LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21063, 27 June 1930, Page 10

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

SPECIAL TRAIN TO CHRISTCHURCH. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As a prospective traveller in the above train to view the second football test I should like to endorse the remarks of “ Hopeful ” in yesterday morning’s issue. It seems to me to be farcical to have the train arrive here at 4 a.m. on Sunday morning in pitch darkness whereby, in postponing the departure from Christchurch for three ’hours, it would arrive at a decent hour in Dunedin. I am sure most people travelling would prefer to spend the evening in Christchurch instead of leaving at 8.15 p.m. Trusting the department will see its way clear to have the train leave at 11.15 p.m. or thereabouts.—l am, etc.. Another Traveller. [“Enthusiast” writes in a similiar strain. Reference to a paragraph which appears in our locals column will show that the department has changed the time of departure of the train from Christchurch to II p.m.— Ed. ’O.D.T.] FOOTPATH DANGERS. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, — On a subject recently dealt with in a letter signed “Ratepayer,” may I relate my experience? A few days ago I was paying a visit to an old friend. Just as I turned up Chambers street I was astounded to hear the ringing of a bicycle bell behind me. Naturally I took no notice and the bicycle passed on, ridden by a boy I should say about 12 years of age. I kept near to the fence, and otherwise might have suffered a penalty. Further on I was met by three boys on trolleys. I stood and asked them to get off the footpath. One said, “ You get off.” I was glad when I got to my destination without any hones broken. I told my friends and they were not surprised. I was horrified when they told me what they had to endure. When returning it was much worse, as there were a lot more boys’ trolleys set on the street. To come to the point, why are such dangerous practices allowed on the streets? I would very much like to have gone to the police station and reported the matter. Being a visitor I left it to the residents. Such a state of affairs would not be tolerated in any other district. I daresay the parents of those boys think they are quite within their rights. They should be better instructed by those in authority,—l am, etc.. Mother of Four ;Boys. OMAKAU OR OPHIR TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your issue of 20th inst. Mr Don appears again in tropical mood very hot and troubled. When he stated that two of the schools are as near to Ophir as to Omakau, he could only meanChatto Creek and Spottis Creek. Now Mr Don is trying to cover up his inaccuracy by dragging in Galloway. Galloway was never mentioned in the petition—and that Mr Don knows perfectly well. If there has beep street-corner talk about Galloway being included probably that is where Mr Don got it from. Mr Don, in a very evasive manner, tries to_ cover up his inaccuracies, but has failed badly. Take, for instance, the question of the relative heights of Roslyn, Dunedin, and the mountain between Ophir and Poolburn. ■ Mr Don excuses himself in his usual evasive manner by saying that “when you start from Ophir for Poolburn you do not start from sea level.” Altitudes aud climatic conditions don’t count with Mr Don when they don’t favour his ease. In the next paragraph he says: “It is altogether too funny to be accused of dense ignorance of land values because I perpetrated a little joke about the Omakau School site being probably buyable for a few ehillings, and then to be told quite solemnly that it is worth many pounds.” He can never cover up his inaccuracies with such cheap talk as that. Did not Mr Don assume great dignity of purpose and profound authority when writing of the birthright of the Ophir chidlren? Why, then, does he drop so suddenly from the sublime to the ridiculous? Probably in his imaginary flight he suddenly discovered he was without the wings of consistency, and down he came. Just let me point out the number of instances in which Mr Don has “ perpetrated little jokes ” regarding the proposed school. First of all, the cemetery-railway education reserve. Here he “perpetrates a little joke” all on his own, because it was never intended from the first to erect the school anywhere near this quarter. Rather an unusual place for anyone to select just for the sake of having a solo .joke! In the next instance he certainly was “perpetrating a little joke”—against himself—when he suggested dragging in Poolburn and Moa Creek because he never had, nor will he ever get. the approval of the people of thdse i districts to motor their children over this way. He even tried to “perpetrate a little joke” about the meeting held at Omakau, and when he got an. appropriate reply, he retorted, “ Oh that is silly.” And now he is “perpetrating another little joke,” by trying to drag Galloway into the picture. At the householders’ meeting at Ophir. he “ perpetrated a little joke,” by landing at the bottom of the poll. Probably he wag "perpetrating a little joke” when he r said Ophir was more suitable residenthan Omakau., Evidently he was, because he can not' give an reasonable explanation concerning that statement. Surely he was “ perpetrating a little joke” when he tried to delude people into the belief that there ia no difference in the altitudes and climatic conditions of Roslyn, and the mountain between Ophir and Poolburn. Was Mr Don only “ perpetrating a little joke ” when he laid a charge against the Ophir School Committee concerning their annual balance sheet? In your issue of the 21et inst. two members of that committee inform us of the startling fact that “ Mr Don was so satisfied with the auditor’s letter concerning the balance sheet,” that he. Mr Don, actually proposed the adoption of it. With that fact before us I am more convinced than ever of Mr Don’s inconsistency. Now that he has admitted that he was only “ perpetrating little jokes,” what is his real position? As far as the controversy is concerned Mr Don is completely gone to i the pack, and I shall always regard him as the joker of jokers. But before he is packed up I wish to ask him —for the third time —please to explain why he contends that “ Ophir is more suitable residentiary than Omakau”! — I am, etc., T. Read. Omakau, June 24. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— The secretary aud chairman of the 1929 committee of Blacks School appear again in your issue of 21st inst. I am again dealing with them together, for they are practically one—the same petty personalities, the same irrelevancies, the same accusations, the same mental turbidity pervading both. The main question in this correspondence is the location of the proposed central school—at Ophir, or at Omakau. But such a mass of statements and counterstatements has been produced that the main issue is being _ supplanted, so that a recapitulation is necessary. Mr M’Knight aud I -first pointed out to the Education Board that the claims of Ophir were being overlooked. Then I stated that the local School Committee, in agreeing so readily to the proposal ,to locate the central school at Omakau, had very thoughtlessly disposed of the birthright of about 40 Ophir children. Your correspondents repudiated the imputation c£ thoughtlessness, an accused me of “many inaccuracies.” My reply put the boots upon the other feet as far as inaccuracies were concerned, and, to confirm ray assertion that the committee had acted very thoughtlessly, I referred to the committee’s negligence regarding an annua! report and balance sheet—convicting the secretary with his own pen. That is the principal thread of discussion so far. And now, because your correspondents chose to interpret that “birthright” of the children as “ their educational birthright " (which no one will gainsay); and because , in their letters on June 12, they had used about one-tenth of their apace in asserting that some of the children during recent years had been deprived of their educational birthright; and, further, because I did not at once say Yea or Nay to that assertion, they call it the “ main statement," and accuse me of “ side-stepping ” aud “ wandering away on side-tracks.” During the Great War it was reported that the Germans, when they first used poison gas, justified themselves by saying that the Allies had already used it. In similar fashion, I have been accused of inaccuracies and side-stepping, aud if this controversy should continue long enough, a. multitude of misdemeanours may be laid to my charge.

