THE LOWER HEATHCOTE SCHOOL INQUIRY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2583, 18 July 1882, Page 3

THE LOWER HEATHCOTE SCHOOL INQUIRY.

The inquiry into the charges preferred by the Bev. George Wilks, late muter of the Lower Heathco.e school, against the chairman of the school committee, opened yesterday before Dr. Giles, B.fiL, acting as Boyal Commissioner. Sereral members of the committee were present, as also Mr J. Oolborne»Veel, secretary Board of Education, Dr. Giles said that he was commissioned by the Governor to inquire into the causes of the dismissal of the Ber. G. Wilks, late head master of the school. He proposed to take first the formal evidence of the proceedings of the Board of Education, at whose request the inquiry was held. Mr Wilks had told him that he wished to put a statement and hie evidence before the Commission. He

therefore thought it would be better to take the formal evidenoe he had spoken of, and then hear what evidence touching the charges made by Mr Wilks against the ohairman might be produced. Mr F. de o. Malet appeared to watch the oase on behalf of the Board of Education.

J. V. Colborne-Veel depoied that at a I meeting cf the Board of Education held on March 30th, a letter was received from the committee of the Lower Heathcote School, dated March 22ad, forwarding a letter reoeived by the committee from the head master, dated March 19th. The letter of the committee was complaining of the head master, and requesting his suspension pending an inquiry into the statements contained in his letter. The statement referred to had reference to the alleged conduct of the chairman of the committee. In reply to that letter witness wrote under instructions calling the committee's attention to the 72nd section of the Education Act, and asking whether the meeting had been called in compliance with the provisions of that section. On the 30th Maroh another letter was reoeived by the Board stating that the committee had held another meeting duly convened, and forwarding a resolution to the effect that the head master was circulating gross and malicious reports in the district about the chairman of the committee.

Mr Bamf ord asked that all the letters passing between the committee and the Board be read.

The letters, four in number, were then read.

Witness continued—These letters came before the Board, and it wai deoided that the head master reoeive three months' notioe. LMir.ute of proceedings at Board of Education read.J The notice was given on Ist April. The next proceeding was on the2oth April, when several residents waited on the Board to ssk that the notice should be withdrawn. A resolution was passed asking Mr Wilks to make such statement as he wished to the oommittee of bis reasons for writing the letter, with a request that the statement should be forwarded to the Board. IE such statement were not forwarded, Mr Wilks was to have the right of appealing to the Board direct. The Board, however, refused to withdraw the notice of dismissal. Two letters were received by the Board from the committee dated sth and 17th April. The one dated sth April contained further oomplaicts by the oommittee that the head master had employed the pupil teachers and elder pupils to make oopies of the offensive letter respecting the chairman for circulation through the district, and stating that the committee had closed the school under the oircumßtanoes. To this a reply was given, that the letter would be laid before the Boarj, but that the committee had better not close the school. If the master did anything calling for oecsure the oommittee could report to the Boatd [Lettc ? read dated April 6th] The letter of the 17th April stated that Mrs »nc| Mies Duncan had waited on the Secretary of the oommittee to deny that they had made any complaint as stated by Mr Wilks. [Letter read.] Mr Wilks raised a technical objection that these letters were all dependent upon the first oharge made by him, and all followed after he received three months' notioe. The matter therefore remained as it was before he made the explanation. Dr. Giles said he understood that these letters led up to a farther resolution of the Board.

Mr Bamfoid said that Mr Wilks having had the opportunity of explanation, it was only right that the oommittee should have a chance of showing the other side. He desired to point out that the Board of Education had, after hearing Mr Wilks* explanation, decided to uphold their resolution, giving the head master three months' notice from April Ist. Dr. Giles said that in that oase the evidence now being put in was relevant. Mr Bamford asked that a letter from Mr Diok should be read. Dr. Giles could not admit this letter.

Mr Bamfotd submitted that the enquiry was to *ee whether tbe Board were justified in dismissing Mr Wilks and this letter was one of the points in tho oase. He submitted that all that had influenced the Board in coming to their deoision should be put in evidence.

