True or False? TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2323, 8 September 1898, Page 47

True or False? TO THE EDITOR.

| Sib,— -The letter of the Eev. P. B. Fra=pr on my action as a member of the Education Board in connection with Lhe "Waipori case is a remarkable illustration of the perverted i ingenuity and disingenuousness for which j that reverend person is distinguished amongst | these who k»;ow him. I considered it unI necessary to reply to Mr Eraser at the ineetj ing, as Dr Brown's statement to the effect i that T had opposed the action of the majority of the board in the Waipori case at every stage seeaied to mo a complete answer. But Sir Eraser's conscience must have troubled him, and hence bis letter. I must now ask you to allow mo to state the faces in orclc that your readers may judge between us. At last meeting of the board Mi Fraser, in the course of one of the se long-winded and egotistical orations which he is so fond of inflicting upon the board and the public, dc r-lared that a resolution passed at the June meeting had been carried unanimou?ly. I instantly challenged the correctness) o'C tho statement, and the chairman, Mr Harraway, and Mr Gallaivay confirmed my tccoimi, of the matter, the chairman explaining that Messrs MacGregor, Harraway, and Gallaway had voted against the motion. Mr Fraser then appealed to the miniites, and when it was found that they did not bear out Mr Eraser's assertion I called upon him to withdraw it, but he refused. Now, Mr Fraser's statement was demonstrated on the spot to be incorrect. The question, then, is whethor he did or did not know that I had voted i against the motion when, he declared that it had been carried unanimously. If he did not know, then his statement was simply erroneous ; but if he did know, then his statement was untrue. lam convinced that Mr Eraser knew perfectly well that I had voted against the motion. At any rale, he did not admit that he had made a mistake, and until he doe=> this he must accept the other alternative. Mr Fraser knew perfectly well that no division had been taken, and that con&eI quently the minutes could not show that I I had voted against the motion. His appeal I to tho minutes was, therefore, a device such ! as no honest man could have resorted to. ' Fortunately your reporter was present, and i tho following is a sentence from your report ' of the meeting: — "Mr MacGregor said mem- ! bers would understand that having disap- ' proved of the action of the board at the May meeting he could not approve of this, and therefore would vote against it." And yet in the face of this this minister of the Gospel ' declared that the motion had been carried unanimously, and repeated the statement when I denied it. In the vernacular statements of this kind are called by a very ugly name. Mr Fraser tries to make it appear that Mr Snow backed him up, and at last meet- ' ing Mr Snow seems to have been under the ] impression that I had supported the motion, and when I showed him the pbove passage In your report he could scarcely believe his i eyes. ; Finding himself hopelessly in the wrong fn I his statement that the motion had been carried unanimously in open boarcL. Mr Era- , ser attempts to show that I bad supported i it in committee, and his action reminds one ' of the Jesuitical saying, " What a pleasure ' it is to convince others of what you do not 1 believe yourself." I nhall state the facts, and then your readers can judge whether Mr Eraser believes, or only tries to make himself b-alioYa that he believes, as some people

do with regard to theological dogmas. TKfc various steps in the Waipori affair were aa follow: — Some months ago a committee wag appointed to proceed to Waipori. I opposed this on the grounds that it was an improper and unwarrantable interference.- with tlia functions of the teacher, and a waste of public money. The committee reported that tha teacher had committed an error of judgment, and, at the instance of Mr Fraser, a majority of the board proceeded to request the teacher to advance the pupils, and I ooposed this on the ground that it was an improper interference with the discretion committed to the teacher, and that such a resolution would place the board in a ridiculous and untenable position. This result justified my warning, for the teacher' ignored the request, and those members who had followed Mr Fraser' looked as if they did not know what step to take next. Tho man who had led the board into this impacse either would not or co-aid not suggest any way out, and Mr Snow accepted the role of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. Me boldly proposed tbat Mr Kerr should be dismissed for disobedience. This occurred ir?. open board, and I expostulated with, Mv Snow, pointing out that the resolution pa-ssea et the previous meeting had merely i'jquested, not ordered. Mr Kerr to advance tlv? pupils. At. this point the chairman intsv loosed, and declared the board in committee, requesting the reporter to treat what had occurred as having taken place in committee. In committee I pointed out fully the ridiculous and illegal position the board would find itself in if it dismissed Mr Kerr, and that tho first step to be taken bj lhos& who advocated dismissal was to pass a resolution ordering Mr Kerr to advance the pupils. Mr Snow recognised the force of my argument, and abandoned bis proposal to dismiss Mr Kerr. I thereupon drafted the motion which Mr Fraser describes as mine. I handed it to Mr Snow, and he suggested that I should move it myself. I replied that I certainly would not — that I had objected to Mr Kerr bemg requested to advance the pupils, and it was not likely I was going to order him to do it. Me Snow, in&tt ,d of adopting the motion in the form in which I had drafted it for him, wrote a different one, and I opposed it in committee and in open board. The motion headed by Mr Eraser as "Hon. J. MacGregor's motion" was in no sense mine, except in the sense that I drafted it for Mr Snow. I have scores of times drafted motions for other members. On this occasion the man who Tiad led the board into a ridiculous and untenable po=ition simply looked on, and ho sserns to have thought that I was playing Ins game, when I was merely tiding to extricate the majority of the board from the ridiculous position in which he had landed them, and to prevent them from getting deeper into the mud. As for Mr Fra&er's recollection of having expressed his satisfaction at the board being unanimous at last, it is simply another illustration of his capacity for convincing himself that he believes. In committee, as in open board, the motion was opposed notonly by me. but by Mr 'Harraway and Mr Gollavav. Your reporter was present, and I am certain he can confirm all my statements. — I am. etc., Wellington, Augu&t 26. J. Mao&esgoe. [Our reporter states that Mr MacGregorV, account of what occurred in committee at th© June meeting of the board is correct, so fay a« our reporter can recollect, with the exception that he does not think Mr MacGregor actively opposed Mr Snow's motion in comr mittee, though he declined to propose tha motion drafted by himself, his object in drafting it plainly being to put into legal form what tli9 discussion in committee had shown to be the view entertained by the majority of tha board. When the board came outot committee Mr MacGregor, whose oppoFition to the motion at that stage certainly did not seem to have been anticipated by some memb<fcs, said the few words quoted by him from the report of the meeting, and the n lO^ 0 " was then put and carried on the voices. Mv Gallaway and Mr Harraway may have given their voices against the motion as well as Mr MsoGregor. Where no division is taken it is impossible for a reporter to say who wew che Ayes and who the Noes.— Ed. 0.D.T.1