COUNCILLOR MACDOUGALL'S REJOINDER.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3099, 3 June 1881, Page 2

COUNCILLOR MACDOUGALL'S REJOINDER.

["To the Editob of the Daily Telegbaph.] Sir,—l am afraid that a desire to say a smart thing has led you to be unjust In your last evening's issue you adverted to the outcome of my efforts in the direction of safety for the men working in the Chaucer-road quarry, and insinuated by means of a pointed muendo that I had said that which was not true. These are your words:—" We have heard Cr. McDougall speak terse English, and wax eloquent; but we have heard from the lips of a sage recently dead that • the f ileat thing under the sun is an eloquent tongue uttering that which is not true.' At the meeting last night Cr. McDougall said that he did not say anything about Mr Davieswhen bringing the condition of the Chaucer-road before the Council. At the meeting of the Council held on May 4th Cr. McDougall, speaking upon the dangerous nature of tbe Chaucerroad quary, said 'it is entirely the fault of Mr J. R. Davies that matters are not set right.' " Upon this antithesis, which you have apparently taken pains to make as forcible in appearance as possible, you do me the honor to found an assumption that I aro, in plain Saxon, tbat utterly detestable parasite of so called civilisation—a "Liar!" This too hasty generalisation of yours has but one fault—it is entirely unwarranted by anything I have said or done on this or on any other occasion, and I am entirely at a loss for the motive which could have led you to gird at me in this uncalled for manner. A few plain truths can set the matter right. In your attempted statement of what I said last niaht, you left out one word used by me that materially alters tbe meaning of the sentence quoted. I said, answering Or. Swan (who did not go your length and call me—well, a prevaricator—but argued that my memory was defective), " I did not say anything against Mr Davies when I first brought the matter before the Council." So my statement of the 4th of May does not contradict that of last night. And now I will explain how it was that Mr Davies" name was brought into the question, and why I said I believed that it was his fault matters were not set right. I first brought the matter forward in the Public Work's Committee meetiug of nearly three weeks before the meeting of the 4th of May, and again, a second time, in Council on the Wednesday following that meeting. At that meeting I said nothing about Mr Davies' quarry, but distinctly stated that the quarry was the property of, or was being worked by Messrs Glendenning and Griffin; but, and this is the nearest approach to a reference to Mr Davies at that meeting, I said " I had been informed that the quarry was in its then dangerous condition owing to a dispute between Messrs Glendenning and Griffin and the owner of the adjacent quarry over a question of boundaries. His Worship thereupon asked me who was the owner of the next quarry, my answer being "Mr Davies, who is now in Poverty Bay/ Owing to the discussion which ensued upon my description of the state of the quarry, the inspector of nuisances was ordered to report upon the quarry at the next meeting of the Council (4th of May), so that steps in the matter might be taken. The inspector of nuisances did not do this, because he was taken seriously ill; but the municipal engineer visited the quarry, reported that it was extremely unsafe, and gave to me the purport of a conversation with Mr Glendenning on the subject. Roughly, and as near as my memory will allow, it was to this effect. " There was a desire on the part of Mr Glendenning to abate the danger at once, but he could not do so without trenching upon Mr Davies' boundary line, and he was threatened with a lawsuit if he did this. He had offered to take the debris down from the dangerous and overhanging brow of the cliff, either depositing it in Mr Davies' own quarry or taking it away and paying double usual rates for it." It then struck me that, although two parties have the right to haggle and strive about disputed boundaries as lopg as they may please under ordinary circumstances, they have no right to do this when delay consequent upon haggling may involve other men's lives; and as it appeared on the face of it that one of the contending parties was anxious for any reasonable settlement of the matter, and abatement of the danger, and tbe other party was not; I, fearful lest while these strove men should die as they had died before, not many feet away, again spoke strongly on the matter in Council, on the 4th of May; and I then said "it appears to be the fault of Mr Davies that the matter is not set right." 1 said that then (nearly three weeks after I had first 6poken on the matter, saying nothing on that former occasion either for or against Mr Davies), but I say more now. I say, as I said last night, that when I first brought the matter forward I said nothing against Mr Davies ; and I also say that, until it is proved that Mr Qleudinning has done what you goodnaturedly and politely assume I have done, " lied " about this matter, "it appears to be tbe fault of Mr Davies that the matter is not set right."—l am, &c,

John W. McDougall.

Hastings, June Srd, 1881.

[Councillors are not the only men who, to shield themselves, accuse reporters of misreporting. It is a circumstance, however, worth noting that in neither of the papers reporting Cr. McDougall's eloquent uttjrances can anything be found of the qualifying nature now claimed by our correspondent as having been incorporated in his speech. We are at all times more inclined to take as true a reporter'! note*

Written at the time than the recollection of one who finds himcclf in a corner.— Ed. T.D.]