Dr. Giles was not prepared to say that this letter sent by some private person had influenced the Board. He could not admit tbe letter.

Witness continued—On May 4th several other letters were before the Board, 'and a resolution was arrived at that the Board were of opinion that the school could not be satisfactorily conducted under the then head master, and that the legal advisers to the Board be ooneulted. [Tho minute was read ] A letter was read from Mr Wilks at the Board, dated May 2nd, explaining the reasons which had led him to make the charge against tbe ohairman, and making the complaints seriatim. [Letter read.] The letter was forwarded through the chairman of the committee, pointing out that the parents of the pupil teaohers had denied the statements of Mr Wilks, and also indignantly denying tbe allegations made against the chairman by the head master. [Letter read.] A letter was also forwarded by the committee, covering tbe report of the enquiry made into a ease of complaint against Mr Wilks by Miss Janet Dick, one of the pupil teaohers. Mr Wilks objected to this being received, as he had not an opportunity of Baying a •word on the enquiry. Dr. Giles said that the letter, he presumed, oontained a resolution of the committee which might be read. Witness then read the letter and resolution of the committee, to the effect that they considered the head master should be at onoe dismissed, as the oomplaint made by Mise Dick had been fully substantiated. Miss Dick's letter of complaint was read, as also one from Miss Oalvert, a pupil teacher in tbe sohool, and the evidence taken at the enquiry. Witness oontinued—On the IBih of May Mr Banks and others waited on the Board te present a petition from the parents of children attending the school, and others, askiDg that Mr Wilks should be retained as head master. At the same meeting the Board came to the final deoision that, having considered the whole circumstances, it saw no reason to alter the deoision arrived at with respect to the dismissal of Mr Wilks. On the Ist of June a letter was received from Mr Banks, forwarding a resolution pasted at a publio meeting of the residents of the district, asking tbe Board to institute an enquiry into the oharges made by Mr Wilks against the chairman of the oommittee, Mr Davis. It was resolved by the Board to request tho Governor to appoint a Boyal Commission to enquire into the circumstances of the dismissal of the head master of the Lower Heathoote school. A letter was sent to the Minister for Education, dated June Gth, asking that a Commission should be appointed, and subsequently a Boyal Commission was appointed. [Letters and telegrams, referring to the matter, read.] By Mr Bamford —The documents produced are from the Board of Education. Xhey are letters dated May 22 nd and 25 tU relative to the enquiry asked for by the committee, and covering a resolution passed at a public meeting. [Letters read aud put in.] A letter, dated May 11th, was gent to the ohairman authorising the oommittee to advertise for a head master in place cf Mr Wilks. On 2nd June, the Board confirmed the appointment of Mr J. J. Patterson as head master of the school, vice Mr Wilks. To Mr Wilks —It is a very common thing for letters to be reoeived on the Board day and dealt with on the same day. Witness bad never refused to reoeive letters coming on Thursdays. If he had delayed putting a letter before the Board, it might have been one raising a speoinl point, and requiring exhaustive reference to documents, As. If it was a letter in continuance of a subject already dealt with, ifc would go before the Board in due csurse. Witness saw in the papers that a hitter had been from Mr Haggerty. He hr v been

tittle time before this meeting, bat he thought there was a letter from MrHaggerty. Witn«M never kept the letter book. It it did not (TO forward, it was on account of his illneaa. He had received a letter from Mr Wilks,

dated 23rd March, directed to the chairman, without passing through the committee, and had returned it to him at the school without

placing it before the Board. He had brought it baok to Mr Wilks, telling him that it was a most injadioioua letter, and one that would do him a great deal of harm. Feeling this as a friend, he had brought the letter back to enable him if he so desired to withdraw it. Mr Wilks thanked him for the consideration he had shown towards him. Privately, and as a friend, witness and Mr Wilks had a talk over the matter. He certainly acted as a friend to Mr Wilks.

Mr Wilks then proposed to a give a statement of his ease and the evidence he pio posed to call. Mr Bamford objected to Mr Wilks reading a written statement. So soon as he had finished his statement he would go outside and tell bis witnesses what he had read so as to make their statements agree. Dr. Giles said he could not object to a person conducting his own case reading a statement of facts and evidence any more than to a solioitor having a brief before him.

