REV. P. B. FRASER ON THE INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2273, 23 September 1897, Page 21

REV. P. B. FRASER ON THE INQUIRY.

We have been asked to reproduce from the " Daily Times the followiag extracts from * .iletter by the Rev. P. B. Fraeer, which attracted ■ considerable attention : — • ' The . whole case began (on August 13) by the chairman informing the board of his discovery of the' changes . in th« .plan of the building. The architect wa*,at once called in amTasked how the ■alterations occurred, and he said that he had -carried them out under instructions from the secretary. Thi-j the secretary denied. Ai.nothing could be done at the special meeting, in«»b»rs of the board'agreed to leave the matter till the nexb ordinary meeting, on the following neakt At this meeting th«i '-matter was introduced fomnlly to - the notice ef -the board by the chairman reading a letter from Mr Somerville, in which he asked for an inquiry, and said : " I now repeat what I said in the board room, that the secretary ordered . the alterations." A special meeting of the board •was therefore called to consider the whole . matter. At this meeting Mr Someririllc was per- , mitted-to open his case by reading a document iv (■•which he reasserted his etatemant, and made ; fresh allegations against the secretary. It i* fair

'• to • say that this gave Mr Somerville every , advantage. Obviously it; placed Mr Vryde at a i disadvantage, for he was called on to face not only j the board's inquiry into his share of the r*spon*iJ bilUy, but aUo, without notice, an attack from the \ architect as well. The whole evidence taken covers •" 83 pagf s of type-written foolscap, and would t occupy probably 20 columns of a uewspjpsr. It f is therefore plain that the public will ouly get a , fair view of the facts by extreme care on the part ! of the members of the board in doing justice to j 'both sides. In my opinion a grave injustice has j unintentionally be«* done both Mr Prrde and i 3Vlr Somerville by the speeches that have been d«- j livsred. By the position which, the extreme j nectioMs of the board have taken up bobh the j board and Mr Somerville and Mr Pryda have been placed in utterly f*lt>e positions. I have all along contended that the business of the inquiry ' was to find out how the alterations of the plan came about, . and to what extent the various parties implicated are responsible ; for quite c«rzainly the board has to answer to the public for its share of the mismanagement, and each of the officers to the board. Instead of keeping to this broad quest, it has been contended that the quest of the board was, broadly put, to find out the liar. <- Given the belief that your own particular man is incapable of falsehood, it is not difficult to predict ■ the'conplusioß. The net result of this petty view of the inquiry is that different sections of the board brand one or other of the officers asa Ha". I can conceive of nothing more unjust than both •she' procedure and the result. Now, just as a Teacher's reputation if? at the mercy of his committee, so is the reputation of the board's officers j in the keeping of its members, and I conceive .that it is the duty of both bodies to assume that I its servants ara at the outset t-penking the truth, oven although they oppose each otliei with contratiictory statements. Ithnotthe first time th*tcoaoeiised contradictory verb-tl statements have beea foutod perfectly consistent with 'truth and fact, though prejudiced or shallow minds have declared on« or other of the statements to be false. Let it also be remembered that the series of events on which the different witnesses ihfive been cxamiued happened between two and "cni'ee months ago, that neither of the piu'ties has any documentary evidence, that Mr Somerville could not give the date of the time when the various plans first and last were produced, and that the very plans in dispute are themyelveo j effaced. Let it be remembered/ too, that the ' inquiry itself was conducted in n mtunev only too i characteristic of the board— each member a»king all sorts of questions round the ompass of the ; inquiry, just as they occurred to him— that -Mr Pryde'« own statement, unlike Mr Somorville's, •which was carefully written, was mixed up with bis cross-examination of the various wit.n«s«es and •with his own examination, and y«n have all the circumstances and data for one-tideil inferences and contradictory conclusion!. And if you go in quest of a liar — why, I would undertake to brand »ny of the parties or witneises with tkat'name. When even the members of the board are appealed to as to their recollection they are just as contradictory as some of the witnesses. Take thii example : Mr Borne states that Mr Struarville was actually present when the member* of th» -■board were, discussing the f»S»de of the building, and Mr '.Borrie declares, "i hare a very clsar and distinct rocollection of auking y*u (Mr Somerviile) if you could put some of the other toj»» on this elevation, and that you said there would b* -no difficulty." To that Mr Somerrille *»y*. " I have ne recollection of it " (page 24). Mr Clark recollects Mr Somemlle being pre««»t ; Mr Mac-■Gregox-declares; as distinctly he was not present ; 'while'for myself, I would. not condemn a dog on my" recollections of the- occurreno*. I recollect the discussion, and that most of tlie in»mb»rs "were da their f^et towards .the end of a meeting ; yet, while member? of the board are so uncertain and contradictory in their own recollection, it is •gravely thought to affix the stigma of liav on ODe or other of the^officers on evidence not more certain. Besides, none of the officers lire being tried for a corrupt act. In any act in the wh«le proce--dure connected with the election 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 being. Hence there is not much temptation to falsehood on the part of anyone. Now, I defy .ivy candid mind to affirm certainly that it is possible now te assert that this or that particular detailed account of the whole series of events is absolutely correct. But an account of- the events may be gleaned by patient examination of all the evidence in which due value ihall be given to and account taken of all the witnesses; anH all found to speak substantial truth. As far back as May last the board resolved to build on the section adjoining the Agricultural Hall, and. a general discussion took place as to the nature of the building-, and members who expressed any opinion at all spoke of the entrance as from Crawford street. Mr Pryde took part in the discussions, so th«t he knew the mind of the board was for a Crawford street entrance. 'And even when the Finance Committee discussed the matter !Mes3rs Gallaway and Borrie state — " We were unanimous that the entrance should be from Crawford street " (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 board, but did not say a word as to the entrance. The architect was left not only untrammelled but even without suggestion (evi- • dence p. 76). Mr Pryde also communicated the resolution of the board to the architect in the 'usual. form, but not a word was said as to the entrance., Mr Somerville then set to work to sketch* a few plans for presentation to the board. He started with the idea of an entrance from Jetty street, and with pencil made a slight sketch snowing a Jetty street, entrance. Mr Pryde coming in to his office happened to notice that he vrat purposing to make the entrance from Jetty street, and at once said that the entrance was to be. froraXJrawford 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 impoHBible to say. The truth is Mr Pryde does not recollect anything about seeing such a sketch, though Mr Somerville and also Mr Nichol are sure

