THE SOUTH CANTERBURY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2511, 7 April 1881, Page 2

THE SOUTH CANTERBURY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

[to the editor]

Sir—Two members of this Board are especially noticeable in your report of the meeting held yesterday for their arrogance, and from what I can judge, are well backed up by the remainder to continue acting illegally with regard to the late contest for the vacant seats. I am not at all surprised at anything the Rev George Barclay does, as he has from the outset of his public career manifested such a spirit of monopoly and injustice, that I fear he is beyond redemption. Mr Wakefield is another of that class of individuals whose fame has earned for himself such distinguished epithets, that no wonder, scholar as he professes to be, he feels proud of being associated with such a coadjutor as the rev. gentleman. It is not difficult to understand the whys, and the wherefores. It was rumoured a few months since, that on the dissolution of the present House of Representatives by effluxion of time, Mr Wakefield intended to contest the seat for Timaru, and his friend Mr Barclay that of Geraldine. Both these gentlmen are known to be closely allied to a newspaper, whose proprietor is the Chairman of the South Canterbury Board of Education, so that when any political question requires agitating, the wink is given, and the public are educated to believe that great things may be expected to be done by their influence in ministerial quarters. Mr Howell, another member of the Board, whose re-election has been gained under such suspicious c'Tcumstances, is also one of the clique, and he, no doubt feels that he would be acting wrong if he did not in some way show his gratitude for favors recently received. With such influence brought to bear on Mr Goldsmith, whose star for oratory has not as yet been in the ascendant although he has hitherto been looked upon as an honorable member of the august body, I cannot but feel that he has been made a victim of misplaced confidence. These four gentlemen then, form the majority of the Board and may fairly be designated as the ruling power. What is the sequel of such ability ? The Education Act is set at defiance, the reasonable solicitations of School Com mittees rejected, the opinions of eminent counsel disregarded; and they (the Board) reserve for themselves the sole right of determining the legality of their proceedings, whether detrimental to the interests of the district or not. Mr Barclay is reported to have stated, “ that their decisions must not

be disputed.” Things are coming to a pretty climax when some four or five men are permitted to rule any way they like. I would ask, are these men honorably elected by a majority of .School Committees,if the cumulative system of voting is used ? I say, “No !” and until an alteration is made in the voting power no good results will ever take place. The conservative policy of the present Government, and the kindly influence of Mr Barclay, the hon. member for Geraldine, and their pet journal, is a sufficient guarantee that there must he no infringement upon the rights of the high and .mighty.

LIBERAL