Letter to Members of Education Board.

Dear Sir,—Our deep interest in the matter is our apology for addressing you, as a member of the Board of Education, in connection with the recent letter of the Minister of ducation re Oamaru District High School. We observe with satisfaction his view that the school should remain in standing a school of secondary education under the Act. Recognising the necessity of the proposed provision for the secondary education of girls, we cannot admit that in a high school under the Act there ought not to be provision for the secondary education of boys, and we have always maintained that Waitaki High School "does not place secondary education within the reach of all classes and both sexes." On this understanding we will gladly do what in us lies for amicable settlement and harmonious administration of the matter. It will be a most welcome relief to us if the Board enable us to withdraw from appearance of collision with a body which we desire to hold in due honor as entrusted with the guardian care of education in otago.

We think it seasonable to submit the following as our view of the case:—The standing of the school, as one of secondary education, is for this district an inheritance from the provincial constitutions of Otago, placed by the Education Act under colonial guarantee of New Zealand. The proposal to reduce it to the footing of a common school was not called for by any party having interest or title; but has been persistently reclaimed against, as in violation of a vested right, on behalf of the real beneficiaries here, by the Schools Committee and by the Oamaru citizens in public meeting as a body.

As compared with the great loss of the people's heritage of secondary education in this district, the expected pecuniary saving to the nation as a whole—some L150 a year—is really insignificant. And on our part it has been maintained from the outset that the proposed reduction is ultra vires of the Board, which has power to administer the constitution of the school under the Education Act, but has no power of law to destroy that constitution. This view of law regarding competency is in harmony with the professional opinions obtained at the outset from Messrs Hislop and Creagh (hereto annexed) by the Schools Committee, and from Mr Robert Stout by the Education Board. And now it is amply borne out by the opinion (of which extract is hereto annexed) of Messrs Stewart, Holmes, and Denniston, regarding the case as it now stands. But if there be a working agreement on the basis that has been suggested, the legal question as to competency can be left in abeyance.