THE FORESHORE OPINION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4272, 28 November 1874, Page 3

THE FORESHORE OPINION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Permit me to observe that the handing to you for publication of my opinion to the City Council, on the subject of the sale of the Thorndon foreshore, before it had been seen by my clients, was, to say the least of it, a most irregular proceeding ; indeed, my clients themselves would not, as a matter of etiquette, have been justified in publishing it without communicating with me beforehand. X may add 'that it is not accurately given m your paper, the sense being altered in several places, sometimes by the union of distinct paragraphs, sometimes by the introduction of articles where none exist in the manuscript, and sometimes by the plural being used instead of the singular. When you submit a document of the kind to publication, it is fair to the author to be most careful as to the accuracy of the print—l am, &c., Wm. Tnos. Locke Travers. Wellington, November 28. r [We admit having published a somewhat incorrect version of “the opinion," owing to. mistakes in copying. To-day we publish a revised copy, which is accurate. To that extent we acknowledge the justness of the censure in the foregoing letter, but there we stop. We really do not understand what Mr* Travers means when he says that our publication of his opinion was an “irregular proceeding,” and that not even his clients would have been justified in publishing!! without communicating with him beforehand. With regard to ourselves, we have to_ say that we came by the copy which we published in a perfectly regular manner. With respect to Mr. Travers personally, we have also a word to say. Wlien his “opinion” passed out of his hands, it became the property of the Municipal Council of Wellington, as trustee for the ratepayers, who pay for it,, and it would be a highly censurable proceeding on the part of the Council to withhold it’ from the public. We say nothing whatever of the value of Mr. Travers’ opinion. It may be worth the fee, or it mayuot be worth the paper it is written on. But of one thing there can t? no doubt whatever—it is the property of the ratepayers, and being their property, they were entitled to know what they paid for.—Ed. N.Z.T.]