THE EDUCATION BOARD INQUIRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10900, 6 September 1897, Page 3

THE EDUCATION BOARD INQUIRY.

v TO THE EDITOR. Sin,—lt is perhaps nofc. surprising that you have lost patience in waiting for the end of the hoard's inquiry, and have proceeded to comment on the parties and evidence before, the case is finished, aa you were under the impression that every membsr of ths board had a different motion. This is not so. The motion? moved by ms acd seconded by Mr Snow were carried in committee by seven vobes to two. They will be carried by that vote no doubt .in open board. The board h3d agreed to adjourn at 10 o'clock at niget. and the two hour 3 available for disoussiou were entirely consumed by the speeches of Messrs MacGregor, Fmser, and Ramsay; Messrs Gallawsy. Clark, Borrie, and . myself had yet. to spesk to the motions carried, and it was therefore agreed to adjourn. As in my opinion and in that of most of ths members' of the board a gre&t injustice' has been clone both to Mr Pryde and Mr Somerville' by the speeches delivered from opposite sides, and as you have commented on ths case, I think it a fair thing to ask you to publish a statement of the case in which there is at least an attempt to do justice to both the .officers concerned. And to prevent the case xeing obscured by personalities amongst the " judges," I shall absolutely exclude all personal references. . :.';;-■

The whole case began (on August 13) by the chairman informing the board of his discovery of the changes in the plan of the buildifig. The architect was at once called in and asked how the alterations ocenrred, and ho said that he had carried them out- under instructions from the secretary. This the secretary denied. As nothing could be done at the special meeting, members of the board agreed to leave, the matter till the next ordinary meeting, on the following week. At this meeting the matter was introduced formally to the notice of the board by the chairman reading a letter from Mr Somerville, in which he asked for an inquiry, and said: "It now repeat what I s&id in the board room, that the secretary ordered the alterations." A special meeting of ths beard was, thersfora, called to consider the whole matter. At tbjs meeting Mr Sotnerville was permitted to open his case by reading, a document in which he reassartsd his statement and made frssu allegations .against the secretary. It is fair to say. that this' gave Mr Somerville every advantage. Obviously it placed Mr Pryde at a disadvantage, for he was called on to face not only the board's inquiry into his share of the responsibility, but also, without notice, an attack from the architect as well. The whole evidence taken covers 83 pages of type-writtea foolscap, and would occupy probably 20 columns of a newspaper: It is, therefore, plain that the public will'only get a fair view of the facts by extreme care on the part of the members of the board in doing .justice to both sides. In my opinion a grave injustice has unintentionally baen done both Mr Pryde and Mr Somerville by the speeches that have been delivered. By the position which the extreme sections of the board have taken up, both the board and Mr Somervillo and Mr Pryde have been placed in utterly false positiong. I have all along contended that the business of the inquiries was to find out how the alterations of the plan came about, and to what extent the various parties implicated were responsible; for quite certainly the board has to answer to the public for its share of the mismanagement, and each of the officers to the board. Instead of keepiDg to this broad quest, it has been contended that the quest of the board was, broadly put, to find oub the liar. Given the belief that yonr own particular man is incapable of falsehood, it. is not difficult to predict the conclusion. The net result of this petty view of the inquiry i 3 that different sections of the board brand one or other of tho officers as a liar. I can conceive of nothing more unjust than both the procedure and the result. Now, ju?t as a teacher's reputation is at the. mercy of his cammifctee so is the reputation of the board's officer* in the keeping of its members, and I conceive that it is the duty of both bodies to aßßume that its servants are at the outset speaking the truth, even although they oppose each other with contradictory statements. It is not the. first times that-condensed contradictory verbal statements have been found perfectly consistent with troth and fact, though prejudiced or shallow mindr. have declared one or other of the statements to be false. Let