A SLUR REMOVED.

Otago Witness, Issue 2152, 23 May 1895, Page 17

A SLUR REMOVED.

"THE INNOCENTLY-WORDED MOTION." At a meeting of the Education Board on Thursday night, a discussion took place upon < the proposal to rescind the following resolution, which, in connection with the Waiareha case, was carried at the March meutiug of the board :—": — " That in view of the announcement of Mr Eraser's early retirement from the board's service the board see no reason now for acting on the request of the Waiareka Committee." Before the discussion was commenced the following letter was read :—: — The Manse, Dunback, 15th May 1895. The Chairman Otago Education Board. Sir, — I wrote the board on the 16th of last month regarding a resolution passed by it, to the effect that as I was leaving the service the board did not now see any reason to act on the Waiareka Committee's request for my removal. Of my letter I h-we not received the barest acknowledgment, and did I not see it published amongst the board's correspondence, I should suspect that it had been altogether lost. I, therefore, am compelled to return to the subject, to emphasise the. facts and argument of that letter, and to press as respectfully us I can for an acknowledgment of its receipt. The board passed that resolution six months after date of the request, on my pressing it to proceed with an inquiry instituted by itself, not certainly for my advantage. The resolution, besides, was passed in response to the roquest of a committee dead and discredited months before. The request, I have before said, w<ts a secret request, made without tho authority of the district; and the committee making it was, as the result of a special election, defeated and discredited, not having, even before the late inquiry, a solitary supporter in the district. Yet in tho face of these facts known to the board it patsed the resolution referred to, and so made it read as if the present Waiaroka Committee were responsible for tho request. So fir from that being the fact, tho Waiareka Committee (which was at the anuual meeting unanimously re-elected en bloc) were, and are, totally opposed to the whole action both of the late committee and the board. When they came into office tbey did not pass any resolution, because they deemed the question sub judice. The board, they knew, had appointed a committee to visit Waiareka to inquiro, and they and I were abiding that inquiry with equanimity. We were in no hurry, the future was on our side, and the committee, therefore, did not need to pns< any hurried resolution whitewashing me. "He that believeth shall not make haste is Round widom and good Scripture. When I presed for tho inquiry the board, however, seemed to become impatient and hurriedly passed the resolution referred to, prejudicing the whole case the board , had originally appointed its committee to inquire Into. For the inquiry was of tb.n widest nature to begin with, though at the eleventh hour it was limited down, much to my disadvantage and to the advantage of those who began the trouble, to the chargesasainstMrGoyeii. Yetevenasit was, I was able to Bhow that the request for my removal did not originate with the people in ray district, and was never countenmced by them, save by Mr Goyen's witnesses who made the request. In the face of this, I have seen a letter in the Daily Times, signed by Mr Cohen, the mover of the resolution, in which he made it appear that the support of the present committee is only of a negative kind— ihat they did not follow up the hostile committee's action. But why did the committee of the board and Mr Cohen at the inquiry do everything they could to prevent my showing tho hollownesß of the pretence of the late committee? It was only with difficulty that I was allowed to prove, on the testimony of their own chairman, that they had sent a deliberate falsehood to the board. Moreover, I notice in the Star's ieporfc of the inquiry one of Mv Goyen's witnesses says tha'. there was dissatisfaction with me in the district for the past five years. Yet, strange to say, the Star does not add what the witness said (as repotted in the Oauiavu Mail), that there was nothing in the committee's minutes to justify the statement. On the contiary, the committee's minut-'S a.n;J anuual reports give the lie direct to the allegatiou, and show that during that period frequent and high satisfaction was expressed regarding tho work of the school. I now submit that the board cannot in honour to itself or justice to the teachers of Otago keep the resolution referred to on its minutes. I appeal from the board ill-informed to the board now well-informed. I ask the board either to grant an inquiry into the actions of the late committee or to remove the minute from its books. The resolution offers a premium to iniquity, jeopardises the honour of all the teachers in its service, and is an affront to every school committee in Otago, for the board has entirely ignored the true representatives of the Waiareka diatiict, the present committee. Its resolution was passed