The Globe. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1874.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 138, 9 November 1874, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1874.

Mr Camming is apparently one of those people who cannot coEceive it possible that they can ever be in the Avrong, and who are so impatient of criticism that they invariably adopt declamation as their substitute for argument. Mr Cumming says in his letter to the Press published in last Thursday's issue of that paper that "he " would not trouble you again, had it " not been for the one-sided article " which appears in to-night's G-lobe, he then charges Mr Edwards with being incapable of weighing the moat commonplace evidence, and finally charges us with having written as if he had been proved guilty of introducing sectarian views into his teaching, &c, &c. We are in no way the champions of Mr Edwards, any more than we are of Mr Gumming, but as an organ of public opinion, it was our duty to draw attention to what we conceive was an impropriety on the part of Mr Cumming and to point out the weak part of his letter in reply to that of Mr Edwards. Mr Cumming's letter to the Press last Thursday, will confirm the public in the opinion expressed by us in our article of Wednesday evening last. Dust is evidently attempted to be thrown in the eyes of the public, by such letters as those signed " Aliquis " in the Press. The real question is, whether the statement made by the boy Fox before his father and mother, and published by Mr Edwards, was true or not. As to the boy having made Buch a statement there is the written testimony of the father, against which we have the assertion of Mr Cumming, that the boy did not attend St Andrew's, did not know where it was, &c, &c, all beside the question, because Mr Edwards never in his letter mentions St Andrews in connection with the boy at all. Mr Cumming says, " It is true no de- " ciaion has yet been given by the " Committee, but the facts of the case " indicate with absolute clearness to " my mind what the decision will be." We sincerely hope that Mr Cumming will be able to clear himself from the charges brought against him, but that Mr Edwards had grounds for his complaint no one can doubt, aud we apprehend few will dispute the position we have taken up in commenting freely on the want of discretion on the part of Mr Cumming in writing the letters he has done to the newspapers. His excuse is that he was afraid that the statements made by Mr Edwards would injure his school; but surely, feeling, as we presume he did, that these statements were entirely unfounded, and that he would have an opportunity of clearing himself, such injury could only be of a very temporary nature; and by taking the course he did, he displayed, in our opinion, a lamentable want of judgment, and a disposition rather to appeal to the public for their

sympathies, than to the School Committee for their approval. If there is one thing which our colonial youth want teaching, it is, discipline, and the action taken by Mr Cumming has certainly been subversive of that, and must have a prejudicial effect on the School, however clearly he may exonerate himself from the charges made against him.