Clinton School Committee and Rev. Mr Connor.

Clutha Leader, Volume I, Issue 25, 31 December 1874, Page 5

Clinton School Committee and Rev. Mr Connor.

A correspondent, whose commuuication was unavoidably held over from la^t issue, and who is in a position to know many circumstances connected with the affair, writes to us as follows :

When you peered the article which appeared in your issue of the 17-th insf.. you did so in ignorance of many of the tact* connected with the ease— facts which would have fully explained, and amply justified the position taken up by the Rev. Mr Connor. In the first place, I beg to assert it was a distinct understand^ ing amongst members of the School Committee, agreed to a,t their previous mre'ing, that, in the event of the election being s.) close as to fall to, be decided by the ca&ting vote of the chairman, then, and in tha° case, any member would lie at liberty to refer the whole matter for decision of the Education Board. Now, Sir, I maintain that upon this point the whole question at issue turns. That agreement having been violated, I cannot possibly see how the Rev. Mr Connor would have been justified in continuing to act upon the committee. I have not the most remote desire to stir up further strife, but I cannot refrain from thinking the Secretary to the Education Board drew conclusions that were not warranted, and for establishing which he had no proper data to go upon. The wholesale condemnation which he was pleased to hurl at the head of Mr Connor ought at len,3t to have been withheld until the latter had had an opportunity of answering for him.«elf. The statement" made by the Secretary to the School Committee savors of a discrepancy upon the very face oi them. On the one hand, we are informed by Mr Linge that the rev. gentleman read his protest— a fact which plainly shrwed he must have been quite prepared for the result. In almost the same breath, the letter would wish us to infer that he (Mr Connor) bccime so greatly excited at the. result as to be rendered wholly unable to control himself. Now, these two inferences are clearly inconsistent with each other, and cannot fail to lead an impartial person to the conclusion that, a departure fr,om the truthno doubt, unintentional— has taken place. These are a few facts a >d suggestions which I apprehend j^ou must have overlooked, otherwise I am inclined to believe you would have paused before giving expression to the sentiments you did in your issue of the 17th inst.

".Fairi>lay 5 " a writer in one of the Dunedin papers, deals with the letter forwarded by the Secretary of the School Committee to the Education Board in the following* strain :.

On the face of it, that is an u«ly- looking letter. It is difficult to understand how men of experience conld accept it as stating only the truth, ' There is a suspicious look about almost every sentence of that letter. It gives no facts, but only Lange's opinions of Mr Connor's conduct. I repeat, the Board condemned Mr Connor simply on Mr Lingo's opinions. We have no in tention of defending Mr Connor from mistakes he may have fallen into, but the doings of the Education Board outrages common gense. I know nothing about this Mr. Lange ; he resides at or near Clinton, but whence he came, or what he has been as a member, of society, I know nothing. Whether he iz a Christian or an atheist, whether he lovea a Presb_\ terian minister or hates him, whether morally or intellectually his opinions are entitled to any weight of the s e I know nothing, the Dunedin citizens know nothing, the general public know nothing, the Education Board knows nothing ; and yet forsooth, I am as.ked, the public of Otago is asked, to join in censujiug the Rev. C. Connor, who has played a useful part in the best interests of this country. We are asked to brand him and bruise his usefulness, on the unsubstan tiated opinions of Mr. Lange. The Board took no precaution to.get at the truth, but rushed, on, as if under the spur of an animu=, or of fo else. To some the thought occurs, can it be that the Board, or a member of it, has a pique against Mr. Connor, and this is resorted to t© work it out? Further, the Board's interference was utterly uncalled for. In his letter to the Secretary, Mr. Connor intimates that the matter is at an end— that he hasceaped to have any further connection with the School Committee. Mr. Anderson's election was legal, and no one opposing it. All thia ia known to the t-ecretary. Wh}', then, goes he on to get up a case ? After this, he writes out to this unknown man, Lange. Why not write to Mr. Connor also, telling him they were to sift the case, and as he was a blamed party, to give hia version of what took place. Ah, we have got a hey which lets us into secrets. We do not need to let a roan be heard in his own defence. Yes, but the public do not know your key, and are not entitled to believe in it. And I am in a position to proclaim before the public that you were totally wrong in finding that the article in the ' Guardian ' newspaper emanated from the Rev. C. Connon, an.4 the attempt to fasten it on him was a great, lack of manners. And to build such a great big censure on, that queer letter of Lange outrages common sense, not to speak cf justice. Why take this unrighteous^ cowardly wav of replying to the article in the 'Guardian'? For that long report and big censure were got up to answer that article. There was nothing at Clinton requiring to be put right — there was none there asking for interference. It was in brooding over a reply to that article' that Lange was written to that something might be got to help to turn the edge of the strictures which were made."