The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1881.

Kumara Times, Issue 1554, 20 September 1881, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1881.

In another Column we give a Mr M'Carthy, of Greynaouth, space to air liis injured feeKngs in reference to an answer we were called upon to give, “publicly" if we could, “in order

that those who it most concerns may know ft and have a say in it.” The question was, as put by a correspondent who signed himself “ Xenodochy,” as follows :

At the hist meeting of the Kumara State School Local Committee, in considering applications from persons for head teacher, is it true, that when Mr M'Carthy, of Grey mouth, was proposed by a gentleman who is a good judge, and knows him 10 be one of the best teachers in Westland, could not find a seconder, because he (McCarthy) is a Catholic '?

Of course to answer such a question, in either the negative or the affirmative, could only be done by applying to the secretary of the Loc.il School Committee, or to a member of the committee who was present when the applications were considered, or to both. It would, we suppose, have been very unsatisfactory to “ those who it most concerns” if we had simply answered Yes, or No, to *• Xenodocliy’s” interrogation. We made the inquiries necessary to answer the question from the secretary and a member of the committee who was present at the time we speak of, and the main question was answered, by the committee, we may say, through us, that the reason there was no seconder to Mr M‘Carthy’s application was not “ because he is a Catholic,” We were asked to answer the question, “ publicly” if we could. We answered it publicly ; and we have no doubt, as far as the public are concerned, the answer was satisfaetory. And what do we get for our trouble 1 Aheap of abuse on ourselves for “ going out of pur way in enlightening our correspondent ;” are charged with a “ suppression of the truth and the suggestion of that which is false !” If Mr M'Carthy’s “ professional character has been publicly assailed,” he has “ Xenodochy” to blame, or the committee, and not us. We have made no comments, as he supposes. Every word written by us as a note of reply proceeded from members of the committee, who Kindly tendered the information asked. Whether they were bound to do so or not, we are not going to question. If “ Xenodochy” thought the principle of Mr M‘Carthy’s application not being entertained was “ because he is a Catholic,” we agree with him that it would have been a'just calise fdr complaint. We consider that the result of our inquiry was satisfactory. We are not disposed to argue the question of competency or merit; we have nothing to do with these ; they are not of the question, though they are necessarily brought in in the reply. If all be true that Mr M'Carthy says of himself, he unquestionably holds a very high standard of merit. We are doubtful if proofs of all this standard were produced or submitted to the committee. The committee say Mr Just’s certificates were superior. We are not going to question the testimony of any two members of the committee. In conclusion, and in thanking Mr M'Carthy for his impudent charges against ourselves, it is only fair, since he has drawn a comparison between his own and Mr Just’s qualifications, to say, on behalf of Mr Just, that it is quite possible for Mr Just to have readied such a degree of proficiency since 1876 as to qualify him to take equal rank with Mr M‘Carthy; and, in fact, we are informed that Mr Just has obtained appointment lately to one of the principal schools in Canterbury over 19 other applicants. We have given Mr M'Carthy a very good advertisement; and having given this explanation, we wipe our hands of any wilful intention to do a stranger whom we do not know any harm, or of having “ gone out of our way” to answer a public question in anything more than a manner that would be satisfactory to the public.