THE Grey River Argus. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1867.

Grey River Argus, Volume III, Issue 172, 19 February 1867, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1867.

It is exceedingly distasteful to us to have to give any further attention to the puerlie exhibition of temper manifested by some of the members of the late Improvement (Jornmifctee with regard to the publication <of* the reports adopted at the public meetiug on Thursday evening last. We are, however, compelled to do so, seeing that the explanations given by the " West Coast Times" for its publication of the documents in question demand, some notice from us, as much to contradict some of the allegations as to. justify ourselves in the , eyes of the public From : the statement of the "West Co:ust Times," it appears that Mr. W,hall forwarded the precious reports to that journal accompanied by a private note explaining that the " Grey River Argus" had refused to publish the l-eport read at the previous ineetihg, and that in consequence "the Committee had come *td'< " the determination not to furnish that "journal with copies of the report and " balance sheet." To this We have simply to reply that we never refused TO PUBLISH ANY DOCUMENT WHATEVER ; we simply, in the- .exercise of our discretion, withheld the publication of a report which not one of the members of the Committee would undertake to read and which probably would have remained in • obscurity, for that evening at least, if the Editor of this journal had not volunteered : his services. If our memory serves us right Mr. Simmons, whose" name we find figuring in the communication to the "West Coast Times," was one of the foiembst to object to the adoption of the first report; and he cei'fcviuly luised the discussion on one of its incorrect | I passages. we used a wise discre^ tion in deferring the publication of the report in its unauthorised form, we have only to appeal to the. decision of the public meeting on Thursday eveniug, which, supported •by several of the Committee, refused to have the first | report read, although a preposterous motion in favor of that course; was proposed by Mr. Whall. But the amusing part of this childish business is that Messrs Wickes, M'Farlahd, and Simmons, after all the .hub-bub about Mr. Payne's first report, stultify themselves by stating in a postscript to the editor, of the " West Coast Times" that the "Committee did not wish its " publication !" Iv sli'orfc these very clever gentlemen now admit that the very document we are blamed for not publishing was one the Committee did not wish to be published! Any further remark -\yould be unnecessary, we think, to show the public the absurdity of the whole affair. ** As to the clashing statement of j\tr, Maclean that the Committee did not authorise the course pursued by Mr. -Whall, we leave him and the illustrious trio to settle the matter. We have only to add that .the share Mr. Whall has taken in the matter is not likely to increase his reputation foy discretion.

As the repiesentative of the town, he ! should have shown a i»ore digiiitiecl sense of that position than to lend himself to a transaction which has only brought its participators into ridicule. One word iov our Hokitika contemporary: no one ought to know better that it is not an essential part of a report that every document read at a public meeting should be published* especially as in the present cq^ it was a document that Avas publicly stated not to be in order— that is to say, it was not the report of the Improvement Committee, to consider only which the meeting was called.-