THE HIGH SCHOOL QUESTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3550, 13 February 1886, Page 3

THE HIGH SCHOOL QUESTION.

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE TIMARU HERALD. Sin, — I am eorry to be again forced to address you. Ono' would think that both sides of tho question had been pretty fnirly ventilated by this time, let lo ! wo have letters streaming m from " Citizen," " Onlooker" and " Looker On." How many like to have a little linger m the pie ! I naturally feel ovorwliclpicd. and nna\?U to copo with »o

many assailants. It is, however, a well-known fact that the worse the cause is, the more it takes to back it up. Notwithstanding the pounding I have been getting for the last two or three days I yet live— tolerably comfortably too. The bolstering up the High School question has been getting docs not speak well for the real point at issue. In the first place as to the inconsistency of action with which I charge Mr Sutter, " Citizen " says he really can't see where it is. Well, as I hinted before, if he can't see it I really can't pive him eyes to see it, nor brains to understand it. If one admits that inconsistency is a fault then there can be no argument about the question; if "Citizen" thinks that inconsistency is not a fault then wo cannot intelligently discuse the question, for we have no common ground to start from. That my opponent cannot see the essence of the charge points to one very suggestive fact, namely, what a blind follower of the G-.O.M.'s ho must bo. Tho chargo is simply that m this matter Mr Sutter has acted inconsistently and the reasons he alleges for this inconsistency are quite insufficient to account for it, — that m fact there are other reasons at the bottom of it all for his chango of action. Now tho fact that a public man cannot come boldly forward and give us his genuine reasons for action m a public matter I hold to bo a mark of incapacity, at least to somo extent. AH that has been written by Mr Butter's friends has proved quite incapable of changing my opinion about this matter. Those who are acquainted with the history of the High School Bill are well aware of what these reasons may he. Porno of your correspondents charge me with personal enmity — those, I Bay, who are acquainted with the High School's affairs know well where such a charge could be laid with the greatest force. It has been well known what Mr Sutter has been hitting at for the last four or five years. Furthermore, I maintain that it is a weak and a petty thing for a man who represents a constituency m tho House to muke such use of his position as 3lr Sutter has done m referenco to this High School matter. " Citizen " and his friends will rise as a body and declare thoy don't know what I mean, that I am casting imputations, that I'm slandering a public man, and co forth, let them. They know as well as I do what the above remarks have reference to, and it is no private matter either, but facts that have been m everybody's mouth who can read a newspapor since Mr Sutter commenced this warfare. I repeat that in' this matter of the High School Board of Governors Bill Mr Suiter has acted anything but a noble and high-minded part. Mr " Looker-on " ought to be moro careful about bis numerous quotations, and not use so many that are appropriately applied to the cause he advocates. " A noble mind has no resentment." Would that his side could as well apply such quotations as he can rig out a letter full of them! It must have cost him many hours research to complete his beautiful list of noble sentiments. Let him spend another evening applying them to his side of tho question, and see m the history of the High School Bill how wonderfully well suited they are for recommending for perusal to the author and originator of it. Allow me to quote one which I fancy is exceedingly applicable — " Those who live m glass houses shouldn't throw stone 3." Mr Suttor's upholders can write lottera and bolster up their cause till doomsday, but they are only hurting tho very cause they advocate. • They chargo mo with want of pluck, indeed ! I have one or two good reasons for having desisted from writing, and I can assure you, Mr Editor, that they arethetruoand the real ones. I did not want to be urged into writing many things that might prove exceedingly unpalatablo to " Citizen " and his friends. Their taunts will rebound on their own heads. I am no malicious, evil-speaking genius, else I would not have stopped my correspondence. Things done " fair and square " recommend themselves to every man, but when things go crooked I hold it the duty of every man to let them Bee tho light so far as they can. Marjnos homines virlule metemur, non fortuna. (I hope that very irritating thing — a Latin quotation — will not give my friends brain fever.) So far as tho question at issue is concerned, I have had my say. Thoso who can look it m the face, those who are manly enough to examino the evidenoo from their opinion and found their judgment on it, will, I have no doubt, do so, and I do not fear the consequences j thoso who cannot understand, and those who aro too blind or too prejudiced to see, will not, no matter what one write or says. In reply to your correspondent " Onlooker," " Citizen " says this morning " Plain truth So. iis to me quite unintelligible as I fail to see m my previous letters anything that can be construed into an attempt to foist anonymous letters on individuals," and again, "Plain truth No. 5 is likewise a mystery to me as I fail to ace the connection between Mr Barclay and the matter m discussion." Ltt "Citizen" read the first letter ho wrote on this occasion m answer to mine — and go homo and blush. If the references contained therein are not to the gentleman named let him come forward and say to whom he was referring. I daro him to deny it. Mr Editor, you can oxcuse my attempt to stop correspondence with a writer who so barefacedly denies what ho knows full well to be the truth. If " Citizen" can name any getleman to whom m reason he could have been referring and to whom he would apply such insulting remarks as are contained m his letter, I will gladly and freely apologise for the above comments. So far as Mr Sutter is concerned, I do not deny that m many things he lias done good, and that as an active, and persevering man ho does not try to grab us much for his oonstitueney from the public puree as he can, nor do I deny that his namo is connected with many works of great value to this part of the district ; but ho exercises that wonderful faculty of doggedness m a wrong way and m a wrong cause quite as well, if not better, aa m a good one. In this particular instance I think he is deserving of unmitigated censure. If your correspondents, Sir, m attempting to relieve Mr Suiter of what I chargo him with, addressed themselves to explaining away tho point at issue, instead of fighting with me they might succeed better. But they aro all too well versed m the ignoralio elenvhi method of argument, and whilo remarks of on uncomplimentary character aro bandied about, little progress is made with the point m debate. This and another reason already mentioned were the two chief that induced me to drop the correspondence. To make the blind see is more than I can do. So far as this problem is concerned I have pretty successfully vented a question that many people might have been easily led aßtray m, by the mcl m ore, verla laclis of "Citizen" and his friends. If there was any point m the question that anything further could be said on I would, with your permission. Sir, have gladly discussed Ihrin m your columns. If I am charged with writing over strongly, what I say m reply is that I have to fight my battles with the same weapons that my opponents use. I am, &c, Mkliokes Pjiioues.