The School Committee Dispute.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1708, 14 May 1886, Page 2

The School Committee Dispute.

KEY. A. M. WEIGHT'S APPEAL.

OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION BY A DEPUTATION FEQM THE EDUCATION BOAED.

The depntation sent by the Education Board, Messrs Baker and Brown, arrived at the school at 2 o'clock yesterday* There were then waiting to receive them Messrs Wright and Jferguson. Mr Wright entered the school and enquired for Mr Watson, who informed him that all the rooms m the schoolhouse were occupied. It was, however, arranged that the children should leave one room, which could be used for the purpose of meeting the deputation.

Mr Baker Opened the meeting by stating that the Board, at a meeting of the Executive Committee, had received a. letter from Mr Wright regarding the late committee election. At that meeting the question was discussed, and it had been resolved to appoint a sub-corn* mittee to visit Palmerston and male* enquiries so that they should have both sides of the question, and be m a position to lay something definite before the next meeting of the Board. The committee appointed had been Mr Watt /the chairman) and himself. The former had been called away at a moment's notice to Auckland, and Mr Brown, the ; secretarr* had consented to accompany him x (Mr Baker J. The question at issue was not a new one, nor was it the first time it had been before the Board. He wag sorry the chairman, and members ot committee had decided to stay away, as they would not have suffered anything by be» ing present. They merely wanted to hear both sides of the question, so as to be able to report to the Board at its next meeting. In post places where objections of the kiind had been raised, the Board had not heard both sides of the question, but had \ declared the elections null and void. He then read the letter which had beep received by the Board frpm the Eev. A. if. Wrighfc To the Chairman Education Boird Wanganui.— Dear Sin— At the meeting of householders held at Palmerstonon 28th April for the election' of a ic'aool committee, a discussion arose as to who were entitled to vote,. MrSnelson, the chairman of the meeting, ruled that those only had a right; to vote who, within the school district, were the bo»t fide occupiers of some houfie or dwelling, or parents or guardians of children within the said district. In spite ot that ruling the following persons, not being householders within the meaning of the Act voted : — i

Mr Healy, unmarried, clerk m tht Standard Office, and? lodging m the house of Mr T. Si Hoe;, Terrace End. Mr Hawkins, junr., unmarried, clerk m his father's office, apd living m hit father's house. Mr Hoskirig, unmarried, and under the age.of 21 years, working m his father'i shop and'livifcg m his fathtr'g home. Mr. Carter, unmarried, of the firm of Welch and Co.. and. living with Mr Welch 'itfthe house whereUhe i>\isine»» is carried on. Mr Welch also votedj so that there were thus two -voters m respect of the.one house. \ . JBesides these" a number of othen, whom I have not the means \of naminr just now, servants and visitor^, took parfc. .m the election by voting. ! : The voting papers were distributed to all and sundry. No test of qualification was applied, and all m the room voted so far as I know, with the exception of one. ■ ■ -±

I submit these facts, sir, to your Board, and pray you to take steps to satisfy yourselves of their correctness, „ and if you find that there ha« been illegal voting, T pray) you to declare the election null and viiid and grant; a new

In reference to the above T may state my ruling was exactly m accordance with that stated by Mr Wriffhfc. I also wish to add that scrutineers were appointed, but did not do their duty m not checking those not qualified to vote from voting. . George M. Snelson, Chairman of Meeting. Palmerston; North, 4th May, 1886. , He might say that Mr Wright had done what was proper considering he had good grounds for his appeal, but, they wanted to hear the other s^de a150..'..' 1 . ; ■'••'■ [Mr Woodrodfe entered the room at this part of the proceedings, and sub- | sequent!* Messrs ;Xtfalton, Hoskimr, and Stewart.] , „• i. v j Mr Baker said the otfy thing he had. to do now W to J ask'Mr Wright to make any further remarks he might think necessary, or call eyjdence to prove his alleea'tibns. ' . .... Mr Wright stated that immediately on receipt of the 'cominamcatibn f torn the Board he had written to the partie* con* cerned, vis?.,- the .chairman of [the meeting of householders, the scrutineers, and the afleged illegal voters,, askmg^hera to attend the meeting to-day. He had also written to 'Mr FeVgrisbh, Mr JDeary, and Mr Stewart m order that they might inform the .deDiitation how the election had beeru: conducted. Hs bad cited Mr Stewart, because he it-was who had circulated tihe voting papers, himself being a candidate. ' He (the speaker) had been instructed by/the committee to provide voting papers. This he Had done by cutting up pieces of paper. He had not marked -the paper m any way, and there was no stamp or other means of recognising them; so that any person who was not a householder conldJbave voted without their asC3rfcaining: ; the iact. One of the gentlemen to 'whpm.he had taken exception m his letter to the Board was present The others had not attended.|v; iv Mr Stewart ;here requested to know by wha'l-authority the Board had cloeed tlie school to hold the- present meeting. He referred the deputation to the clause m the ? regulations referring to school baiklings. V : Mr Baker remarked that he knew the regulations and the rule referred to. '?>.»•• ' ■•'■'■ : ' '