of it. Mr Pryde says he recollects conversing about a back entrance to» Jetty street, which Mr Somerville abandoned. This sketch Mr Somerville rubbed out, and fixed the entrance from Crawford street, drawing his new plan on the same paper. He drew three plans, which were submitted to the board in the usual way. Mr Pryde said nothing about the Jetty street idea. I don't suppose he gave the point the least consideration. He knew the Crawford street entrance was the board's and his own, and I am certain had not the least thought either about misleading the board or withholding any special idea of Mr Somerville. He had assumed, aud t indeed, the board had assumed, the Cravr ford street entrance, and so had gone on. He had either convinced or silenced Mr Somerville for the time being, and Mr S»mei-TiHe did nothing either to silence Mr Pryda or to enlighten the board or any member af it as to Jetty street plan. One of the plans was agreed to and signed by the chairman, but the board considered and approved only the elevation. Nothing, or next to nothing, was said as to the interior. I myaelf understood it would indue course be submitted to the hoard ; but it is universally admit cd that while the board room was to be a certain size, all the other arrangements were left to tha officers to work out. This is as far back as June 17. From that day till there happened to be a special meeting of the board on August 13 members of the board knew nothingtill Mr Borrie made hia discoveries. In order that tha foundations might have time to tet, these. I ""belier*, wercput in within a fortnight after the chairman lignod the plan. Meanwhile the officers when they gave the- subject any consideration dov«ted it to the position and siz3 of the rooms and other interior details, and while Mr Somcrvill« wa« endeayouring.tp satisfy everyone and at the game time make its' good and as workable a plan 1 and building as he could, Mr Fraer happeu«d to come into ' his office, and noticing the ground plan on the table begaa, as almost anyone would hava done, to give nis own idea of the chief features. Me referred especially to the draught that would be era \tcd ia the lob by. T is outnide opinion coinciding with his own, Mr Somerville b^gan to hark back strongly to his original idea that if the entrance were from Jetty ! street he could make a better ground plan. Me could ccc, however, th-ifc this mean!, a radical alteration in the elevation. Subsequently he spoke of the plans to Mr Melvilie with this idea in his mimd. Mr Melville recollects the fact of conversation, but quite naturally cannot recall any details of if, as he took no great interest in the point. He made no mention of 'it to Mr Pryde es Mr Somerville thought. After that, and more distinctly, Mr Somerville spoke to Mr Park about ifc, probably indicating it by laying his pencil on his Crawford street plan, and expressing a wish to get Mr Pryde's opinion. Mr Park mentioned the point to Mr Pryde that Mr Someiville was proposing to change the entrance to Jetty street. Mr Pryde did not take up with it. thinking that the board's approval foreclosed th« opening up of that point. On another occasion Mr Somerville renewed the subject to Mr Park, and more distinctly indicated his«idea by showing a pencil outline of the change. He accordingly went and asked Mr Pryde to cine and see it. Mr I'ryde Btill expressed himself as opp«s«d to the change, and fortified bis opinion by quoting the fact that the board had already sanctioned the Cra* ford street entrance. How-eyt-r, he came along with Mr Park, and the three discussed the merits of the respective plan 6. "Mr Pryde and Mr fc'omerville," saya Mr P.irk, " argued about the mattev for a considerable time, and at the end Mr Som«rvilic's argumeuts seemed to overpower Mr Pryde's— that is, as to the advantages that would be likely to ticcrue so for as the alterations were concerned. But there was no authority asked or given in my hearing for the carryisg out of the new plan. My impression no\v is that theybo'-h seemed to be under tke impression that they were at liberi^y to alter the plan if they were mutually agreed about it." Apparently, however, the obstacle in the way of getting Mr Pryde's agreement was the fact that the change- in the ground plan iuvelved the radical change in the front, and he appears