Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. TUESDAY, MAY 7 1901. A COURT OF ENQUIRY?

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 7 May 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. TUESDAY, MAY 7 1901. A COURT OF ENQUIRY?

The Grey Education Board generally takes a " level-headed " view of matters brought before it. Last night, however, it did not do so, and placed itself in an unfortunate position. The subject matter in debate was School Election dispute. The first tos come up for consideration was the Cobden School election, against which a petition was lodged. The Board rightly asked that before dealing with the case the other side should be asked to give an explanation. Then came an exactly similar complaint from Kokiri, the chairman of the meeting writing to the Board as follows :

"In reference to the election of the Kokiri School Committee, held on the 22nd., I think as chairman of the meeting arid with all due respect to the heads of families in this district tlia.t a committee elected as the present one has been, and allowed to remain so, is unfair and unjust to the householders of Kokiri, as the room was filled with persons who had not the right to vote and on being asked to leave the room they sternly refused. Hoping that this letter will meet with your approval and that the householders of the Kokiri School district will he given another chance to elect a committee which will carry out the work to the satisfaction of all and be a credit to the district."

Upon this statement by one side the Board declared the election void. It was pointed out by two members of the Board that the Chairman of the meeting in his letter declared that an election had taken place, yet he now desired to get the Board to over-rule his own decision. It was further mentioned that the gentleman claiming to be chairman of the new committee and who, moreover was a member of the former committee was in the Board room waiting to give evidence and it was asked that he be heard against the petition before a decision was arrived at. This most reasonable request, however, strange though it may appear, was refused, and the Board by six to three declined to hear the other side of the question, and upon the statement of one side only, declared the election void. We need not enquire into the facts of the election itself; it may or may not have been properly conducted, but we unhesitatingly affirm that the Board before giving judgment on the ease should have acted as it did with the Cobden petition, and as it also did later on with one from Stillwater, have deferred judgment till both sides were heard. This, however, it refused to do although there was a representative of the " other side" in the Board's room ready to make his statement.