The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1915. AN UNDESIRABLE INNOVATION

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2623, 19 November 1915, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1915. AN UNDESIRABLE INNOVATION

After the resignation of Professor von ZedlilTz had been accepted by the Victoria College Council the general public naturally took it for granted that the incident was, at any rate for the time being, closed. Th'is College Council, however, has scea fit to resurrect the controversy, and has gone to the trouble and cxptnso of naving a history of the case compiled and printed. It is difficult to imagine what good purpose can be served by publishing the whole story in pamphlet form. \Vc can well understand that the Council should feel that the attitude it has adopted in regard to this muchdubtttad question requires n good of justification, but it is havdbi

reasonable that those members who clesin to explain their actions to their constituents should 'expect the cost of their memorial to come out of tho College funds. The Council has made a new departure in this respect, and not a desirable one- It is to be hoped that the precedent whioh has been established will not be generally.followed. It has hitherto been fcno custoin for public men who desire to explain their actions in pamphlet form to the people they represent to do so at their own expense. What would be thought of a member of Parliament who • demanded free use_ of the Government printing plant in order to justify his vote on some important measure or to reply to adverse criticism of his political actions? Moreover, it is hardly fair to the minority on the College Council that the majority should, by means of its superior voting power, cause an ex parte memorial to be printed as an official document for distribution among the constituents of members. Surely the minority is also entitled to have its views printed and circulated and pa-id for in the same way. Any individual member of the Council has a perfect right to justify his views and actions to his constituents, but it should be regarded as a purely personal matter. It is most undesirable that memorials of this kind should bo paid for out of the College funds and filed in the archives of the Council. The majority certainly cannot complain of lack of publicity for the defenco of their actions in connection with the von Zedlitz case. Their arguments have been fully set out in their petition to Parliament, in tho reports of the debates at the meetings of the College Council, and in numerous letters to tho newspapers. The /matter has been publicly discussed over and over again, and from every conceivable point of view. Tho arguments: on both sides have been iterated and reiterated. Certain members of the Council may think that it is worth while to reopen the controversy and re-tell the oft-told tale. They arc entitled to that opinion, and to write a book about the case if they think fit, but it is not desirable that literary efforts of this kind should be treated as official documents. The Council's excessive generosity in awarding Professor yon Zedlitz £700—the maximum amount —a3 compensation for the termination of his engagement has bean severely criticised, and not without reason- And now it seems that-an-other call is to be made upon the College funds for the purpose of publishing tho history r£ the ease, m order that the Council's constituents, if they have the time or inclination to wade through the document, may express their approval or condemnation. It may possibly require another pamphlet to Justify this very unusual decision.