THE BOARD AND THE PARR SCHOLARSHIP.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6930, 2 February 1884, Page 6

THE BOARD AND THE PARR SCHOLARSHIP.

. ♦ At the meeting of the Board of Education yesterday, the Secretary read the following correspondence, together with his own explanation annexed :—A letter from W. S. Furby, of the Telegraph Department, stating that there was no record in his office of any telegram sent between ISth and 25th of January " from the Thames or Te Aroha by one Parr to the following effect, ' I demand a revision of answering ; preserve my papers.'" Telegram from J. C. Parr (Waihou), 29thof January, ISS4, to the effect, '"I claim revision of answering," &c, as above. Letter from the same, expressing his dissatisfaction and surprise that hia name was not .among the successful candidates. From the Waiotahi School Committee of the same date, requesting "That an inquiry be made as to the concealment of Master Parr's Scholarship at the recent examination—by whom concealed, and why?" Telegram of the 25th January from Vincent Rice, Secretary to the Board, to the Chairman of the Waiotahi Committee, notifying the award Df a scholarship to Christopher James Parr Df Waiokaraka School accidentally omitted last week. From Chairman of Waiotahi School Committee, dated January 2S, acknowledging Mr. Rice's letter of 2oth, including C. J. Parr's scholarship certificate. Mr. Rice read the following explanation :— The mistake in tho case of Parr was made by me. I alone am responsible for it. It consisted in my markins two candidates—Carter, of Ponsonby, and I'arr, of the Thames-each as No. 6 when making up tho list of successful candidates in their order according to marks. The accoinpinying papers show how the mistake occurred, and that it was purely accidental. The marks were correctly entered and added up in the schedule. Parr's - number" and marks [each candidate was known by a distinguishing number] were among those transferred to the first list of candidates who had qualified, but his name was omitted from tlioso icported to the Board on January 18 through my cnterintr Carter as No. 6 and not noticing that t had marked Parr as No. 6 also. I can only account for iho mistake by tho fact that I had to draw up the list on the morning preceding a- meeting of tbe Board, at a time of groat bustle and in the midst of frequent interruptions. The error was discovered by me on the afternoon of Thursday, the 24th January, while chocking a return of the number of supoes>ful and unsuccessful candidates from each scnool, winch showed 143 candidates instead of 149, the number examined. Until then, I was not aware of it. nor had my attention been drawn to Parr's name in any way whatever. I Teported tho mistake to the acting Chairman of the Board, on tho following morning (Friday, 25th), and ex plained it to the members present, at the Board meeting, that afternoon, when the report was brought up. I also then telegraphed the result to the Chairman of the Waiotahi School Committee, at the Thames. Tho'grant of an additional scholarship causes no extra expense to the Board, the funds being derived from a special capitation allowance, voted by the Assembly for tho maintenance of scholarships, and Viable by the Government for that purpose. The limit of this capitation allowance has not been exceeded. I wish to state that the telegram from the candidate. Parr,published in the New Zealand Hkkald of Saturday, tho 26th, as having given rise to the discoverv, was not sent until Tuesday, tho 29th, four days "after the mistake hail been reported to and rectified hy tho Board. (See correspondence annexed). —(Sigend) VixcENT K. iUc£, Secretary. February 1, ISS4. a Mr. Carr said the Secretary made precisely the same explanation to him on the 25th. It was unfortunate that such a mistake should have happened at the time ; but it appeared to him that the Secretary to the Board had fairly explained how it occurred ; that no wrona had been done. He therefore moved " That the explanation of the Secretary be accepted." Mr. Cooper : There has now arisen a very extraordinary state of affairs. Ido not for one moment charge the New Zealand Herald with wilfully stating what is false. But what I do say is that wilfully false information has been given to the public through its means. That information has been circulated through the country. Now the words ■which appear in the Herald's article of the 26th are practically the same as those which appear in the telegram of the 29th. It is perfectly certain that no such telegram as was referred to by the Herald was ever sent. In point of fact, no such telegram had any existence. Therefore false information was given to the Herald, and the Herald was misled by it. Another extraordinary fact appears from this correspondence. The mistake made by the officer of the Soard was • reported and rectified on the 25th • of January. Information of the fact was conveyed by telegram to the Waiotahi committee. The certificate was sent the same day. It must have been communicated to the; boy without any delay. His letter is dated the 29th of January. It is quite clear that the information must bave reached him on the 26th, or shortly afterwards. There is a postal establishment at Waitoa ; I do not know whether there is a telegraph station there. But it is reasonable to. presume that he received intelligence within a very few hours of its being known to the Waiotahi committee. It therefore appears to me that the letter of the 29th must have been written not before, but after he received the information that the error had been discovered and rectified. It is ;ilso perfectly clear that the scholarship certificate reached the committee before the date the telegram was despatched, for they acknowledged the receipt of the letter of the 25th, and their resolution was passed on tha 2Stb, and before the boy wrote hia letter. Therefore it seems to me that for some ulterior object some person outside the Board, and outside the Herald Office, prepared this false information to the paper, and that the information related to •some things which had no existence. The alleged facts were not communicated to the Board until many days afterwards. That could only have been done for the purpose of backing up the candidature of O'Donaghue to the isewton Fast School. The false statement to the Herald could only have been done with a similar object, and for the purpose of casting discredit on this Board. I therefore thick we have a right to ascertain from the New Zealand Herald who it was supplied the information contained in the article of the 26th. That information must bave been given to them on the 25th in order to be published on the 26th. The information given was evidently given to be U3ed in the light of the article of the 26th.- I therefore think that the Board should not allow a matter of this kind to pass without comment, when it is publicly suggested that the Board itself, as well as its officers, were dealing in an underhand manner for purpor.es only known to themselves, or injuriously affecting the public interest; an article casting suspicion upon the integrity of the Beard and its proceedings. lam very sorry thatthe Secretary should have madeamistake. He has, however, fairly acknowledged his error, and • explained how it occurred. I think, therefore, we should accept the explanation made by the Secretary. Mr. Buckland : I should like to say a faw words on this matter. It appears to me that the. letter of the boy is a most impertijient document. Ido not think it wa3 ever •written by him. lam of opinion that this matter should be inquired into subsequently. The whole of that phaße of the matter Bhottld be inquired into. I certainly should not sit a day at this Board if I was subjected to imputations of this kind, and could be attacked by some unknown person with impunity. Mr. J. M. Clark : I shall support this resolution. I cannot do so without making some remarks. Personally I feel utterly disgusted with the tone the Herald has taken in treating public questions. No matter what subject is discussed by public bodies— unless the result is in accordance with the views of the writer—there is a charge of corruption. I can give three instances of this, two of which came within my own personal knowledge. In one case when an effort was made for the preservation of the water supply, I myself and those who acted with me were charged in that paper with having corrupt motives. Then there is the case of the Domain Board. If I had been present at the meeting of that Board, I should have voted with those whose conduct is impugned) by the Hkkald. It is no doubt the right of newspaper writers to point out abuses, but not in the way that is there done, by imputing corrupt motives. That only defeats the object which the writer ought to have in view. I should like the Board to expreßs its sense not only upon the article itself, but upon the stylo in which it is written. I vote for the resolution, on the further ground that no wrong has been done; that the Board is within the limit of scholarships which may be granted. ' The resolution of Mr. Carr was put and carried.