Well, I shall answer the question. Undoubtedly, a good educatftn is a birthright of all normal children. I also agree with your correspondents that, for some tune past, “for various reasons, which have no bearing at all on the present question " (as the secretary wrote on June 12) some of the local children were in danger of being deprived of that birthright. But what then? Why close the school on that account? If the secretary and chairman owned shares in a good business in charge of a manager .who, “for various reasons,” was unsuccessful, would they shut up the shop? That would surely show their mental turbidity —to use a mild term. Yet they declare that they acted “thoughtfully and wisely” in agreeing to the proposal to close the Ophir School! What a prodigious declaration! Add to this their assertion now that it,is “the Education Board's proposal to build a central school at Omakau. That will be news to the board. They rally me about “ twisting roads,” and then go one better by twisting facts. To return to things undone at the annual meeting. In their -latest letters they assert that they knew all about their duty in the matter, of an annual report, but did not do their duty because (they say) previous committees had not done it! What an admirable line of inaction! Previous committees set a bad precedent: let us not set a good one. Said the pot to the, kettle, “You are black, so am I; isn’t it fine to be black? ” They proclaim that “ even committees possess a birthright.” Certainly; so also do householders. And what an engaging picture they paint of that very interesting householders’ meeting—with the secretarv robed in honour “ at the top of the poll,” and poor Mr Don in degradation “at the bottom.” A good thing, too, both for them and him. Otherwise, what delightful monthly meetings we should be having this year! I am asked to explain why the three members of the 1929 committee who stood again were re-elected “by such an overwhelming majority of votes from the 18 Ophir and 13 Omakau householders present.” The people of Ophir and Omakau know why, and the chairman and secretary know better than I do. So let them tell you for the information of any others interested. I had intended saying more about the Ophir School ground—the splendid offer of. another five acres from Mr Stafford, ana the unfairness of the chairman in taking that “25 feet ” out of its setting. But I have said enough, and perhaps too much. Only let me add that the football field with a grassy surface,” of which he is thinking, is one which lies unused for hair the year. If 100 or more healthy girls and boys play hockey, basket ball, and football five days a week they will soon turn the surface of that “ glorious sunny site ” at Omakau into bare clay, with probable need of gravel to fill the mud-holes. There is a lot of padding in the letters— Mr Don this and Mr Don that, about the rankling in, my breast, deprivation or sleep, hardening of heart, “bringing unwilling children over impassable mountain barriers, ’ and so forth. Personally, X am prepared to stand all that the secretary and chairman can evolve, in the interests of Ophir (and of Omakau) with absolutely no axe to grind. But all this correspondence will not make an iota of dilrerence to the Education Board’s choice, and, unless, these or other correspondents continue using unfair tactics, 1 intend having a spell.—l am, etc., Ophir, June 25. tp tThia correspondence i 8 now closed.— Ed. O.D.T.]