BRIDGE-STREET SCHOOL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 159, 3 July 1878, Page 2

BRIDGE-STREET SCHOOL.

TO THE EDITOB OP THE « EvENIHG MAIL.'

Sir— l have been a subscriber to your paper for many years, and have frequently been gratified by your sensible remarks on various topics. La3t evening I was considerably surprised to read your attempt to exaggerate into an act of gross impertinence the kind and truthful address presented by the boys of Bridge-street School to their teacher, Mr W. Price. As far as I can judge the boys unanimously endorsed every word they had written. I can assure you, Sir, that my boys would not have been permitted by me to write their signatures to an impertinent document. The evening previous to the presentation I was shown the paper by one of my boys; it was very prettily written by Master V. Hooper. I was asked if that would do, and I replied Yes, I think that will do very well. Other parents aa well as myself fully agreed to all that was expressed in it. You, Sir, are at a loss to understand how such action as the Local Committee may deem necessary to enforce should be characterised as "unjustifiable interference." To be dressed in a little brief authority does not constitute "a man" or a body of men to be infallible or free from error in judgment. In the present instance of public dismissal a large number of persons have been interested, and have watched with " silent contempt " the conspicuous part unfairness has played in the whole transaction from first to last. I am, ice, Faikplat. [We regret to have to differ from our esteemed correspondent, hut to us it certainly appears moat undesirable that boys attending a Government school should be encouraged in criticising such action as the Local Committee may think fit to take in the appointment or removal of masters, nor can we characterise their doing so as anything else but an act of gross impertinence. We are glad, however, to find that the boys are gradually being released from the responsibility of having composed the objectionable letter. Mr Price has expressed his doubts as to its genuineness, and our correspondent to-day states that the boyg " endorsed '-' the sentiments contained therein, from which we infer that they did not originate them. With regardto the latter part of our correspondent's letter, we would merely remark that if so many people thought that Mr Price had been wrongfully or unjustly treated it is surprising that no allusion whatever was made to his dismissal at the annual meeting of householders, held for the purpose of electing Committeemen. Surely that was not the time to " look on with silent contempt " if so gross a wrone had been done.— Ed. N.E. M.~]