South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2819, 6 April 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1882.

The Education Board was yesterday; occupied in a futile endeavor to crack two particularly' liard n'uts. The one: was the scholarship.question, the,other, the vagaries of the Temuka School Committee. We shall have occasion,.: hereafter, to. review the. former, as it is a deeply, and universally, interesting subject, and we shall now offer our j readers a few comments, on the latter. ! The position appears to be as follows : | —The Tempka School Committee is | composed of 'a number of gentlemen ! between whom there exists a great deal j of discordant, feeling which" makes it; quite impossible for them to adminis- \ ter the affairs of the school. The;; majority, seeing this, are ‘wishful that j the householders should be appealed to, to elect a new Committee. One I member resigns, but withdraws his ! resignation. This withdrawal the Committee declines to accept; and I then other four resign, leaving a 1 number insufficient to form a quorum. ; The remaining two members are thus;. in a doubtful position. They desire to hold office', r but as they cannot form* a quorum they have no power to asfc..j : They therefore fall back upon a'protesff , about the real position of the member! who had resigned and then withdrawn, i his resignation, and they urge tfiaJ be-is still a member of the . Committee. .; If that were admitted, however, the ; resignation of the. four -would not: answer the purpose, viz., to render the ‘ election of a. new .Committee necessary., They would' have merely put "them-1 selves but of office without gaining their object, and the three in ! possession 1 could go on administering affairs"'as : usual without regarding their departed ; colleagues., The case being somewhat;! perplexing, one of the two faithful j members waited yesterday on the; Board, “to ask the Board’s advice,” as' he put it. But the Board had noj advice to give.- 1 The chairman politely informed the deputation that the Board would consider the matter and let him (the visitor) know the result,' and “ with this he was fain to depart.” 1 Thereupon the Board laid their heads together, and looked into the law. The Education Act 'made ho provision for such a contingency as the resignation of this number of committeemen,' It was obvious the fraraei's of the Act never contemplated such a wholesale breaking :, up/, of Committee as hat taken place "in ’ Temuka. i It was, therefore, accepted by most of! the members that this was but another illustration of the vague and slip-shod manner in which, the Statute is framed. But the Board has, fortu T nately, just received an accession to its ranks in the person of a gentleman!, who is not merely in the law,, but who is able to discern the spirit: pervading the law. He placed th< i matter in the proper light;- He was i of opinion that persons holding unpaid public offices were.never supposed to divest themselves of responsibility in :a moment of pique. It was obvious thWin accepting public office, though an unpaid one, a person placed hi.sservices at the disposal ot the country and assumed a certain responsibility.' On him, in his particular position, the country relied, and it was clear that the first duty of every such holder pf office was to keep his own feelings and' interests in subordination to the requirements of the Public Service. For him to resign or refuse to act, when such resignation or refusal would throw public machinery out of gear, was never contemplated by the framers of a law. This, wo take it, was the gist of Dr Foster’s argument, and it appears to us that it applies exactly to the ease of the Temuka School Committee. The withdrawal - of these members from office must have a most injurious effect upon the school, and for any undetiirable consequences that .may ensue, we certainly think the members of the Committee should bo held

responsible,/ They accepted anhonorary office; pod a certain public institution was left in their hands to manage, yet they are not six!. months in office before the Committee-room becomes;a bear garden and a series of squabbles is terminated by a petulant and selfish action on the part of certain members. The immediate' result is a state Of anarchy,- as disgraceful as it is disastrous.