SALUTING THE FLAG.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11823, 28 November 1901, Page 6

SALUTING THE FLAG.

A HEADTEACHER'S OBJECTIONS. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. MOTION FOR HIS DISMISSAL CARRIED. Some months hack the Auckland Board of Education received a communication from the committee of the Kirikiri school district intimating that the headmaster* of the school, Mr. Jas. B. Murray, had failed to i comply with the wishes of the committee by declining to instruct the children of the school in the ceremony of saluting the ua.s„ as provided for by the Board's instructions to school committees and headmasters, and nad otherwise conducted himself in such a manner a3 to show disrespect towards the flag. The Loyal and Patriotic Committee sought the Board's assistance in compelling Mr. Murray to observe the custom, and correspondence has sines been passing between the parties concerned, the Board ultimately informing Mr. Murray that he must either teach the children to salute the flag or hand in his resignation as a teacher in the Board's employ. Up to yesterday the correspondence" had been dealt with in committee, and the particulars were therefore not available to the press, but the chairman (Mr. L. J. Bagnall) then remarked that as a climax had been reached the time had arrived when the matter should be made public, and some definite action taken by the Board in dealing with the offender. This was agreed to by the members present. The correspondence referred to opened with a letter (dated October 17) from the secretary of the Board to Mr. Murray, intimating" that the District School Committee, Kirikiri. had forwarded to th> Board a copy of a letter sent to him (Mr. Murray) under date of May 2, together with his reply dated May 4, on the subject of the school children beinj, taught to salute the flag at tho school unde. his charge. The letter went on to say: —"They (the committee) also allege that the unpatriotic conduct of the headteacher has caused a large amount of ill-feeling and discontent. In support of that allegation they state : (1) On the occasion of die entry of the British into Pretoria, Mr. Quinn, the then chairman of committee, having failed to notify the headteacher that the children should be allowed a holiday to celebrate the event, Messrs. Hawkins and Choat, two of the members of committee, waited upon the headteacher and requested him to declare a holiday, which he refused to do. 2. Upon tho occasion of the unfurling of the flag at the local school, notwithstanding the fact that the headteacher previously requested by the committee to teach the scholars to march past and salute the flag, he failed to instruct the scholars, and made remarks regarding the _ Empire's flag of a decidedly uncomplimentary character. The committee further allege these are only examples of Mr. Murray's conduct that refer to matters affecting the question of patriotism. In fact, he misses no opportunity of belittling and throwing scorn on the British nation. I am directed to ask you for any explanation which you may have to offer upon the subject.- ("Signed)* V. E. Rice, Secretary." Under date of October 23, Mr. Murray replied as follows:—"Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th inst. relating to complaints on the part of the committee with regard to my alleged unpatriotic conduct. The first paragraph of your letter refers to the matter of the children not being taught to salute the flag. . . . The allegation ' tha' the unpatriotic conduct of the headteacher has caused a large amount of ill-feeling and discontent in the district' is unfounded, as my conduct has not been unpatriotic. It is not my conduct, but the circulation of absurd stories, which can be traced very close to some of those who have taken a prominent part in the agitation against me, that has caused the ill-feeling in the district. The extent of the ill-feeling is now pretty accurately known to the Board. The statement that ' on the occasion of the entry of the British into Pretoria, etc.,' is fairly correct as far as it goes. Having got no authority to declare a holiday I refused to commit an irregularity, but at the same time I requested Messrs. Choat and Hawkins to bring me a note either from the chairman or secretary of the committee to the effect of what "they wished to have done and I would then do it. I also made an alternative proposal to them, and that was that they should arrange to make the next school day a holiday. After some hesitation they declined to do either, and went away. On the day on which these gentlemen called there were 65 children present— there were only two other such high attendances in the preceding year and three quarters. Leaving the matter of irregularity out of consideration I would be justified in giving more weight to the wishes of the bulk of the parents of the district than to the request of Messrs. Choat and Hawkins. There is no occasion for me to defend Mr. Quinn for having failed to notify me with regard to giving a holiday, but it may be as well to state that at the time the news of the occupation of Pretoria was not confirmed, and another matter worthy of consideration is that complaints were being heard through the country with regard to the too frequent holidays. Even at the Board there were signs of dissatisfaction. The statement bearing ' upon the occasion of the unfurling of the flag at the local school,' is from beginning to end a misstatement. I had two conversations with Mr. Quinn. the chairman of the committee, at that time, relating to the unfurling of the flag. In the first he said that the committee wanted the children to salute the flag. From the time I first heard of flagsaluting I had taken occasion to ask every man that I got into conversation with and who had served in the British regular army, if he had ever been asked to salute the flag while a soldier otherwise than by saluting the officers carrying the flag 3 when ' trooping colours.' I always got the same answer, that they had not. For my own part I have no liking for emblems or colours, and for the last 20 years have never worn such things. Where principles guide there is no need for these things. Besides, as the vast majority of the British people consider the saluting of religious emblems as idolatrous, they should be consistent and not ask anyone to salute emblems of any kind : and they are consistent in the matter, for it is not from England that flag-saluting came in vogue. In a word, I cannot salue any flagthat is, personally salue it. as I would a human being; it is against my conscience. International courtesies such as dipping _ flags, firing guns, etc., are harmless ceremonies for naval, officers and such people. With these thing,? in my mind I did not arrange with Mr. Quinn to salue the flag against my conscientious convictions. The second time that he spoke to me about the matter there was an entirely different arrangement made from that first proposed by him. Mr. Quinn then said that Mr. Quarterman, a member of the late and also of the present committee, had been speaking to Mr. Bagnall, the chairman of the Board, and that he said all that was necessary was that the children should cheer when the flag was unfurled. The matter rested at that till the day of the unfurling came. On that day various parties appeared to have programmes of the proceedings, but I did not get one. I gave what ' officious' help I could. At last I was requested to march the children to the music of a band that was playing at the time. I told Mr. Quinn that it was impossible to get the little children to keep step with the biggei ones, but offered to march the biggei children by themselves. I could :.o< suffer to see children pretend to march tc music when they could not possibly do it. 1 then asked where the children were tc march to. Mi. Quinn said around the school, ant* they were to salute the flagthr very thing that he told me an evening or two before, would not be required. I said that I would not salute any flag. 1 had not refused to inarch the iliildren past. There was then some hesitation, and the committee or somebody asked Mr. Woodward, one of the residents of the district, to get the children to salute the flag, which he did. I positively made no ' remarks regarding the Empire's flag, of a decidedly uncomplimentary character,' nor in the slightest degree uncomplimentary. There ippears to be a gieat effort io work on the imaginations of the members of the Board. Why no' quote my very words? To savo him, and as fai as possible to avoid further correspondence on these matters, I shall hero state the words 1 used: 'I an? not going to j salute ? piec of bunting.' Then J was asked if I would not salute the flag, and I answered 'No, no flag that ever flew.' I furthei remarked : ' What a people! They have torn down tho- bannei cf Christianity and set the flag up in its place.' I am not" qui certain that 1 did not use the words ' something else' instead of the word ' flag,' but that is of litth importance. I admit the remark was not just, because the English people, the nucleus of the Empire, have not taken to flagsaluting, but that part of my remarks was made, as remarks generally are, without long consideration. There was nothing ' uncomplimentary' to the flag, either said or intended by me. I am not taking any advantage in this statement of the haziness of the idea of being uncomplimentary to a flag. 1 have always looked upor flags as being too apathetic "to be either complimented or the reverse. It may be as well to Jot the Board