to hay« saM during the interview that though the details were lefc to them, the elevation was a fixed quantity : "This is the elevation signed by the chairman. That we must stick to." Iv Mr Somtrville'B recollection he had not yet mode a separate bkfctch of the Jetty street plan; but Mr Park's evidence, which is unimpeachable, and which was evidently given with the determination not to be unfair to or wound Mr Somerville, is quite clear and distinct on tlw paint. And just as I accept the positive statement of Mr Somerville and Mr Nichol as to the existence of the first Jetty street plan as against Mr Piyde's non-rec«»llecU«n of it, so I now accept Mr Park's and Mr Pryde's positive statement us to the existence at tbis point of the second Jetty street plan. As a, result of Ihis discussion Mr Somerville completed the plans, showing tha Jetty street entrance. Subsequently, on July 10— the only date that can be fixed, owing to a presentation having bee* made te Mr Melvilie the day previous — there was a f re»h discussion over the plans. As this was the day after the p esentation, and as Mr Nichol B»ys (p. 41) he (<aw the plan probably a day or two days before the presentation, it shows that there wa* a little time between the conversation of Mr Somerville ktHli Mr Pryde and Mr Park and the discunion •» the day the inspectors were brought i». The e»ide»ce quite clearly shows that both Mr I'ryde a«d the inspectots concerned themaelves alme«t emtir«ly with the interior arrangement?. They knew that the new arratig<;nieut involved the chavxc frem Crawford street to Jetty street, but I believe it was all done provisionally and witk tkc intention ef getting the formal sanction ; of the board. Kvery one of the officers was acting | baiiuflde with the iateutionof doin;; the bestforthe building and the board. The result of thi« meeting was that Mr Pryde gave his approval to the final arrangement. The grave mistake was the failure t« get the ratification of the board at its first masting. H«re I have given a fjiir 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 oa him, Mr Pryde has throughout told the truth and been willing to take the blame for his share iv the events. Not only so, but throughout he has n«ver charged Mr Somerville with f alsekeod, but distinctly says that he believes Mr Somerville is speaking according to his recollection. Mr Pryde denied Mr Somerville's first statements to the board that be bad " instructed " or "ordered" Mr Somerville to make the alterations, but he was willing to take his share of the re*ponsibility for the changes. Clearly the evidence tendered by Mr Sjmerville himself disproved the verbal accuracy of his statement in his letter to ihe board, wherein he says : "I now repeat what 1 said in the board room— that the Fe-;retary ordered the alterations." Because Mr Pryde denied this statement he is accused of falsehood. Any member of the bowl would equally have denied it. It would be equally unfair to accuse Mr Somerville of falsehood for having made it. , Indeed it became clear that to prove it in its verbal accuracy would have been to place him in the position of being willing knowingly to erect defective buildings for the board but for Mr Pryde's " instructions." Hence it had a'so to be proved that it wa=i owing to his own "persistency," and not to Mr Pryde's "orders" or "instruction?," that the plans*were changed. The two positions claimed for Mr Somerville are thuß mutually destructive. It is surely wanting in common fairness that to save Mr Somerville's professional reputation he should be credited with this " persistency" to have the plans altered, and at the same time to save him from the blame of altering the plans without the sanction of the board that the whole onus of that change should be thrust on to Mr Piyde. .To sum up, a great injustice has been 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 or- either side. I believe every one of the parties (Mr Somerville, and Mr Pryde, and tha witnesses) have told the truth to the best of their recollection. Quite obviously nothing can 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 there are more critics than workers or administrators.

_ Mr O. R. Chapman has been appointed president of. the Liberty League, vice the late Dr Jeffcoat, and Me A. Gillies has become vicepresident