The North Eastern Ensign at KellyGang 5/11/1872 (2)
The report says:- "The correspondent called every member of the committee to be present except Mr M'Nally." The manner in, which the calling together took place is highly objectionable. Father Egan went a few minutes before and asked Mr Byrnes and Mr Denny to attend. Now, as it was to be a meeting of vital importance to me, a servant of 10 years' standing, the correspondent, if he was actuated by honourable feelings, should have given some days' notice of his intention to hold a meeting. But it is, plain to be seen that my dismissal was a foregone conclusion. Mr Willis, who was in the secret, on coming from Wangaratta some months anterior, told Mr Herman, a farmer, at Winton, when he called that they were resolved to turn me out, and that they had a good man to put in my place; so much, then, for the sham meeting. The absence of truth again becomes painfully manifest in the report when it says - "Mr Fitzsimons was called in and informed of what the committees intended to do, the correspondent at the same time offering him another school."
No such offer was ever made to me on that night. I was thrown the notice to quit, and condemned without a shadow of crime against me, or a solitary complaint laid to my charge. Such an act deserves to be recorded in the archives of local committeeism. The same official document says - "Mr Denny informed me that he signed the petition through good nature," &c., and again the Inspector writes in the same report - "Mr Denny says that the signature is not his, nor did he authorise anyone to sign it." This is a sort of paradoxical way of putting things which must be peculiar to Mr Geary. To give Cmesar? his due, I do not believe Mr Denny ever said anything of the kind to this model inspector. On the contrary, Mr Denny informs me that when the Inspector came to his workshop, in company with Masers M'Gillicuddy and Willis, he said to Mr Geary, "I have nothing against Fitzsimons, he is the best teacher ever was in the township." "Mr Byrnes," the Inspector goes on to say, signed the petition on the understanding that it was only to allow Mr Fitzsimons a hearing. Since then he learned the committee did allow Mr Fitzsimons all opportunity of explanation."' What then? This is a very indefinite way of reasoning.
The paragraph seems very vague, but is like what Mr Byrnes would say. I would like to know, from Mr Byrnes, through your columns, what he means by emphasizing the word only, and who gave him that consolatory information "that I was allowed all opportunity of explanation." "Messrs Alkemade and M'Nally," the report says, "admit that they had a misunderstanding with the correspondent." Suppose such an admission was made by them, what had that to do with my wrongful dismissal? Mr Geary again says- "As Mr M'Nally has no children, and never visits the school, I cannot see how he can pronounce an opinion as to how it is conducted." Whether Mr M’Nally has or has not children should have nothing to do with the.
Investigation which should have been held by the Inspector, but was not; but when Mr Geary wrote in that remarkable paper for the information and guidance of the Board that Mr. M'Nally never visited the school, and could not therefore pronounce an opinion as to how it was conducted, such was utterly incorrect. The records, of the. school will show that on some hundred occasions Mr M'Nally visited the school and entered the result on the school rolls. The Board of Education must know that this was an untruth, and yet they retain such an officer in their service. It is time to do away with a body who would allow such palpable corruption in the subversion of truth to pass with impunity. If Mr Geary had the honesty to say Messrs M'Gillicuddy, Byrnes, Ryan and Denny never visited the school he would be correct, as they never, did. I think it right to the public to say that I drew Mr M'Nally's attention to this statement of the Inspector's where he said he (Mr M'Nally) never visited the school. He is not refuting this untruth arises from the fact that Father Egan is at the head of it, so that if he contradicted the statement he might imagine that it would be accounted a schismatic act, and thus incur the displeasure of the church. I say this, however, hypothetically, and I think I am justified in doing so from his inexcusable silence.
The Inspector makes another allusion to Mr M'Nally that requires explanation. He says, "one person informed me that Mr M'Nally took round the petition, but Mr M'Nally says he did not. "Either Mr M'Nally or Mr Geary must be telling an untruth. If Mr M'Nally said he did not assist to take it round he is in error, and if he did not say so why does he not like a sterling, independent man boldly say so? It never detracts from the merits of a man to speak the truth when required., Should Mr M'Nally continue silent under the libel he must be regarded as an abettor in the cruel proceeding that committed such an act of injustice upon me.
The charges which were preferred against me were: -
"Viperous slander.
Whose edge is sharper than the sword; whose tongue
Outvenous all the worms of Nile; whose breath,
Rides on the posting winds, and doth bells,
All corners of the world."
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, JOHN FITZSIMONS
| ! | The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. |