Mr Stewart informed Mr Baker that the secretary bad refused to act as such, and therefore- they of course could not recognize any communication coming from him. .Neither bad he. treated them with courtesy: . Mr Baker said that they had decided to come down and hear both sides of the questioned receiyingMr Wright's letter, which jcontajned grave charges. In reply to Mi* .Stewart, ; Mr Wright stated Mat the Board had left m his hands 'the matter of citing, the parties interested m the affair. In reply -to Mf Hosking, Mr Bakersaid that he had not had a personal interviews with Mr Wright -intact he had not known who, Mr Wright was till that day. •■, , -'>.' Mr Stewart ' said that Mr Wright had accepted without objection his election as member of" the committee, arid also his election- to the. oince of secretary, and had subsequently acted as secretary, and then suddenly he had refused to act longer and had proceeded |to. Wanganui, having acjed as a private, detective m ascertaining, the particulara as to the manner of the election ." , Mr Wright: I think the deputation have possession of the room. Mr Stewart : I don't think so— not at least dntiLthey have the consent of the Committee. , ■•....•• „:..; Mr Baker : Wecan us« the room if •we wish by. our own right.

Mr Stewart r<?ms»rked, that Mr Wright had called • the meeting m a "Star Chamber B: iashion. ■■■■••■■•■'• Mr Walton : ;Our committee, Mr Ch airman jhaye been treated with contempt by the secretary, of th.c Education Board. of -Watiganui., Mr Wright has taken Tupon himself to iise this room, without i first* asking the consent of the Committee, 'and after what ' 'had taken place, lie believed no member of the Committee would sit at the sain* table with him.

MrJFerguson: I would. Mr Baker said that the Board had not for a moment dreamt of treating the Committee discourteously, and that the misunderstanding arose through Mr Watt being nnablo to come down; and they had thought that the matter could be settled quietly m half-an-hour. He regretted exceedingly if the Committee considered they had been treated otherwise than, with courtesy. Mr' Walton' said that the Committee wouia have beeu most happy to have shown every conrteßy to the deputation, and given them every facility to investigate Mho affair, but Mr Wright had treated them with gross contempt. After further discussion, two or three speaking at a time, Mr Baker allowed that Mr" Brown should have sent notices to the ' Committee m proper form. A gflneral conversatioa then ensued. Mr Stewart informed the deputation that there was really, nothing whereby the Vjpting could be checked, and further that it had been carried out as regularly as it had been on previous years and m exactly'th'e same manner. A discussion then ensued on the defir nilion'of the term "householder," each giving his opinion of its meaning. Mr-i -Walton then pointed out that the Board must, if the, members had any perception at all, have seen m the letter sent them by .Mr Wright, that some motive "underTaythe action of the secretary. He (Mr Wright) h ad first acted as «ecre« tary, and then he had turned round and refused to act privately — not openly like a mat i or agentl«maß, but had gone and laid his plans and made his arrangements with the Board. . There was a clear' wlot of "principle m the way he had acted, and he had not certainly acted either in i the interests of the committee or.the, householders, but simply on his own behalf and to further his •wn ends. • '- ' Mr.Wright said that there was only one case. He had made a specific appeal to the Boirdj and his motive for so doing was not supposed to be open to Mr Walton or any Ou© else. He would ask the Cliairniari to take the evidence of Mr Hcaly, who was present, as being one of tho9« who had voted illegally at the late election. ;. . Mr Stewart here objected to the whole proc«cdings,and to the room being used further. • t M"r Baker considered it would be best to close the meeting, and stated that he wasiof: opinion that th« trfembers of the committee should have been communicated with by the Board. The meeting then adjourned.