CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3565, 27 September 1916, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

BOROUGH SCHOOL AFFAIRS

To THK EdITOII " GoaHDIAN."

Sir, —.Heading over more carefully the report iv tho "Guardian" of the recent interviews with the Minister of Education, there are several inaccuracies made by members of iuie School Committee, that should bo corrected. To begin with tho chairman: he harps on tho doctors' so-called unfavourable report on the site, and tries to make capital out of the statement "that it is low-lying." Tho absurdity of this will be seen on a moment's reflection. The lowest part of the site is a few foot beirvr S;irr!:.'Street, but there is a good fall from the site to tho river— I do not know tho exact fall, but it is probably 12 to 15 feet. Tho East Belt is 40 feet below the West Belt (see map), but would any sano man or woman say it is low-lying, or unhealthy ? Ashburton is low-lying compared with Methven or Mount Somers, but is it to bo condemned on that account ? The statement is twaddle.

■ The Rev. Mr Miller lias several times reiterated that tho site is "unsuitable," but has not so far given a single reason to back up this statement. But, sir, 13 reasons were submitted to and passed by two public meetings in support of the resolutions passed in favour of the infant school site.

Tho. Rev. Mr Frost makes some peculiar statements. He says that tho petition was ''signed by some 200 peo- ■ pie," and wished to point out that "some 2000 odd residents of the Borough did not sign the petition." When a public man makes a statement he should bo accurate. The petition was signed by 235 bona fide householders, and I am told by those who got the signatures that tlioy could have got many more had time permitted them to do so. I thought that possibly the number 2000 was a mistake or a printer's error, but as tho rev. gentleman has_ not corrected the figures it is quito fair to assume that ho made the 1 statement, which is a ridiculous one, and incorrect. His remark about tho j first public meeting being called in favour of the infant school site is I hardly correct. It is true that a pubj lie meeting was called for those in I favour of the infant school site, but a sub-leader appeared in the "Guardian" the same evening tho meeting was to be held, calling upon all to attend, and a number of both sides came. The question was asked: Was the meeting a public one for all parties ? and his Worship the Mayor reI plied, yes; and declared it to bo so. The opposition (that is, tho committee) stayed, spoke, and voted, anc 1 when t.lirvv foT-"! tbny wero beaten, .they grumbled. Mr Frost's reference to the last public meeting, held in thr Theatre Royal, is neither just nor generous. The- Alleuton people had every right to attend tho meeting and vote, if only in their s own interests Nor is the conclusion warranted that if they had not Been there, there would have been "a considerable majority on the other side." The show of hands | indicated most _, unmistakeably what '• tho majority was. One thing Ido agree with Mr Frost upon, and that is that "no doubt tho Minister will be able to decide upon tho question of public opinion in this matter." One other point: at the last meeting of the committee the two gentlemen who had been illegally elected on the committee resigned,- but wore immediately re-appointed by the committee. Tho Education Act for 1914, says that "If any dispute arises respecting the validity of the proceedings at the annual or other election of any member of the committee, the matter in dispute shall be submitted to tho judgment of tho board" (not tho committee) of the district, whose decision shall be final and conclusive thereon."

This matter should have been reported to the board, either by tho cominitteo or somebody olso. It looks o= though H ;* a case, of "Don't know where 'c are."

H. M. JONES