New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4914, 21 December 1876, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21.

We publish a letter from Mr. Charles C. Graham, Secretary .to, the Board of Governors of the Wellington College. It is now quite clear that the second of the supposititious cases put by us on Saturday last was the correct, one. Mr. Graham, in his. letter-of the 4th November last, did use language which, while apparently a substantive denial of pur statements, left room for subsequent prevarication if the matter cropped up again. This is exactly what we expected to happen when, after information, gained without the assistance of Mr. Graham, we returned to this subject. Let us take Mr. Graham’s pleas in the order in which he places them. Let us notice how he prevaricates in the first and second paragraphs of his present letter. In our leader of 3rd November last we mentioned, as the main purpose of the article, a rumor that the salaries of the masters were to be supplemented from a sum of £SOO granted by the General Government. Mr. Graham promptly rushed into print the next day with a letter, the very first clause of which was a general denial, stating that “your leading article is entirely at variance with fact.” Thus this denial might be taken, in the letter of the 4th November, as it certainly was by all straightforward people, to do service as a denial of our main statement as to this second supplementary sum of £500; and again, in the letter to-day, it is to do service as a denial merely that this £SOO came in the way stated, and of the withdrawal of the £3OO. Then towards the end Mr. Graham said; —“ With reference to the charge ' that the provincial vote of £SOO has been frittered away in augmentation of existing salaries, instead of being expended in procuring additional lecturers,’ I have only to say that the vote in question was passed expressly in aid of the salaries of existing masters, and was and is distributed by the provincial authorities themselves, the Governors of the College having nothing whatever to do with it.” Now, note the ingenious ambiguity of this. The words here quoted by Mr. Graham from our article of November s refer distinctly to the first vote of £SOO, which was distributed to the masters; and there is not the slightest betrayal of the fact of the second sum of £SOO now in course of distribution, except the two little words “and is,” which are quite incorrect in the connection wherein they are used : they are made to refer to the first sum of £SOO spoken Sf by us, whereas not that sum but the second sum of £SOO “is” in course of distribution, and was the real sum in dispute. Thus, in the letter of the 4th November, Mr. Graham, as it were, covers one ground, and to-day covers quite different ground. In the third paragraph, in answer to a query of ours, Mr. Graham tells us that Mr. Wilson gets only £7OO, and no more, out of the provincial vote of £IOOO to the College. Well, we say nothing just now of the handsome -thing Mr. Wilson is making out of the boarding establishment, as that is not the point in question. But,Mr. Graham goes on to say:-—“Your insinuation, therefore, that his nominal salary is supplemented ip some underhand manner out of the above-mentioned vote, is entirely without foundation.” Now, we simply asked a question relating to a person in a public position, in these words, “What became of that sum of £IOOO granted by the Provincial Council ? Does any part of it go to supplement-the nominal salary of the Principal?” According to Mr. Graham, this is “insinuation ! ” Now some people would call this impertinent in Mr. Graham ; but we simply remark that these gentlemen, whose mouthpiece Mr. Graham appears to be, have been so long left unquestioned, that we are not surprised at their not being able to understand questioning in this way. They are on the high horse certainly. , The fourth paragraph js amusing. The point is, that £IOO went into the second master’s pocket in the same year in which the £250 went there ; but according to Mr. Graham, because it did not go then, on the same legal theory, it was “not given in addition to the £2501 ■ Mr, Graham should have been a special pleader. He has mistaken his vocation. The fifth paragraph also contains a sample of very ambiguous quibbling, to say the least of it. There seems to be an equivocation in the word “year,” which may mean the ordinary solar year of 1875, or the financial year ending 31st March, This much is certain, that the whole first sum of £SOO was distributed,' and the second'sum of £SOO is being distributed. On Mr. Graham’s showing, £687 10s. is not bad for a second master, that is, £B7 10s. more than the salary of a Professor in;Otago University. ; - In the last paragraph Mr. Graham is both impertinent and impudent. -Why, did he not in his letter of November 4 give us the information which we ■ have now dragged out of him ? We know how to value his sham offer of “ready and willing to afford fullest information, &c.” He has been neither ready nor willing to

inform, but very prompt indeed to mislead. promise Mr. Graham- -.that before we have done with the matter he will be : astonished how much of this “ information”' wiircome out, nd : thanks to him. Never yet, siri6e *; its foundation, has there been a’tpropep statement of'the accounts Of thispamperei'in'stitufiort submitted; V'Wp "decline ‘’ to accept such ex parte statements as that of Mr. Wilson, which,only,tend,,to.mislead, and which, as a fact, assuredly have misled most people. "We - mean that these accounts shall be published, and that will be sooner than Mr. Graham bargains for.