know that I subscribed my share to the fund for the purchase of the flag, and was not, 1 consider, very niggardly in lurther expenses to celebrate the occasion of the unfurling. The allegation quoted in the next paragraph commencing ' These are not the only samples of Mr Murray's conduct,' I think I may say that this statement is typical of the manner in which reckless charges are made and supported against me. There is only one answer to such a statement— is utterly false. The Board need not think that I have turned stump orator I can find little leisure for going amongst people. It has been a rather difficult matter to always avoid discussing in a cursorv way matters with which the newspapers have been half filled for the last three years. What one man considers patriotism another may oonsidei the reverse or blind folly. It is no crime for a citizen to give an honest opinion on public matters. With the ancient Athenians the man who took no political side was a traitor, and treated as such. We don't live in Turkey or Russia. One may surely hold, and even give expression to, views held and voiced by British Privy Councillors and ex, and particularly future, Ministers of the Crown, and supported by various British newspapers and magazines. I have always thought, and still think, that one may venture so far at least.—(Signed) J.'.S. B. "Murray/* The foregoing elicited the following reply from the Education Board under date of October 31:—"Sir.— am directed to acknowledge tho receipt of your letter, dated the 19th inst., which was considered by tho Board at its meeting vesterday. 1. The Board accepts as satisfactory your explanation of the reasons which led ycu to refuse the request for granting a special holiday to celebrate the entry of the British into Pretoria. 2. The Board has given careful consideration to all arguments adduced by you in support of your refusal to comply with the committee's request to teach the scholars to march past and saiute the flag. Such conduct on the part of a teacher in the public service of a colony which forms part of the British Empire is not to be tolerated, and the Board cannot permit the children under your instruction to be treated differently from the children of other public schools in the colony. The Board therefore requires of you either that you shall in the future, yourself salute the British flag and teach the scholars to do so, or that you shall resign your appointment as teacher under the Board. You are desired to acknowledge the receipt of this letter, and to inform tho Board which of these two alternatives you are prepared to accept.—(Signed) V. E. Rice." Replying on November 9, Mr. Murray wrote as tinder: — " Sir,—l have tho honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ult., relating to the saluting of the flag. The statement contained in your letter that as this colony is a part of "the British Empire, the refusal of a, teache; in the public service of the colony to teach the children, at the committee's request, to salute tho flag is not to be tolerated, is of vast scope, but rather defective reasoning. It implies that it is the duty of a teacher in the public service of the colony to teach the children to salute the flag. It is his dutyas it is the duty of every subject of the colony—to obey the laws and comport himself as a good citizen, but I cannot discover any law or usage of British origin that requires a British or British colonial subject, to salute the flag. The Board has not even issued a circular to that effect, nor has any British or colonial law of such import been*passed. The only reason I have ever heard advanced for flagsaluting in this country was that the Americans saluted their flag. The American people have many ways and institutions that would scarcely be approved of here. The pronouncement that the Board cannot permit the children under my instruction to be treated differently from the children of other public schools in tho colony would carry more force if the Board were in a position to say 'all' othor schools in tho colony. But is the Board in such a position? Tlie only instructions issued by the Board with regard to the flag, were that it should be hoisted on certain specified occasions. These instructions I have fully obeyed. The Board can have no evidence that "the flag is saluted in the mblio schools, as is fully proved by the case of this school. There is little ground for question that the whole, or most, of the flag-saluting is due to tho tactics of 'cute business people, who saw a chance of making a big haul in the bunting line, by talking patriotism and of American customs, while taking advantage of the feverish state of public feeling while the people were suffering from what Sir W. Harcourt has described as a, ' malarious epidemic caused by the bite of a mosquito Jingo.' It appears to me that it would bo necessary, in case flag-saluting came to be prescribed by law, to decide on a form or ritual by which the saluting is to be