Correspondent

Te Aroha News, Volume XXII, Issue 42742, 1 July 1905, Page 2

Cor respondent

vVe do not hold ourselves responsible fo. the opinions expressed by our cor- , respondents. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In report of the Waitoa Hoad | Board, held on Saturday last is a letter from T B Leaman, re Manawaru School Committee, also you state that Mr Hughes said that the planks put down by the said com nittes, wero of a. dangerous nature etc,. Being a family man and sending ray children to this School, I have taken the trouble to oo and see this piece of road and also to see for myself w tatever the the committee were doing to bring down the wrath ofT. B. L. upon them, I find that this gentleman has used this piece of road for years and his stock and children have always had

the run of it, an,d in all these years not one accident has befallen his stock or children. I find that the seven men of the Manawaru School Committee are far better able to judge in this matter than T. B. L. Has it taken him seven yeais to find out that a washout 20ft deep is dangerous.? As regards the s’atement of Mr Hughes that the planks were of a dangerous nature that were used as a bridge by

the Committee, I must leave with him. because not one plank is used in the construction of the bridge, which is built of posts and fascines and is good for years and the purpose for which it is used. It iss'roug, level, and 14ft wide, the drain is about 3fc by 3ft, and no one should ever have said a word about it as dangerous. I find that it would have been more to the credit of these gentlemen if they had helped instead of obstructing the committee in the work of improving the school grounds. After looking over the road and school and interviewing the Chairman my verdict is for the Committee. —I am, etc., Fair Play. Maoawaru, June 28. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In the Te Aroha News of June 17th, two persons, one apparently a resident of Te Aroha West, the other of Manawaru, weie permitted to publish most objectionable statements concerning the teachers of a school in ihis district. One regrets that it is impossible to express surprise at the appearance of such statements in the columns of thelocal press. Since they have appeared, a few considerations may be submitted which, trite and obvious though they must appear to an instructed person, none the less need enforcement.

Of the actual merits of the alleged case of ill usage I do not know anything, and for my present purpose it is not necessary that I should. That purpose is to protest against the publication of what are in themselves, apart altogether from any question of their accuracy, statements repugnant to our British ideas of justice. That these statements aie characterised by rigid, economy in the use of the truth—the Chairman of the Te Aroha West Schoo 1 Committee suggests as much—l can well believe. For the sake of argument, however, I am prepared to concede that they contain a substratum of truth.

Of the two statements, that of the Te Aroha person is of course the more disgusting. Among other things it contains a proclamation of the writer’s intention, in certain circumstances which in his opinion may occur, to “deal” with the teacher himself. Nobody pays much attention to this vulgar bluster ; in fact nobody knows precisely what it means. However, to judge from the writer’s style, the word “ deal ” is no doubt used to signify the use of personal violence. It does seem odd in a free country, where grievances have their legal remedy, and the reign, of law has been' established, to find a person advertising in a public print his reversion to the methods of the savage. Another statement of the Te Aroha West person is that he has not been able to ascertain the finding of the School Committee. That statement alone damns him. He has heard, only one side of the case, that possibly by hearsay, and be does not know the verdict! To all instructed persons, that is a reductto ad absurdum of his statements. And yet he is permitted in the press, that palladium of the rights of the people, to slander the defendant!

The Te Aroha West person further states that Committees are usually oneIt may be asserted with confident e sided. This is nof only untrue; it is silly that a majority of committees, however they may err in judgment,- honestly endeavour to do justice. If in a majority of cases the Committee upholds the teacher, the reasonable deduction is that in a majority of ; cases an independent body of men, knowing the releyanf facts, find that in justice the teacher ought to be upheld. I have now shown that the 'stater ments of the Te Aroha West person are (1) ruffianly, (2) devoid of the spirit of justice, (3) lacking in intelligence. Haying shown so much, I have shown that they merit the contempt of all right thinking people. I hope in a later communication to discuss other aspects of the said statements. —I am, etc., JxJSTITIA.