it also be remembered th&t the series of events on which the different witnesses have besu examined happened between two and three months ago, that neither of the parties has any documentary evidence, that Mr Somerville could noS giva the dato of the time when the various plans first and last were produced, and that the vftry plans in dispute are themselves effaced; let it be remembered, too, that the inquiry, itself was conducted iv a manner only too characteristic of the board—aach member asking all sorts of questions round the compass of the inquiry just as they occurred to him, — that Mr J^rjdb's own stp.tement, unlike Mr Somerville's, which was carefully written, was mixed up with his cross-examination of the various witnesses anil of his own examination, and you have all the circumstances and data for one-sided inferences and contradictory conclusions. And if yoa go in quest of a siar, why, I would uudertike to braud any of the parties or witnesses with that name. When esen the members of the board are appealed to as to their recollection they are just an contra* dictory. as Rome of the witnesses. Take this example :Mr Borne states that Mr Semerville was actually present when the members of tho board were discussing the faoade of the building, and Mr Borne declares, " X have a very clear and distinct recollection of asking you (Mr Socaerville) if you could put some of the othsr tops on this elevation, aud that you said there would be no difficulty." To that Mr Somerville says, " I have no recollection of it" (page 24). Mr Clark recollects Mr Somerville being present ; Mr MacGregor declares as distinctly he was not present; while i'or myself, I would not condemn «■ dog on my recollections of the occurrence. I recollect the diooussiofl, and that

I most of the members were on their feet towards ; the end of a meeting; yet, while members of the hoard are so uncertain aud contradictory m their own recollection, it is gravely sought to affix J;r.e stigma of liar on one or olher ot.the officers on evidence cot more csrtain. . Besides, ; none of the officers are beina; tried for a corrupt ! act In any act in the whole procedure connected with tbe erection of the buildings or : alteration of the plans neither of.the officers was guilty of a corrupt act in seeking either a personal benefit at the expense of the board or to damage the life or reputation of a human beinp Hencs there is uoc much temptation to falsehood on the part of anyone. Now, I defy any candid mind to affirm certainly that it is possible now to assert that this or that particular detailed account of the whole seriss of events is absolutely correot. But an account of the events may be gleaned by patient examination of all the evidence in which due value shall oe given to and account taken of all the witnesses, and all found to speak substantial truta. As far back as May last the board resolved to build on the section adjoining the Agricultural Hall, ami a general discussion took place zs to the nature of the building, and members who espraied any opinion at all spoke of the entrance as from Crawford street. Mr Piyde took pare in tho discussions, so that-ho knew ta» mind of the board was for a.Crawford street entrance. And even when the Finance Committee discussed the matter Messrs • Gsllaway and Borrie state :-'• We were-unanimous tea* the entranca should bs from Crawford strset (p 79) Mr Borrie then, before going home, went to the architect and asked him to prepare plans for the building to be submitted to the bsard, but did not say a word .as to tne entrance. ,' ' „ , The architect was left not only untrammelled bat even without suggestion (evidence p. 7b). Mr Pi-yde also communicatsd the resolution ot the board to the architect in the usual form, bat not a word was said as to the entrance. Mr Somerville then set to work to sketch a fewplans for presentation to the board. He started with the idea of an entrance from Je>-ty street, and with pencil made a. flight sketch showing a Jetty street entrance. Mr .Pryde. coming in to his office happened to notice that he was purposing to make the entrance from Jetty street, and at once said that the entrance was to be from Crawfo'd street—a most natural and not improper thing to do in view of the expressed mind of members of the board. What was actually said or how much was said it is impossible to say. The truth is Mr Piyde does not recollect anything about seeing aucfc a sketch, though Mr Somerville and also Mr Nichol are sure of it. Mr Pryde says he recollects convtrein" about a back entrance to Jetty street, whicQ°Mr Somerville abandoned. This