conducted. I have seen a farmer here salute in what may have been a way of his own. On the same occasion I heard the present chairman of the Board of Education describe a different way—the way, he said, the Americans salute their flag. " Many more ways occur to my mind, but none of them all may be the right one. The Board's command in the matter should be quite clear before sending an unfortunate teacher a ' special ultimatum.' Then, again, I am required to teach the children to salute tho flag once a week." The writer then goes on at considerable length to justify the position he has taken up, and says he cannot help considering the unmistakable threat of dismissal held over his head on account of his refusal to adopt "the new flag worship," as harsh and arbitrary. He :<dds: "I am afraid that enthusiastic ' flag-flappers' would in the hour of danger be rather unreliable soldiers. That kind of patriotism makes a tremendous show, and is, besides, cheap and— He concludes by refusing to send in his resignation. A reply was sent to Mr. Murray, under date of November 14, as follows: — " Sir, —I am directed to inform you that the Board has considered your letter, dated the 9th inst., in reply to the Board's letter of October 31, requiring you to salute the flag or resign your position as teacher under the Board. In reply I am directed to state that the Board requires you to say definitely whether you will or will not salute the flag and teach the children to do so. on the days appointed by the Board in the circular, dated May 1 last, for the hoisting of the flag. (Signed) V. E. Rice." Mr. Murray, in the course of his reply to the last-mentioned communication from the Board (dated November 23, and read at yesterday's meeting), says:—"lf hoisting the flag on proper occasions, the only way British subjects are accustomed to salute it. be considered as saluting the flag, I will salute it, as I have hitherto done in accordance with the Board's instructions. I will also teach the children to hoist it; it is a very simple thing to do. There is little use in wrangling about a word. I must, however, call attention to the fact that the Board has not specified, neither has anyone with authority to act for it, how the flag is to be saluted otherwise than hy hoisting it. I will appeal from the Board to each of its memberg individually. Let each ask himself the following questions:— are our volunteers not required to salute the flag? If any of us saluted any man in a respectful manner, and tho salute was not returned, would it be repeated? Would any man not besotted salute the highest dignitary in tne land when the back of the latter was towards him; that is. when the salute could not be noticed? Would he salute the Governor, even the Sovereign himsolf, under such circumstances? Can an inanimate thing notice or return a salute? Is it not degrading to the free-born children of this colony to try to compel them to an act of the most servile homage which is never required of English. Scotch, or Irish children, and such a.s would scarcely be expected from the pagan, barbarian slaves of a Central African chief? Could anything be devised more utterly foolish than to salute an inanimate, senseless piece of drapery in the same manner as an intelligent human being, believed to be the image and likeness of his Creator, would be saluted? One other supplementary question: Why is one teacher selected as a victim. In conclusion, allow me to say that if I be dismissed, as appears to be foreshadowed in the recent letters of the Board, after a fair record of 20 years in its service, on account of this nonsense about the flag, the Board will inflict a great hardship on me, but it will damage its own reputation more than mine." , The circular issued by the Board to school committees and headteachers on May 1, 1901, and referred to in the correspondence, recommends that the following dates should be observed as suitable for the hoisting of school flags, apart from any occasions of local interest which it may be decided to observe for tho purpose:— 3, Commonwealth Day: January 29, Anniversary Day; February 5, Treaty of Waifnngi; March 17. St. Patrick's Day; April 23, St. George's Day; May 24, Victoria Day; June 3, birthday of H.fl.H. the Duke of Cornwall and York; June. 15, Magna Charta signed; July 1. Dominion Day; August 23, slavery abolished in British possessions; October 12, Columbus discovered tho New World; October 21, battle of Trafalgar, and sailing of First Contingent fo. South Africa; October 22 Captain Cook landed in New Zealand; November 9, birthday of His Most Gracious Majesty the King; November 30. St. Andrew's Day; December 13, Abel Tasman discovered New Zealand. The Chairman, in opening the discussion, said it was evident that Mr. Murray did not wish to attend to the wishes of the Board, and the question therefore was as to whether he should be given notice of dismissal. He moved, " That Mr. Murray be given three months' notice of dismissal." ■

