CORRESPONDENCE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3246, 25 November 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE COMING ELECTIONS. [TO THE EdITOE OF THE DAILY TbLEGEAPIi.I Sih, —I see that Mr Laws has been again gracing your columns with a somewhat prosy effusion in respect to the burking of the breakwater question. He haa apparently taken much trouble to " get at the bottom" of what he fittingly terms a" wretched affair," and from information volunteered to him by a gentleman present at the meeting fine's as follows, that " Mr Goodall was to receive one hundred pounds for his professional services, his travelling expenses paid, and per cent on the amount of the contract "should his plans be accepted ;" that the objection taken was that '* it would be unwise to accept those conditions, and bind themselves to the 2£ per cent ; what they wanted was Mr Goodall's advice as a professional man, accompanied by a plan embodying his proposals," &c. There is an old adage that says that " There is none so blind as those who will notsee.' The obtaining of Mr Goodall's advice aa a professional man was virtually the motion before the meeting, and objected to by Mr Buchanan and three others. Mr Goodall's mission to Napier is merely to report upon the feasibility or otherwise of a breakwater being constructed, and until his report thereon be received neither Mr Buchanan, Mr Laws, or any one else can say whether that undertaking is practicable or not. The engineer's commission of 2J per cent, on the amount of the construction of the work was therefore a very remote question to introduce at the meeting referred to, and its introduction meant nothing else than a setting aside of the question altogether. As an illustration of the fallacy of the objection, I may point out that the motion, notwithstanding Mr Buchanan's opposition, was carried, the result being that Mr Goodall is now here and has entered upon the work, and no one seems to be involved in any responsibility farther than the " one hundred pounds and travelling expenses.' Mr Laws claims permission to say " that Mr Buchanan was the convener of the meeting." By this assertion lam inclined to believe that he has been successful in bottoming this most " wretched affair." I would like to ask Mr Laws how it is that, since recording his vote on the Harbor Board four years ago against a similar motion, Mr Buchanan has been unable to recognise the necessity of a breakwater for Napier until a few days before the writs were issued, and when it was clearly understood that his joyous anticipation of a " walk over" was only a false illusion. The " wretched affair " appears to have been nothing else than a " electioneering dodge." Its convenor appears to have beeu entirely unprepared for the prompt steps taken by our worthy Mayor and others, and had no other course to pursue than display the " white feather so inaenuously"concealed. If Mr Laws were'to adhere more to facts and common sense, and attach less importance to literary eloquence, his effusions might be more appreciated on behalf of his pet candidate.—l am, &c, SftUIST.