The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1880-10-07
VANcoUvER, w. r., Oct. ,, 1850.

EDITOR INDEPENDENT:
Sir: | notice in the last number Of the In
%PENDE n well written article from the
pen of Nicholas Ennis, denying the truth
of an assertion made in a letter of mine
which was published in a former issue. In
all my communications through your paper
| have cautiously avoided any construction
of language that would reflect uniustly upon
any individual or community; and whenever
proof is shown that l nave erred in this case
then | shall be ready and willing to make
due PREPARATION. But there is nothing in the
article of Mr.. Ennis that would lead me to
this conclusion, and the following statement
of figures that | have in my possession, and
facts which | can prove, will doubtless be
sufficient to convince the readers of the IN
DEPENDENT of the weakness of his defense.
TO show the falsity of my assertion he gives
the following reasons for the small attend
ance at the schools: "lst. The present su-
perintendent and his predecessor have Grip
pied the school by cutting off from that dis
trict and adding it to others. I'd. That five
children who attended the school the previ-
GUS term have since removed from the dis
trict. Sd. A family sending four scholars
unfortunately took the measles, which kept
them at home the greater part OF the term.
4th. Another family kept home two boys
because the loss of their labor was too great
a sacrifice to make" Now, in reply to
these assertions and explanations, | will say
that my predecessor never interfered with
the boundary lines of School District No. -,
and that those who have been cut off since
were never regular attendants at that school.
Hence, if it had any effect at all, it would
go to increase the per cent. of attendance.
| would inform Mr.. L. that the clerk Of dis
trict 81 reported on July Both 43 youth of
school age who were then residing i'll the
district, yet the average attendance was
only ten scholars. Two years ago his dis
trict reported so scholars. School was held
during the same months, and notwithstand-
ing the fact that one or two families had the
measles, and that inordinate greed existed
bllCAl tS lluSh DO II tOCN iiOh. bllC dNGiSEC
attendance being about two and one-half
times as great. But when we compare the
attendance in district b with that in the
two adjoining districts, the plausibility Of
the gentleman's explanation suffers still
more. District IS reported - scholars in
the district, and though sickness inter
fered somewhat with the school there was
an average attendance OF between ii and 10
scholars. Again in school district No. II,
where they report only Al scholars, | found
a regular attendance of SO. This is about
IS per cent, while in district 81 the same
percentage remained at home. No wonder
the teacher was discouraged. But this is
not all. One after another is asking to be
cut off, with no prospects of cessation. 4
general restlessness prevails among alarge
portion of the district. | have been in
formed by members of the district that they
had no hopes of building up a school SO long
as certain other gentlemen resided in the
district. The gentleman may call this state
of things by whatever name he chooses, but
1 calfit dissension or discord. | would say
here that the gentleman is evidently mis-
taken in the source of this information, and
if he will take the trouble to carefully re-
read his article he will see that in the clos
ing paragraph he has Inadvertently betrayed
the very essence OF dissension. | trust that
| have said enough. | have no desire to az
gravate an unfortunate state of things that
is not alone confined to district No. %.
And while l reafiirm my assertion, | do it
with no personal motive; but through a con
v%iction that in so doing | have not over
stepped my official duty. K. EOBB.