scandalous that it should not, cannot, be allowed to remain as it is._ Just think of the backstairs sort of appointment of the three members of the Board—the strange, despdtie powers exercised in public matters by some members of this community—the burking of inquiry as to Mr. H. H. Lusk's capacity as an examiner—the bias of the inquisitors—their improper conduct towards the accused—the unfairness of the inquiry—the unjustifiable dismissal, or, perhaps, rather attempted dismissal of the head-master. Faugh ! The whole of this shameful business from beginning to end ought to be strictly investigated. I trust, therefore, that the schoolboys and former pupils, and others who so manfully testified in the head-master's favour, I trust that Mr. Macrae's fellow-citizens and the public generally will not rest till the matter is thoroughly sifted. Regarding the method, perhaps Parliament might be petitioned for an inquiry before an upright, impartial judge in whom the people have confidence; for instance, Judge Richmond, whose estimable character is raised far above suspicion. ■ Were Mr. Macrae's conduct enquired into by such a judge, then we should all feel assured that whatever might be the result, neither Mr. Macrae nor the public would have any cause to complain.—l am, &c, Fair Play.