MR FOULIS’ DISMISSAL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1093, 1 October 1883, Page 2

MR FOULIS’ DISMISSAL.

— TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,- —The Board of Education have caused a thrill of excitement to pass through the whole district by their dismissal of the Inspector of Schools, Mr Fonlis. There may exist great difference of opinion as to the qualifications of the Inspector, and there may be many of the opinion that Mr Poulis has held the office too long, but there are a great number who, while they do not agree with him in all his doings, must yet look with regret upon the unfair and unjust way in which he has been treated by the Board. The Board of Education, as I understand it, is a representative body pledged to do their utmost to advance the interest of education, and to see that the workings of the Act are carried out ns faithfully as possible. It is also their duty to see that competent individuals fill nil positions of trust under the Board. Now Mr Fonlis has for several years occupied the position of Inspector, and during these years there have, no doubt, been many complaints laid against him, but is there any man filling such a public position of trust, who has not his enemies, who are everlastingly finding fault with his doings, or method' of doing things. It is all bosh for Mr Sanson to talk about an Inspector being like Gaidar’s wife “ above suspicion.” There are few public men who fulfil their duty fearlessly and honestly who do not excite the suspicions of a certain portion of the crowd. Now 1 contend that the

coniine', of the B>nrl in 1110 face of the thirty returns favourable (o Mr Foulis sent from thii ty-dnvo school commit lees, iiml of the deputation of ten chairmen tint wailed upon them, representing os they did, (ho opinion of the mass of people through the whole district, was, to say the very least o f if, very highhanded. It is not my intention to discuss here the two important charges brought against the Inspector, nor the competency of several members of the Board to give a fair and unprejudiced vole on the matter, but leaving these charges out of question altogether as being doubtful, all the other complaints brought against Mr Foulis rested upon such unsubstantial and inadequate proofs, that I am afraid that the opinion of the general public will be that Mr Foulis was dismissed, not because they could find no fault in him, but simply because, as Sir William Fox stated, the Board being something akin in natme to a drapery shop, they could not afford to keep a man behind the counter who was obnoxious to a certain number of their customers. — Yours, &e., Roderick Dhu.