The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, MAY 27, 1389.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4549, 27 May 1889, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, MAY 27, 1389.

The Evening Post asserts tbat Sir Harry Atkinson, who now bolds tbe portfolio of Education, is on the borna of a dilemma with regard to MrFisber'e Education Bill. Mr Fisher claims tbe measure as bis, but his successor repudiates tbe claim, " and maintains that the Bill m question was wholly, solely, and entirely, tbe design and work of tbe Inspector-General, tbe Rev. Mr Habens. At tbe same time tbe Premier says that the Government regard tbe Bill as an unclean thing, nnd will have nothingof it. Tbe trail of tbe serpent is over it. Tbe Bill is redolent of Fisher, and the savour iB an unwelcome one m Sir Harry Atkinson's nostrils." We confess to being quite unable to see wbere tbe diiemma arises, and tbe remainder of tbe article m the Evening Post does not make tbe caao plainer. However, our "Wellington contemporary contends tbat the Bill ougbt not to be thrown over merely because it woh drafted during Mr Fisher's tenure of oflicc. "la tbe public interest," says the Evening Pvst, " to be sacrificed to the Premier's over-nice prejudices P If the Bill is really tho unaided work of tbe Inspector-General, and embodies hia experience and views aa tv tbe amendments needed m the present Education Act, wby 6bould Mr JTishcr'ti accidental and temporary official association with it cause the Ministry to ignore it, and refuse to profit by Mr Habens' special knowledge ? There is certainly no wun iv th'j colony wboßt

experience is wider or whose views are entitled to move weight. It is monstrous that the Cabinet should refuse to give biß Bill respectful consideration simply because Mr Fisher managed to crib an advance copy, yet that is really what the Ministerial position is. If tbe Bill is Mr Fisher's, then the Premier has not confined himself to the actual truth m asserting that Mr Habens is tbe real author. If the Bill ia Mr Habens', and therefore, presumably, a useful and necessary measure, Mr Fisher's fictitious and barefaced cluim' to its paternity ought not to lead to its being summarily smothered. We do not of course, pretend to solve Ihe question of fact which is at issue, as to who is really entitled to the credit or discredit of the authorship. Mr Habens could no doubt do this; but his mouth is Bhut, and we do not suppose that his present Ministerial superior will permit him to open it, as a public knowledge of the truth of the case could not fail to still • further complicate the latter's position. 1 Perhaps, however, when Parliament meets we shall be favoured with more light upon the subject. Meantime the public can draw their own conclusions." We are not aware that the Premier has announced either that the Bill is not the embodiment of Mr Fisher's ideas or that tbe Government do not intend to bring it forward. It appears to us to r be not of the smallest importance who ' drafted the Bill or supplied the ideas. Tbe vital question is whether or not tbe 1 measure is a sound one, or is so much ' better than the Act of 1877 that the latter ought to make way for it. Our Wellington contemporary assumes that if Mr Habens is tbe real author, that . fact is quite sufficient to make it incumbent on the Ministry to introduce . and defend the measure m Parliament. f From that proposition we entirely 1 dissent. Mr Habens has no doubt bad ' considerable experience m educational matters, but his Bill is not therefore presnmably a useful and necessary measure. We may safely grant that if ' it were merely known that Mr Habens had drafted an entirely new Education I Bill, but had kept its contents secret, ) our curiosity would have been excited ; ) but even then we should not be inclined " to buy a pig m a poke," and to presume that because tbe author was a man of experience m education, his measure must embody a system better than the one which the colony now possesses. ! But m the present case there is no mystery about the matter. The Bill has not only been drafted but has been printed and circulated, and it is rather too much to ask that it be accepted by the Ministry or by anyone else solely on the ground that Mr Habens is the I author. The authorship does not s matter two straws. The Bill must be judged on its merits, and if it be true that the Government will k have nothing to do with it, we are very glad that it is so, because, as we pointed out m a former article, the proposed new Bystem would destroy local control. Does the Evening Post mean to say that the country should accept centralisation m educational matters merely because tbe abominable proposal comes from the Rev. Mr Habens. It ib more reasonable to judge the man by his latest work, than to assume that tbe work is good becanse it has emanated from his brain.