THE ANDERSON'S BAY SCHOOL.

Evening Star, Issue 3979, 25 November 1875, Page 3

THE ANDERSON'S BAY SCHOOL.

To the Editor Sie, —1 acknowledge with thanks your courtesy and kiuduess in regard to the previous insertion, and now take the earliest opportunity to answer briefly, and, of course, without the full explanation and corroborative testimony it is in my power to give, the statements reflecting upon my character and conduct very unwisely, certainly most unkindly made bv the Anderson's bay school committee before the Education Board at the meeting on the 18th inst.

Before doing so I must take exception to the word “ d* putation” occurring in your report of the r case, which, if taken in the' usual acceptation of that tennis calculated to mislead. The Rev. James H. M‘Naughtou and those accompanying him were the members of the school committee, and the “ memorial handed in” was their own, and not submitted at the instance of the people. These gentlemen were in no sense a deputation, as they were not deputed or sent, and their statements before the Board were not a reflex of the sentiments of the people, any more than they themselves were the representatives of eleven-twelfths <>f the people on the occasion. Having put myself into personal communication with parents and guardians representing 154 school children who have been and 120 who may be regarded as in actual connection with the school, and having ascertained their honest sentiments with regard to myself and the school, and in every case tbe reason for withdrawal or removal, I can speak with confidence of what they think of me, and well know towards whom their sympathies flow. To the first statement, "that the people have become dissatisfied with Mr Clark, the master, or with the school,” I would simply say that that statement can be shown to he wholly inconsistent with the fact. I say no more in the meantime, but will be found prepared to show, by-and-bye, who is and always has been dissatisfied with Mr Clark, and who the other day readily admitted, and as readily put his signature to certify that “ personally ho had no fault to find with Mr Clark and no cause f®r dissatisfaction with the school.” Mr M'Xaughtou, air, gave the index to his own unfortunate connection with, or rather instigation of, these proceedings, and explained my own seemingly adverse position before the Education Board and the public at this moment when he said and repeated before the Board—l gave the expression verbatim et literatim —“When I was told that tbe School Committee had elected Mr

Clark as teacher I confess I felt very much annoyed ” As for the complaints of alleged harsh treatment these will in due time be put to the proof. To the second statement, namely, that " Mr Clark frequently absented himself from his duties,” &c,, a reference to tin* pjunber of days the Audcr* son’s Bay School has been open for instruction throughout this, and any, or every, year since my appointment, shown in the annual retqrqg ipade up from quarterly retnrns (whoso accuracy has never yet beun challenged by tlxat body) which have been furnished to the School Committee, the time-table faithfully administered, the almost invariable extension of the afternoon sederunt beyond the usual limit, and the written testimony of Professors during four years’ attendance at Glasgow Univer-sity—('s6-’6o)—and of school committees as to my general character for application to duty will be ample and answer. With regard to the third charge—tlaOPmy refusal to acknowledge the power of, tne^School Committee with respect to school fees, I do not know it is necessary I should say one word. The terms of my engagement with the Anderson’s Bay Committee were—Government subsidy and school fees without reduction. This was the inducement held out when the vacancy occurred. The Ordinance, section 17, is to this effect” In no ease shall any reduction be made to a teacher’s salary once fixed without tbe sanction of the Board previously obtained." Once formerly, and to which I did not object, and again when I was told I should regard *he further reduction as a matter of course, my ehgagement Las been interfered with ; and one memher—the Rev. J. H. M'Naughton—had he been allowed to carry out his undisguised intention, would have proceeded on the matter of school foes, as the Committee, under his (clearly provable)

leadership, Lave done in the matter of my dismissal, arbitrarily, and in defiance of a plain law. The fourth statement, that “ many children were leaving the school in consequence of Mr Clark’s conduct," the declared resolution or intention of the parents themselves to the contrary and the school registers are my answer. The latter, faithful and unprejudiced witnesses either for or against will testify to the present favorable numerical and financial condition of the school. With regard to any of the Bay pupils who may be attending the Dunedin High or District Schools, I presume my fellow teachers in the vicinity of town, or any town where a grammar school has been established, wiil be able to state that Anderson’s Bay is, in this particular, the rule and not the exception. I have thus replied to the committee’s statements seriatim. When the investigation takes p ace.andfor my part I desire that it may be a very full one, the matter will be fairly, impartially, and faithfully dealt with by the inspectors. If my cause is a rjvhteous one it will stand despite an attempt at tyranny, injustice, and oppression. If the committee’s ;« unrighteous, their proceedings will fall to the ground- Individually, the financial position of the committee will not be affected by the decision, be that wha* & may- with me ** w dl be different. With me. if I fell, others who are very dear to me, and a sacred truoi, will descend at the same time. I solicit no one's but I do expect and will insist upon what every man is entitled to in this land of freedom, in any circumstance—fa r play.—l am, eto , G. M. Clabk, Master, Anderson’s Bay School. Schoolhousc, November 25,