at the bidding of discredited individuals, and was not even Bent to the present committee. I challenge the board to take the opinion of that committee on its resolution, or else to rescind it. la conclusion, I have only to say that my request for the inquiry into the charges against the inspector was undoubtedly the occasion, if not the cause, of the resolution. I have never sought favour from the board or attempted to prejudice any of its members. I have asked only for even-handed justice, fair and square and aboveboard. I have not seen any letters from the inspector demanding the same. But I do hear of nis going about amongst schools he is inspecting with a pitiful story, playing the lamb where he formerly played the lion. I leave honourable men, who are just before they are generous, to judge between us,— And remain, Sir, your obedient se.vant, P. B. Phaser. i Mr MacGreoor, in moving that the resolution be rescinded, said he did so on two grouuds —first, that he was convinced that the resolution did not correctly represent the resolution of the board, the resolution recorded being, in point of fact, not the resolution passed ; and secondly, that, whether that was so or not, the resolution was on its face uujußt. The motion, which was written out and moved by Mr Cohen, was, in its original form : " That in view of Mr Fraser's early retirement from the board's service, the board see no reason whatever for actk'g on the requeßt of tlie Wniareka committee." As they knew, the request of the committee was not that the board should hold an inquiry as to whether it was not necessary or desirable to remove the teacher, but the request was, in so many words, to remove him. When the motion was first read Mr Ramsay, who was then a member of the board," expressed astonishment and indignation at such a motion being proposed, arguing that it was really condemuing Mr Fr&eer in that it amounted to saying to the committee that were it not that Mr Fraser was about to retire from the service the board would be prepared to grant the request. About two or three months, before, the board had had an almost exactly similar application from the Kaitangata committee for the removal of Mr Nicholson and, addressing himself especially to Mr Clark, who moved the resolution in Mr Nicholson's case, the speaker contended that it was the board's duty, if it dealt with this ca3e, to pass a similar resolution in .the Waiareka case. If he remembered rightly the wording of the Kaitangata resolution was, that " there was no justification for the action of the committee." At that Btage some member —Mr M'Kerrow, he thought— objected somewhat to the use of so sweeping an expression as that " there was no justification," and suggested it might meet the case if the board said there waa bo ground for complying with the request of the committee. The speaker immediately agreed to that, and Mr Ramsay also agreed to

to it. One thing that was absolutely certain was that that was the resolution ho agreed to, and that also, he was quite sure, was the resolution agreed to by Mr Ramsay. Now, the motion that was aolually carried, whatever it was, was carried without dissent or objection from Mr Ramsay or himself, and the reason obviously was that they believed that the resolution that was being carried was to the effect that there was no ground for complying with the rcqueßt of the committee ; and it was not until a few days after that he discovered for the first time that the resolution papssd by the board was the one originally written out by Mr Cohen. That resolution to his mind was UDJust. The duty of the board was either to hold an inquiry into the case: or to say there was no ground for it, and it was its duty to pass a similar resolution to that passed in the Kaitangata case unless there was some good reason for making a difference. There was, however, no good reason for making a difference, because he had no hesitation in saying Mr Fraser's record was very I very much better than Mr Nicholson's, and he did not think the board professed to have any reason for making a difference. The fact was, he believed, that the board as a whole agreed to the resolution that there was no ground for taking action. That would have been fair and just and in accordance with the course pursued in the Kaitangata case, but he could not help thinking that the resolution as it stood was unjust, and naturally bore tho construction which Me Ramsay and he took of it, and which struck Mr Frasor, tho teaoher, co forcibly. Mr Greek seconded the motion. He had no doubt whatever that Mr MacGrogor really had not thought he was voting for the motion he sought to rescind, but some other motion containing the words which he had used that night. There was, however, evidently a mistake on the part of himself and Mr Ramsay. He (Mr Green) felt at the time he was submitting the motion, before he declared the second time that it was carried, that both of those gentlemen had resolved upon some other course, or else that they had not noticed the motion that was submitted. Of