Mr. W. Lambe: No I

Mr. Jos. Blades dissented from the motion, remarking that he did not think it right that a man who had been 20 years in the employ of the Board should be thus dismissed simply because he did not fall in with the wishes of the Board in the matter. Mr. Murray, in his letter, had stated that he would be prepared to hoist the flag himself and to teach the scholars to hoist it. There was nothing in the regulations to say that teachers must salute the flag or teach the children to salute it; the regulation merely had reference to the hoisting of the flag, and the action suggested by the chairuiin would therefore be going outside the regulations. The Chairman said that Mr. Murray had refused altogether to follow the instructions of the Board. Mr. Lambe held that the Board had to power to compel anyone to salute the flag once a week, as asked by the committee, as the regulations clearh did not provide for this being done. He was not in sympathy with anything in the nature of pro-Boer sentiments, but would not like to see the Board adopt such a course as that suggested in the motion, as the members by doing so wou'd be placing themselves in a false position. Ho strongly protested against the motion.

Mr. J. D. McKenzie thought members should not overlook the fact that Mr. Murray had passed disrespectful remarks concerning the flag, and the whole institution, and for his own part questioned the advisability of keeping a man that would do this in the Board's employ. Mr. Lambe again remarked that it was outside the province of the Board to say that the flag should be saluted weekly. The Chairman said that the Board had no intention of compelling Mr. Murray or anyone else to salute, or have the flag saluted, every week. Reference had been made by the School Committee about the flag being saluted weekly, but the Board's correspondence with Mr. Murray had not indicated that there was any desire that this should be done. The communication merely gave Mr. Murray to understand that the same observance to the Board's recommendations re saluting the flag would have to be carried out in his school as in other schools in the district.

Mr. R. Hobbs thought the tone of the letters written by Mr. Murray clearly demonstrated that he was not a fit person to continue as a teacher in the employ of the Board.

Mr. Blades held that the Board was not acting within its regulations in thus dismissing Mr. Murray. The regulations only provided for dismissal where there had been gross misbehaviour or immoral conduct. Neither of these grounds were present in the case under discussion.

Mr. Hobbs hinted that Mr. Blades held a retainer for Mr. Murray. Mr. Blades: I object to the insinuation; I have never seen Mr. Murray, nor do I know him. I would ask Mr. Hobbs to withdraw his words?

Mr. Hobbs. Very well, I will withdraw the words. I did not mean them to be taken seriously. Mr. J. G. Rutherford said it seemed that Mr. Murray Bad all along been inclined to defy the Board, although assuming a- milder tone in his last communication.

The morion was then put to the meeting, and carried by five votes to two, the voting beinsj as under: Ayes: Messrs. McKenzie, Hobbs, Rutherford. Muir. and the mover (Mr.. Bagnall). Noes: Messrs. Lambe and Blades.