Mr Wilks then prooeeded at some length to state his oase.

Mr Yeel was re-examined on the question of the letter withdrawn by Mr Wilks at his request, and stated that after this had been done, Mr Wilks went to the chairman and aooused him (Mr Veel) of having suppressed the letter. This being so, by direction of the chairman, he had sent a memo, to Mr. Wilks, asking him to forward the letter to the Board. The Board afterwards decided that as the letter had been mutilated, and had not come through the oommittee, it conld not be received. The letter was not in a mutilated condition when it was returned by witness to Mr Wilks. Dr. Giles thought they had now sufficient evidence to get the letter in. Mr Bamford objected to the letter being put in as evidence. Dr. Giles ruled that the letter had better be postponed until Mr Wilks gave evidenoe himself.

Mr Wilka then proceeded with, hia comments on the case, and wiahed to make statements as to the former character of Mr Paris.

Dr. Giles ruled that any of these ref erenees were inadmissable. Any statements must be confined to Mr Davis' conduct with regard to the school as chairman of the committee. All they had to deal with was whether Mr Davis' conduct as chairman of the committee visiting the school was suoh as to justify the letter written by Mr Wilks. Mr Wilks said that the greater part of the statement he had prepared had reference to the previous character of Mr Davis. As he could not refer to this, ho would call his witnesses.

Mr Wilks oomplained that the secretary of the school oommittee and head master had prevented hia speaking to some witnesses in the school.

Mr Bamford indignantly denied this. On the contrary, Mr Wilks had been told that any witnesses he might require would be forthcoming, bat Mr Wilks had gone into the school in a very authoritative manner, and had to be requested to leave. Dr. Giles said so long as the witnesses were ready when forthcoming, that was all he could take cognizance of. The Commission adjourned at 1.15 p.m. till 2 p.m. On resuming, Mr Wilis intimated that Mr Q-eorge Harper would appear on his behalf. Dr. Giles asked Mr Davis whether he admitted any of the charges stated, leaving the statement of how they were met to be left till evidence was led.

Mr Davis said he admitted nothing. Mr Bamford said that as regarded the statement of the providing the soap box, comb, looking-glass, &•;., he was prepared to show that these artioles wtre supplied by order of the committee, and also to the male teachers.

Dr. Giles said that as stated it was very vague, because there was nothing wrong in the supply of a soap box, &3., per se. Mr Wilks said he would admit that these artioles were supplied by order of the committee.

Dr. Giles said in that case it would have to be proved that the supply of the eoap, towels, &0., was done with an improper motive.

Mr Wilks said his contention was that the supply by Mr Davis of these articles for the eipeoial use of the female teachers, was wrong. Mr Davis denied that the artioles had been so supplied for the special use of the female teaohers. Mr Bamford said that Mr Davis admitted none ef the insinuations contained in Mr Wilks' letter.

Mr Harper not arriving, Mr Wilks proceeded to give evidence—He deposed that he was appointed as master of the Lower Heathcote sohool in August, 1878, and continued so till dismissed by the Board of Education. He desired to put in the Inspector's report to Deoember, 1681, showing that the school was in an efficient state. In the various standards there was a very large number of passes obtained by the classes taught by the second master and himself. Dr. Giles could not go into these minutia. He would assume that up to this period there was no complaint against Mr Wilks. Examination continued—On 19 th March he called on Mr and Mrs Duncan with respect to the oonduct of Mr Davis. In consequenoe of the statements made by witness, Mrs Duncan authorised him not to allow her daughter to shake hands with Mr Davis. Miss Duncan was a pupil teacher in the sohool. Mr Davis shook hands very warmly in the school on one occasion with Miss Duncan, and called her Miss Dick. His attentions were very marked, and the same afternoon witness wrote Mr Davis the letter whioh was the oauae of this enquiry. Witness considered this a private letter. After writing this letter, which was laid bsfore the committee, he wrote the letter which had been returned by the secretary to him.