course Mr MacGregor waa entirely wrong in saying that the motion appearing on the minute book was not the motion that was carried by the board, because he (Mr Green) was in the chair, and the motion was handed to him by Mr Cohen, and was read out by him. Mr MacGregor was quite right, however, in saying that Mr Ramsay took very stroDg exception to it at the outset. He did not know that any good purpose could ba served by loaving the resolution on the minutes, but he certainly could not take the view of it that Mr MacGregor did— that any such constructicu could be put upon it as he put upon it. Mr Cohen said he had been attacked not only in the correspondence columns, but also in the leading columns of a newspaper over this matter, and as there had, by inference, been a direct charge against him of having bubstituted and surreptitiously carried a resolution in place of one the board considered and passed, he felt it incumbent upon him to take a little more notice of this matter than he would otherwise have done. As to tho Daily Times article in reference to the board, it was wholly fallacious lo say that the board prejudged the case they were trying. The article assumed "that the school committee's request for the removal of the teacher arose from the fact that the board Bent lo the committee a report which, judging by the recent recommendations of the inspectors on the subject of inspectors' visits (as distinguished from examination reports), should not have been sent. It is difficult to exclude a suspicion that the committee had received from some member of the board a hint lo ask for the report, and that the prime movers in the affair were actuated by political feeling, arising from the fact that the teacher had — foolishly, we think — stood at the last general election a? a candidate for Parliament." Now in regard to those matters let him say that not one of them wai present to his mind when he moved the motion. Tlie request of tho school committee cama before the board in the ordinary course, and was considered iv the ordinary course, and whether he was right or wrong in the conclusion he then arrived at he said that whenever a achool committee for reasons that appealed to his judgment as being good and sufficient, called for a surprise visit in order to enable them to determine whether the school did good work, he should support the report on that visit going down to the committee. It was absurd to say, as the article did, that on this particular case the board for the first time took a new departure. The board did nothing of the kind. He remembered being a member of a school committee and the committee knew that the Bchool was going to the bad, and they felt it their duty to ask tho board to send an inspector to make a report. That was in the Union street School ; and the outcome of the committee's applicnt : on was that they removed the cause of the disaffection and the school had progressed ever since. The same thing was done in the case of the Northeast Valley School Committee, ao that there was a precedent for the course that the report on a surprise visit should be sent down to the committee. If, however, there was not, he maintained that a committee, bting responsible for the working of a school in their dietcict, were entitled to know what judgment the inspecbor pronounced upon the school, and what were the grounds upon which he based that judgment. As to the imputation of the Times that the reason the report waa sent to the committee was that Mr Fraaer, in taking an active part in politics had given some offence to members of the board, he (Mr Cohen) could not for the life of him think why such a representation should be made except designedly with the view of belittling the board in the eyes of their fellow colonists. Then, as to the comparison instituted between the action of the board in this matter and ia I the matter of the Kaitangata School Committee, members of the board would acquit him at once of any complicity in regard to the latter matter, as he was iv Australia at the time it was dealt with, and had no knowledge whatever of the reasons which actuated the board in deciding as they did decide in relation to the Kaitangata committeo. He, however, had a distinct recollection that when the board were discussing the matter of the Waiareka School report, it was Mr Fraaer who drew up the resolution, and Mr M'Kerrow challenged tbe use of the word " justification." At that state he (Mr Cohen) appealed to Mr Clark to know what had been done in the Kaitangata matter ; and then it was that he learnt for the first time that the board in considering that case had before it three facts— that Mr_ Nicholson's reports had been between certain dates improving ; that there was a division of opinion among the committee as to whether the action was right and proper; and that there was a strong protect by the chairman of the committee against any such aotion being taken by the board. In the Waiareka case the board had a unanimous application from the school committee that there should be a change of te idler. Furthermore, the report of last yew was not regarded as satisfactory by the committee, and tjhey reaigned because the board would not give ear to their request. It was notorious, that the board in yean past h*d bad