sketch Mr Soniarville rubbsd out, ,and fised tfie entrance from Crawford street, crawmg ins new plan on the same paper. He drew three plans, which were submitted to tbe board in tee usual way., Mr Pryde said nothing about the Jetty street idsa.x. I don't suppose he^ave the point the least consideration. He knew the Crawford street entrance was the board's and his own, and I am certain' had Dot the least thought about either misleading thfi board or withholding any special idea of Mr SomernUe. Ha had assumed, and, indeed, the noard had assumed, the Crawford, street.entrance, and go had gons on. He had either ■ convinced or silenced Mr Somerville for the time, being, and Mr Somerville did npthing eitner to silencs Mr P^yde or to enlighten the board or any member of it as to Jetty street plan. One of tbe plans was agreed to aud signed by the chairman, but the board considered and approved only the elevation. Nothing, or nezt to nothing, was said as to the interior. 1 myself understood it would in due course be submitted to the board; but'it is,universally admitted that while the board room was to be a certain siza all the other arrangements were left to the officers to workj>at.- This is"as tar .back as June. 17. From that day till there happened to be a special meeting cf the board or-.Aupust 13 members'of the board knew nothing—till Mr Borrie made his discoveries, la order that the foundations might have time to set, these, I believe, were put in within a fortnight after he chairman signed the plan. Meanwhile" the officers when they gave the subject aDy consideration devoted it to the position and siza of the roams and other interior detail^ and while Mr Sorue:ville was endeavouring to satisfy everyone and at the same time make as good and as workable a plsa and building as he could, Mr Fraer happened to come into his office, and noticing the ground plan on the table began, as almost anyone would hava done, to give his own idea of the chief features. He referred especially to the draft that would be created ra the lobby. This outside opinion coinciding with his own, Mr Somerville began to/ hark back strongly to his original idea that if the entrance were from Jetty street he could make a ■ better ground plan. He could sec, however, that this meant a radical alteration in the elevation. Subsequently ho spoke of the plans to- Mr Melville with this idea in',,fcis. mind;' Mr Melville recollects the fact of conversation, but quite naturally cannot recall any details of it, as he took no great interest in the point. He made no mention of it to Mr Pryde as Mr Somerville thought. After that, and more distinctly, Mr Somerville spoke to Mr Park about it, probably indicating it by laying his pencil on his Crawford street plan, and expressing a wish to get Mr .Pfyde's opinion. Mr Park mentioned the point to Mr Pryde that Mr Somerville was proposing to ch&Bge the entrance to Crawford .street. Mr Pryde did not take up with it, thinking that tho board's approval foreclosed the opening up o. that point. On another oecaeion ,Mr Samerville renewed the subject to Mr Park, and more distinctly indicating his idea by-showing a pencil outline of the change. He accordingly went and asked Mr Pryde to some and sea it. Mr Pryde still expressed himself as opposed to the change, and fortified hi? opinion by quoting ! the fadt that the board had already sanctioned the Crawford street entrance. -Howevor, he came along with Mr Park and the three aiscus«ed the merits of the respective plans. "He Pryde and Mr Sommervjlle," cays Mr I Park "argued about the matter for a considerable time, and at the end Mr Somervillc's arguments seemed to overpower Mr Pryde'B— that is, as to the advantages that would be likely to accrue so far- ss the alterations were ! concerned. But there was no authority asked ior given in my bearing for the carrying out.of fee new plan. My impression now is that they both seemed to-be under the impression that they were at liberty to alter the plan if they i wer» mutual!v agreed about' it." Apparently, however, the obstacle in the way for getting Mr ( Pryde's agreement was the fact that the change iv the ground plan involved the radical change jin the front, and he appears to have said during the interview that though the details were left to them, the elevation was a fixed quantity : "This is the elevation signed by the chairman. That we must stick, to." In Mr i Somer ville's recollection he had nos yet made a separate sketch •oE the Jetty street plan ; but Mr Park's evidence, which is unimpeachable, and was evidently giveu with the determination not to bs unfair to or wound