Untitled

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 168, 9 July 1875, Page 2

To the Editor of the "Evexixo Mait..' Sir— An outsider like myself has very little chance with an editor or a prln'er; the latter can so jumble a correspondent's letter by transposing a few lines as to make ifc almost untelligible; and the former, when it suits him, Invariably interprets what is written differently to the intention of the writ- r. But surely you do not ; wish your readers to believe that you cannot p rceive that the Inspector's remarks about ' ablest masters " and " waste of power " had special reference to the recent appointment made in Nelson. The nonsense I a!ltided to was 'hit the Inspector pointed specially to a particular master as being on« of the ablest, and that his power was being wasted in a small country school, and by implication gave it as his opinion that he hid been overooked. anil stated lurther, ln effect, thut a system which permitted such a state of things was by no me «ns perfect. Now as the Inspector's remarks imply that there arc several able masters in the employment ofthe Board, it is only reasonable to conclude that the Town Committee se'ecte J one of them for the position of headmaster, and I say it was nonsetsc for the Inspector to make the non-appoint-ment of another a peg upon which to hang a comp'aint ahojt tbe system, inasmuch as no matter how manylHiiJnn n had "Wilted, one only could obta'n the i*%*jintmeisr;\ * Mr Hodgson's le ter iff"- j^pur last night's i?sue ia written with sufch unraH^ri-W asperi yj that it hirdly requires a reply. 'The allusion to int'midation is simply ridiculous, and as unnecessary and bvsidc the question as his gratuitous public notification of mv experience of the work of the Board being barely a week old. I <;id not write as a member of the Centrnl Board, but as a member of the Local Committee, and in defence of an appointment made by that Committee, and to remove a misconception that existed in the mintfs of many ratepayers tha*: the successful applicant did got bold a certificate from the present Inspector, a misconception that was confirmed in mtny quarters by the Inspector's own statement that he did not hold such a certificate. I fe*r Mr Hodgson's memory i< failing him. He says that he is a member of the Board of Examiners ; and here my *• bare week's experience of the working of the Board " will qfaae in useful. The Central '..Board appointed *<<£ wrd of Examiners on «?the lat instant, and I am quite sure Mr Hodgson was not one of the appointed. I will not promise not to write another syllable if there are fresh strictures, but I would rather not} newspaper writing is not my forte, and I would not attempt to compete with the vocabulary of an Inspector of Schools. I am, &c.. j M. M, v Webster. .Nelson, July 9. \ [Will Mr Webster believe ua when we say that, not being afflicted with Snnley on the brain, aa he appears to be, we read the Inspector's report of the W«ifoea West school aod itg master without ofccfe thinking ! of tliat gentleman?. Will he^&iua the favor to accept our assurance that in commenting upon that rvpirtMr Sttp(es whs never once present in our mind, excepting wlun quoting a portion of it which referred to the Hamp Sen-street school, on a matter tint bad nothing whatever to do with the question now under discussion? If Mr Webster could possib y bring himself to believe that there are a few individuals who do not, like himee'f, regard Mr Sunley as tho centre round which tho whole of our educational system Bhould revolve, he would be much more like the reasonable man he usually is than ho now shows himself to be. With Mr Webster's controversy yith IVfr jHo.lg3on hay? nothing to do, nut we may set him right on a matter of fact. He denies that Mr Hodgson is a member of the Boad of Examiners because not appointed by the new Central Board, He should hava made himself acquainted with the fact that tho Inspeotor is ex officio one of them, and that the Board is appointed merely, in the wording of the isolation, to "assist ''hira.— Eo N.E.M % ] 1

To the Editor oj.' the 'Evening Mail.' S * R —* regret to see Mr Hodgson has rushed into print against Mr Webster in your issue of hut evening, the more so as nis letter ia both inelegantly written and ungrammatically expressed. He should have been especially careful, under the circumstances, to avoid any errors Allow me to point ont a few. « Whom," having reference/ to "Board," ahould be "which;" « hitf egregioualy mistaken his man" should be " ia egregwusly mistaken;" "a" should be omitted before "fourteen;" "so" should be placed before «• sufficiently;" and "aa" before "to render;" < as to rare" should be included m parenthesis; ani lastly, "loquacity " is clearly wrong, as Mr Webster did not speak, but wrote. Were 1 disposed to be hypercritical I might enumerate others,/ wnich, although perhaps not de idediy iur£ grammatics, are nevertheless inele*antJtad in some instances hizy and unintelligiW? I sincerely trust Mr Hodgson will abstaih frot» examining in grammar, otherwise PTear Mr bunley s chance of passing will be a poor one. y > j I am, &c , / .'/Neleon, July 9, 1875. R"W