Mr Bamford objected to this letter being given in evidtnoe. Dr. Giles said it would be competent for the witneiß to speak as to facts contained in it. Witness continued—He desired to swear that Mr Davis, by his persistent remaining in the sohool, spending a large portion of his time, dally hindering the pupils and the teachers. He caused much hindrance in the olass rooms by remaining, sometimes half an hour at a time, talking to the children and to the teaohers. This took place from the time of Mr Davis' appointment as ohairman until the 19th March. Witness never remonstrated with Mr Davis till he wrote ths letter which he considered as a remonstrance. Mr Davis came every school day. He had asked Mr Davis whether the soap and looking-glasses were for the female teachers. His reply wne that he wished to make the place nice for them, as they would like to look at themselves and wash their hands. From this he gathered that thete articles were intended specially for the fomale teachers. Mr Davis had frequently sat on the edge of a desk talking to the girls, and had also been from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the school grounds. Ho was prepared to swear that Mr Davis had skaken hands with his female teachers in a more than ordinarily warm manner. The parents of three of the children had requested him to take such measures as he might think proper to prevent his shaking hands with their daughters. One of the parents of the pupils had complained to him of Mr Divis having addressed her daughter in a very fumiliar manner. Witness had Been Mr Davis threo times round tho girls* olosote, intiJo the fence. With regard to the enquiry into the charges made against him by Mies Dick, witness was present, and had an opportunity of cross-examining tho witnesses. Witness was so brow-beaten and insulted by the committee that he was unablo to call any evidence on his own behalf. He had seen Mr

Davis sitting in Mies Dick's house, and he (witness) playfully suggested that Mies Dick should got Mr Davis to help her with her sums. On the morning in qaostion he had bean reading about the arrival of Te Whiti and Tohu at Addington Gaol, and had spoken about a line reaching to there. Ho also said there were some people who ought to be in there. He denied using the words attributed to him by Miss Dick with regard to her father's letter. His remarks to Mits Dick were oalled forth by her insubordination. Witness did not ask Mias Diok to say nothing about what had taken plaoe, but to go on with her work. He had stated that he could not allow any private teacher in his school to associate with Mr Siohard Davis. He h-.o not stated positively that tho people intended to turn Mr Davis out of tho cuairmrkCßhij!, but might have said thut it was probable. Ee

denied harms made the remark that the> teachers should not trust Mtss Calvert, in a. lond ton*, and also the innendoes contained in Miss Calvert's letter. He wished to call attention to the fact that Miss Calvert is a. niece of Mr B. Davis. One morning three of tbe committee entered the school, called for the admission register, and in the presence of his pupil teaohera called the witness c. liar.

Cross- examined by Mr Bamford—Witness called on Mr and Mrs Duncan about three o'clook in the afternoon. Mrs Duncan italed something to tbe eSeot that Mr Davis was a perfect stranger to har j she did not even know him by sight. Witness would swear he did not esk Mrr Dancan to make a complaint. What he said was that it would strengthen hit hands if they would authorise him to put s stop to theshaking hands and general familiarity be* tween their daughter and Mr Davis. Mr* Duncan authorised bin to pnt a stop to wh&thad taken place. She said was much obliged, to witness for what ho had dene. Mrs Duncan's daughter told her something, and that coupled with what witness had told her, induced her to give him the authority. Mrs McHarg did not make .ii.y formal complaint to him, bet in course of conversation she said that Mr Davis was a most unfit man to be chairman. The letter of March 19th waa written in consequence of the conversation. with Mrs Duncan, who is the parent mentioned in it. The object of witness going to Mrs Duncan was to enlighten her as to the true oharaoter of Mr B. Davis. If Mr Davis had not come near the sohoul except in company with some one else, there would: have been. no occasion for the letter of the 3rd of May. Witness had seen Mr Davis shake hands very warmly with Mies Duncan and Miss MoH&rg. Witness had allowed Mr Davis to shake hand* with him several times. The letter of the 19th March was a private letter to all intents and purposes. The addressing of Mr Davis as chairman of the school oommittee, was nnictentional, but the letter was intended as a private letter.

At this stage the Commission adjourned. .ill 10.30 a.m. today.