STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 3126, 28 July 1892, Page 3

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

TO THE KIJITOR. ,Sm,— I have always thought that tho granting by the State of the sums of money in the shape of scholarships to clever boys was both unjust and illliberal. I candidly admit that I get few to agree with me. This may arise from the fact that what constitutes true liberty is what I and the majority disagree upon ; their idea of true liberty and my idea is as opposite as the two poles. No doubt we are all more or less guided in our thoughts by our interest. No man is entirely free from this. Of course, there are degrees ; some are guided very much, some very little, and as it so happens that the bachelors who have no clever boys are in the minority, and the fathers ot clever, or supposed to be clever, boys are in the majority, it naturally follows that State scholarships are popular, and that the majority uphold them. However, as evolution extends, so does the knowledge extend that what is popular may not be right. In fact, it is beginning to dawn upon us that what is popular is often wrong. It might be that if I had a clever son, or thought he was a clever son, that I also might uphold State scholarships, but though I would or would not do so, the doing so has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the matter in question. I will now do my best, however small that may be, to defend what I have said. State scholarships are unjust, and in this way, that the unfortunate boy who is uot clever has to diD his hands into his pocket to pay for the fortunate clover boy in being- made more fortunate. I think that is being ur.just in a very higb degree. It is like piling mnre fat upon the fat sow at the cost of the lean one. In truth Ido not know but what the opposite would be the height of justice, that is that the fortunate clever boy should be made to dip his hands into his pockets to assist the unfortunate dull boy, however, I wont argue that. Mr Editor perhaps it will be said, that the dull boy is reoouped by tho advantage to the State in having these clever boyi being made more clever this is damned fudge, first from the fact that the clever boy when he is a clever man. does not give his cleverness to the State. If he turns out to be a great parson will he preach for the small stipend. If he is a great doctor will he take the email fee. No, he make use of his cleverness not to enrich the State but to enrich himself. But that is not all. Is their any security that the clever boy will turn out a clever man. Your readers must understand, I am not speaking about exceptions I always speak about the rule. I would not be surprised if you take the most eminent hundred men of the last hundred years that you would find tho majority of the hundred were not clever school bo}-.-). I have in my eye two of the cleverest schoolmates of miDer, real prize-winners they were, just the boys who would have taken scholarships if such things had been in existence. Well, these two boys went to college, and became ministers, and to my own knowledge they were, as ministers, rank duffers. It is true they were not"sticket miuisters," but they were next door to it. One of them had to be minister to a little quoad sacra Church at £80 per year, and the other could not get a Church at home, so he

had to emigrate to a South American Republic to minister to a few Presbyterians who were there established in business. I bold that it is not so ;as the boy is, so will the man be. However, that fact will require a more clever man than I am to explain how such an apparent coutradiction is fact ; nevertheless fact it is. Mr Editor, Ido not object to wealthy liberal-miuded men giving money to form bursaries or scholarships. To such as do so let gratitude be given. No man's memory should be more revered than the late Tory, Judge Gillies. He was a true Liberal in the true sense of true liberalism ; iu fact, some might think that he was liberal to excess, but those who say so must remember than to think he was too liberal is interfering with the liberty of the subject, for what was his own he could do as he liked with. Mr Editor, before I close I will just make one remark—that is, that the taker of a scholarship does not earn it; he certainly wins it, but winning and earning are quite different. If you earn wages you give an equivalent, bat you may win and in return give no equivalent.—Yours truly, Harapbpb,