APOLOGY REQUESTED

Hokitika Guardian, 24 September 1932, Page 6

APOLOGY REQUESTED

; .SCH'OOLyB'QOK'S CONTRACT. MINISTER 'RESENTS STATEMENT. CHRISTCHURCH, September 22. Remarks made concerning the Mlnlister..for: Education '(the Hon. R. Masters) by Ml’ -S.: p. -Evison, th e president of the Canterbury School Committees’Association, at the recent meeting called by the Association to protest against the arrangements entered into by the Minister for the extension of t'he contract . for printing school text-bodes, are objected to by the Minister in a letter h 6 has addressed to Mr EvtisonMr Masters maintains that one section of the remarks—alleging that oh the Minister’s authority it had been ea'd that teachers were opposing the 'dohtract {because A-hey were .resentful ovei' their salary cuts —was unfounded, and asks for an , apology. The Minister’s letter, and Mr EvisOn’s statement in reply, ar e re-printed here. - Mr Masters’ letter reads;—

“My attention has been drawn to thf published account of the recent meeting tyhich was -held. at Christchurch foi tke purpbs e of "‘discussing the- extension of the school books’ contract, and, if you. have been correctly reported, I desire to refer to a statement made by you in your capacity as chairman of the meeting, i.e. : ‘lt 'has also been said—l am told 'that this was on the authority of the Minister, too—that the teachers have tpkfin the matter 1 up because they are . resentful oveF'-their salary cuts. That . 2 another'-mean and despicable statement.’ • •/ i “In this conheCL'pn I wish to say that the remarks attributed to me are absolutely without/.-foundation in fact, and as ia matter of f cotarnon justice I must ask you to furnish me" with then name of your informant or to apologise for the use of the -words ‘That iis another mean and despicable statement.’ ” . REPLY TO THE LETTER. (Mrs Evison’s statement is as followis: ,14 of the Minister’s denial we 'unreservedly withdraw the criticism in | so far as it may .be'understood to'apply |to him personally. Such reports* were unquestionably circulated, and we are ■hglad ;to accept .the: Minister’s statement .■that they are not endorsed-by him. 7 r f ‘A-t■■The same time this does not -affect , ;t'hel fliajor issue, which is th 6 arrangeI ment entered into 'by the 'Minister, giv- | ( : ng;, a t'monopoly , for five and a half | years./to the • production of the books ! set dowii for use' in the primary schools, i in retufn for : 7*a' very inadequate £&- , ductibn in 'price' l of a proportion of 'the books, and in spite of th e recommenda- ( titans .tof it-he .National Expenditure Commission, which provide for an ex- : tension <jf only “three years, a reduction I irih'prices of 2jL;pei ; cent, (without any • reduction dnii^Srd^’disnonnts),... and for 1 the copyrigW|',rtQ; be'“J[gld by 'Che’.D.e- ---! partmOnt. -TV } ' .’“The oKl-the contract which had -vy.et one and a half years to run

calls 'fof! the most strenuous opposition, and Vim are. 'SUpgorfed--bY'. r.-Jfc. who condemn many of the books as’ unsuitable, and by the printers, who show that < the prices are excessive.”