Mr Somerville, is quite e'ear and distinct on the point. And juat as I accept the positive statement of Mr Somerville and Mr Kichol as to the existence of the first Jetty street plan as against IMr Pryde's non-recollection of it, so I now accpt Mr Park's and Mr Pryde's positive statement as to the existence at this point of this I second Jetty street plan. As a result of this dis- ! cussiou Mr Somcrvilla completed the plans, showing the Jetty street entrance. .Subsequently, on July 10—the only date that can be fized. owing to a presentation having bsenmada to Mr Melville the day previous-there ira^s a frash discussion over the plans. As this was the day after the presentation, and as Mr Nichol ! says (p. 4-1) he saw the plan probably a day or ! two days before the presentation, it shows that I there was a little time between the converiz.----i tion of Mr Somerville with Mr Pryde and Mr ! Park and the discussion on the day the inspec- [ tors were brought in. The evidence quite clearly shows that both Mr Pryde and the inapeetors concerned themselves almost entirely with the interior arrangements. They knew that the new arrangement involved the change from Crawford street to Jfetty street, bat I believe it was all done provisionally and with the in tenI tion of getting the formal sanction of the board. '■ Erery one of the officers were acting bona fide with*the intention of doing the host for the building and the board. The result of this meeting was thai; Mr Pryde gave his approval to the final arrangement. The grave mistake was the failure to get the ratification of the board at its first meeting. Here I have given ' a fair 'account of the occurrences—with this result, that none of the parties are seen to be liars at all. Especially is it clear to my mind that, notwithstanding the attacks made ou him, !Mr Pryde has throughout told tbe truth and i been willing to take the blame for his share in i the events. Not only so, but throughout he ! has never charged Mr Somccville with false- | hood, but distinctly says that he believes Mr Somerville is speaking according to bin recollection. Mr Pryde denied Mr Somerville's first statements to the board that he had " instructed" or "ordered" Mr Somerville to make the alterations, but he was willing to take his share of the responsibility for the changes. Clearly tbe evidence tendered by Mr Somerville himself disproved the verbal accuracy of his statement iv his letter to the board, wherein he says: " I now repeat what I said in tho board room —that the secretary ordered the alterations." Because Mr Pryde denied this statement he is accused of falsehood. Any member of the board would equally have denied it. It would be equally unfair to accuse Mr Somerville of falsehood for having made it. Indeed it became clear, however, that to prove it in its verbal accuracy would have been to place him Ui the position of being williug knowingly to erocb defective buildings for the board but for Mr Pryde's "instructions." Heuce it had also to bo proved that it was owing to his own " persistency," and not to Mr Pryde's " orders " or "instructions," that the plans were changed. The two positions claimed for Mr Somerville were thus mutually destructive. •It ie surely wanting in common fairness that to save Mr Sumervilie'is professional reputation he should be credited with tb:« " nareisfceney " to have the

plans altersd, and at the same time to cave him from the blame of altering the plans without the sanction of the board, that the whole onus of that charge should be thrust on to Mr Pryde. To sum up, a great injustice has bsen done all concerned by the bitterness introduced into the inquiry by the attempt to find a liar when there was no offence worth lying about on either side. I believe everyone of the parties (Mr Somerville, and Mr Pryde, aud the witnesses). have told the truth to the'beat of their recollection. Quite obviously nothing caa clear either secretary or architect of blame in, their respective spheres ; but the blame in no respect touches the honour of either of them, "and the whole event is but the natural outcome of the present composition of the board, where thers are more critics than workers or administrator?. Though this is necessarily long, I believe you will consent to publish it in fairness to all concerned. I make no claim to be the champion oE either' pirty or tbe sole righteous judge on the board, but I think the majority of the bosrd will agree that I have stated the case as fairly as they would have it done. I hava had to write under pressure for time.—l am, fee, P. B. Fraseb. Lovell's Flat, September 4.