THE STAFFORD EDUCATION VOTE.

Kumara Times, Issue 1708, 21 March 1882, Page 2

THE STAFFORD EDUCATION VOTE.

[to the editor.] Sir—l observe that you insert the ridiculous "explanation" relative to the stolen Stafford vote, as given by the Grey Star (and therefore by the trio at Greymouth) without note or comment. I wish to ask you, straight, whether you are really satisfied with that explanation ? If the Press does not help us to put down all such disgraceful dodges, and mean trickery, we may as well throw up the sponge and leave the Educational interests of Westland entirely in the hands of the ring who have had possession of these interests for the last eighteen months. I need scarcely lecal to your memory the disreputable proceedings of this Board, and I may state that more grossly disreputable proceedings have still to be dragged to the light of day. This will be done when the proper time comes ; but in the meantime, let us deal with the stolen vote. The explanation is as follows: The cause of the letter being not forthcoming at the proper time was owing to the envelope being marked "vote," instead of "votes," and consequently being mistaken by the acting secretary—Mr Robinson being absent, at Wellington, on Board business—for a vote for the extraordinary vacancy. The envelope has not been opened. Now whether the letter was endorsed " vote '' or •« votes " J do not know—

Mi- Sandle, no doubt, will be abb to explain that matter. I wish to direct your attention to the fact, however* that there were two letters .from Stafford containing—one, a nomination For the extradrdinary Vacancy-, and the other the Vote For the ordinary Vacancies. Whether ttie word rt vote" or "votes" appeared on the envelopes was really of no consequence. Thfen letters of Mr Sandle's were posted on the Bth February, both together, and I want td know why, when it was known that the Stafford return was missing, when it was known that Stafford had plumped for Mr M'Whirter (everybody knew this) and when it Was known that there were two iettfera From Stafford with the proper endorsement " Vote for the Education Board election" iu the office—whyj I say weie not either, or both, of these letters forthcoming 1 As for the excnae that it was thought the Vote now unearthed was a vote for the extraordinary vacancy; I will dispose ot that by stating that on the Bth of February very few of the committees had even rUade A nomination for that vacancy* and Up to this very moment hardly one of them had sent in their votes, Which will not be dealt with until the Uth April nexts We are told now that the enVelope had |* not been opened yet." How then is it known that this is really the letter' stolen ? I wish to mention that all the votes (except this plumper for Mr M'Whirter, which was stowed away) were opened, contrary to law, before the Board sat at all, and that) without opening the Stafford vote, it was perfectly well known that Stafford had plumped for Mr M'Whirter; How did the letter lie for six weeks at the Education office and not turn up until the postage authorities and Mr Sandle" traced its delivery into the office. FaN ther—you mention an acting-secretary: Would it be pertinent or impertinent to ask who this acting-secretary is? who appointed him ? when was he appointed 1 Is it true, of untrue that his name in Perkins, that he is a son of the "Chairman" (who is not chairman), that the Board know nothing of his appointment, and that the care of the stock and stationery of the Board has been handed .over to him without the sanction of the -Board. I h*ve a score of other similar questions, and we are determined that an answer be given; lu the interim we depend on the substantial and complete aid of the Press of VVestland, if purity of administration in the most important of all institutions is to be obtained;— Yours, CdibfrrrEE-MAX. March 20, 1882. [We are not satisfied witii the «' ex= planation" given in the Oreymouth Star, as given in small type above. We quoted the statement for what it was worth, pendingthe "special meeting of the Board," which the same' paragraph stated " will be held to consider what is now to be done." For ourselves we were content to await itnd see what action the Board would take in the matter. Mr Sandle has distinctly Stated that he endorsed the letter "Vote for Member of the Board." And as the letter was posted on the 7th or Bth February—(the postmark,we presume, would have shown that)— a gross bungle has been made in the conduct of this election \ for the notice of the extraordinary vacancy, we find, was not issued till the 2nd of the pre* sent month, and therefore three weeks later than the date on which the Stafford plump vote was posted. ing the other questionable proceedings referred to by our correspondent, we are quite as much in the dark as " Committee-man." It is to be hoped the Board will, at its special or general meeting, deal with these questions without prejudice, and in a manner* worthy of administrators of an institution which should be a pattern to other governing bodies.—Ed. K. T ]