The copper era., 1906-02-08
A Letter from Mr.. CoIquhOun on the
School Question.
TuNBR1Dor WELLS, january 18th. 1906

The Editor Copper Era.
Dear Sir: In your issue of Decem-
Der 2sth, 1905, in an article on schools,
you state that it was proposed some
time ago to consolidate the two dis
tricts and that an order was so made
by the board of supervisors, but that
this arrangement was not satisfactory
to me and that through my inference
an election was called in district No.
3, and so on.
The inference to DC drawn is that
I am largely responsible for the ex-
isting dispute between the two
school districts.
am satisfied that you would not
have made such a mis-statement of
the case had you been present at the
meeting between the trustees and
myself.
AS you are aware the dispute origi-
mated some months prior to my APP
pearance on the scene. I cannot
therefore be regarded as its author.
You are also doubtless aware that
consolidation had been refused by
district No. 3, which adhered firmly
to what it regarded as its just rights.
The district of South Clifton ad-
hered just as tenaciously to what it
considered as its rights, but was will
ing tn consolidate.
The quarrel had not only reached,
but for some months had occupied
position in which there was no yield
ing nor any appearance of yielding.
Had my aim been to maintain mat
tiers in that state ALI had to do was
to leave things alone, but that was
not my purpose.
Acting under the instructions of
my directors I called a meeting of
the trustees of both districts and
made an earnest attempt to bring
both sides to friendly agreement.
Neither side would recede from its
position. Consolidation was refused
by district No. 3, and the southern
district refused to return to the end
line, known as the Payne line.
The representatives of district No.
8 frankly stated that it could not
yield as it had been instructed to the
contrary by the people of that dis
trict.
A representative of the South
Clifton district stated that he was
satisfied that a majority of the peo-
pie of district No. were in favor of
consolidation.
1, therefore, seeing that the con-
ference had failed, suggested that
the trustees of district No. 8 should
report the situation to their people
and be guided by their voices, in
timating, at the same time, that the
question could only be settled by the
people and that whatever they de-
cided to do we would agree to.
That is the position the company
occupies. 1t refuses, as it always has
refused, to interfere between the
people and the just exercise of
their rights, but it is still as ready as
it was in the past to advise and as
benefit the town. And if it can as
sist in any way to bring this unfor-
tunate trouble to a close it will gladly
do so.
Now, with regard to the school house
in North Clifton, about the ownership
of which you appear to be in doubt,
1 want to state that the school is the
absolute property of school district
No. 3. If the trustees have not the
deeds, they can have them for the
asking.
1 am very sorry that my attempt to
bring about reconciliation has been
misunderstood by anyone.
1 hope, however, 1 have made it
clear that the company, while care
fully avoiding anything in the nature
of interference, will welcome an
early settlement of a quarrel which
is regrettable in every way and that
it will gladly acquiesce in whatever
settlement my be made.
l am yours respectfully,
JAMES COLOUHOUN.