Untitled

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2484, 7 March 1881, Page 2

An Eastern legend tells of an individual called the mischief-maker, and in illustration of his unhappy faculty, relates how ho went into a shop one day, dipped his fingers in a jar of honey, made a streak 4 on the wall, and awaited the result. The honey quickly attracted the ilies, the flies attracted the lizards, cats, dogs, and their owners followed in quick succession, the result being a general quarrel, in which half the population were slaughtered. The South Canterbury Education Board appear to be in the hands of a mischief-maker. The members are always trying to do what is right, but they arc invariably doing wrong and getting into scrapes. It is not, wo believe, because they are wilfully bad or perverse, but they are possessed of an evil spirit. The evil genius of this misguided Board lias been actively at work during the recent elections. We mentioned a day nr two ago that two of the members were hold ing their seats illegally, inasmuch as the wrong ones had retired, and now we find that (.ho third in as bad a flx. Mr Howell, for whom personally wo have every respect, has been smuggled back to bis seat by a piece of trickery, in which the Geraldine Flat Committee and the aforesaid • evil genius of the Board have played an important part, Mr Howell is not to be bi nned. It is bis misfortune to occupy a seat to which be has not been fairly elected. For this equivocal position lie may thank the Board’s Mcphistophcles. He has been returned to the Board by a piece of dexterous hut badly managed shuffling. Tl.e illegality of the proceeding is so transparent that unless the Board abandons all decency they should need no prompting to induce them to undo their wrongdoing. The scholarship scandal was bad enough but this election scandal is infinitely worse. At the last meeting of the Board the result of the voting papers of the different Committees was read over. It then appeared that Mr Howell had been elected to the third seat by a majority of one vote over Mr U. B. Walcot. To those who had been watching the proceedings of the Committees this was a surprise for it was understood that the race between Mr Walcot and Mr Howell was a neck and neck one. The question arose how was the voting manipulated ? On investigation it was found that the Geraldine Flat Committee having plumped in the first instance for the llcv. George Barclay, finding that Mr Howell’s return was endangered, shuffled in a second voting paper at the last moment. In other words the Geraldine Flat Committee were allowed to rote twice instead of once. The effect of their second vote was to obviate a tic and ensure Mr Howell’s election by a majority of one. Probably it did not occur to the Chairman or the members of the Board that their proceedings wei’e being closely watched, and that they would be brought to task should any of the artful dodging that has been going on over the scholarships be displayed in connection with the elections. They have been watched, however, and as the reward of a little vigilance, the fraudulent and underhand attempt on the part of the Board to so cook the voting papers as to secure the return of the three old members has , been detected and exposed. The Board is addicted to wriggling when they get into a difficulty, and possibly they will advance all kinds of ingenious explanations and arguments in justification of what they have done. They may urge that the Geraldine Flat Committee did not vote twice, but that they merely amended their first vote. Such a defence might be worthy the Board’s Mepbistopheles because in every sense disingenuous but it will hardly answer the purpose. Will the Board deny that the second vote, or, if they like so to call it, the amended vote, was informal? Do they wish it to be assumed that had any other Committee endeavoured to alter their vote in a similar way in favor of one of the new candidates, their amended vole would have been received ? Will the members of the Board deny that the return of the Geraldine Flat Committee in collusion with the Board or some of its members was not * trick for securing the return of a Geraldine nominee and looping- Timaru out in the cold. Mr B. B. Walcot is Chairman of the Timaru School Committee ; it is well known that Timaru and its vicinity has never had anything like justice from the Board ; and it is equally well known, that an undue portion of the Education expenditure has found its way to that corner of the district which the Rev Georgeßarclay and Mr Howell represent. To keep the chosen of Timaru out and put the chosen of Geraldine in was the great object. It requires no great ingenuity to discover the prime mover in this discreditable piece of artful dodging—this slipping in of an amended vote from a Geraldine plumping Corn raittee in favor of a Geraldine gentleman whose seat according to the faithful tally was insecure. _ Fortunately this dexterous bit of duplicate voting is not likely to be successful. It has already aroused the attention and indignation of the public ; and we have no doubt the ten committees whose votes iu favor ol Mr Walcot have been destroyed for the time being by a piece of sharp practice on the part of an ill-advised committee and an equally culpable Board, will take steps to secure redress. The South Canterbury Education Board has for some time past been unable to conduct its business in a straightforward manner, and its members

have themselves to blame, if, as a puhlio ho.-Iy, they are sinking lower and lower in popular estimation. They have had to swallow their illegal resolution respecting the scholarships, and whether they like it or not, they will probably have to eat the leek in connection with the late election. In the meantime Mr Howell, who has been placed in a false position through the overzeal of unscrupulous supporters will do well to refrain from taking his seat at the Board until the legality or otherwise of his election has been finally determined.