the state of this school brought under theif notice ; but it had improved considerably siaoe their attention was first called to it. If, however, the board were able to prove all the allegations which caused the committee to come to the determination they did, he would not be inclined to say that it was a ground for dismiss* ing a man from his employment, although it might be a ground for transferring him to a place which he might find more congeuial. He wished this matter.inquired into as if there had never been a conflict between Mr Fraser and his committee, and he said that the board ought to get this question closid as soon as possible, and proceed untrammelled to the inquiry. He moved the resolution in the form it was moved. It wa3 passed by him to the chjirman and read by the chairman. Mr Green: I resd it, because I have a distinct recollection of calling on Mr Ramsay to resume his seat until I read it. I could, not cay whether I re-read it after it was handed back to me. Mr Cohen (continuing) said what he affirmed without fear of contradiction waa that the resolution wa9 altered by him in full sight of the board and handed to the chairman in the condition in which it now was, and was sever touched from that hour to this. Let him say what his object was in altering it. He considered that the school committee had resigned and that the board had official knowledge that Mr Fraser himself was severing his connecbiou with the board, and he thought there was no earthly reason to keep this matter alive, and if there had not been an attempt to carry a resolution on all-fours with the Kaitangata resolution that would have been the determination corns to ; but since Mr Ramsay took up the attitude he did on the question, he (Mr Cohen) receded from his position and said he would have nothing to do with Mr Fraser's resolution but would stand by his own, and he marked the word stet then and there to the first clause of the resolution. That was the form in which it was carried and affirmed in open board afterwards. The resolution was never altered by him in one single particular after he handed it to the chairman the second time. The object ho had was merely to ckse the question, which he thought ehuuld not hamper the procecdirgs of the committee of iuquiry which he f"lfc sure would take place notwithstanding the apparent desire not to proceed with it. He thought tho inquiry should have t&ken place long before, when there was more chance of the actual facts being got at and when the whole series of incidents were fresher in the minds of the parties. Throughout the whole of this controversy there had been an intense suspicion on Mr Frascr'a part that every effort of the board and their officials had been directed to do him an injury, and he said the resolution had been framed with the express purpose of closiog his mouth. The resolution was proposed with the bae>t intention in the world, and whether it appeared upon the minutes of the board or not he had not the alightf st feeling ono way or the other. Mr Boiirie traversed the statement contained in Mr Fraser's letter, read that evening, that the committee who made the request were defeated and discredited in the district, saying that not one of the late committee went near the meeting for the special election, or even »fc the annual meeting, so that it was impossible that they could have been defeated. Mr MacGhegor said the fact was that there was on the board's records a resolution which, to his mind, conveyed a meaning that was not intended by the board. In the event of Mr Fraser at some other time seekiDg to enter the service of that or any other board he would have no hesitation in sajing that that resolution, if it were turned up, would convey a meaning highly detrimental to Mr Fraser. Mr M'Kerrow said he could not see it. Mr Boiirie could not put on the resolution the construction Mr MacGregor put on it. Mr MacGregor : That construction struck Mr Ramsay aud myself when the resolution was proposed. Mr Green remarked that both Mr MaoGregor and Mr Ramsay asserted that. Mr MacGreqor : Unless I am a great blockhead that shows that the resolution must be susceptiblo to that construction. Mr Cohen said if Mr MacGregor put his motion in the form that the resolution should be rescinded because it was susceptible of a construction that was highly prejudicial to Mr Fraser, when such was not the intention of the board iv adopting it, he was prepared to support the motion. Mr MacGregor accepted the suggestion, and amended the motion to read : " That the resolution be rescinded, on the ground that it is capable of a meaning which is highly prejudicial to Mr Fraser, and which the board did nob intend." The motion as amended was carried without dissent, and it was agreed that a copy of it b% sent to Mr Fra3er.