COUNCILLOR FISHER’S INACCURACIES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5798, 29 October 1879, Page 2

COUNCILLOR FISHER’S INACCURACIES.

He referred to a report of a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce which had appeared in the New Zealand Times relative to the Harbor Board Bill, from which it appeared that the Chamber of Commerce had shown the cloven hoof, and that their object was to get the Te Aro reclamation. When the members found that they had gone a little too fai, they went to the Times and said that the reporter had misreportod the matter. His professional knowledge, however, led him to see that that was not so, as the report was a verbatim one. The editor of the Times had also said that the reporter had made a mistake, but be (Councillor Fisher) had discussed the matter with the gentleman who had reported the meeting, and this gentleman had said that as soon as the New Zealand Times said th- report was inaccurate he would produce his notes, and would put a statement into the Times upon the subject. . . . He again referred to the statement of the editor of the New Zealand Times that the report of the Chamber of Commerce meeting was inaccurate, and said that statement was—well: he would say, very far from the truth ; lie would put it that way. People were sometimes very ready to blame the reporter if anything was wrong, and even Mr. Hunter, a gentleman of unimpeachable veracity, had got up in his place in th -t Council and said the reporter was entirely responsible for tlie mistake. K.rfr(tdr from Councillor FiohrCs .'-■pco/t hi .r----fertnr.t to the //arbor Board. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Silt, —Permit mo to say a few words in reply to the remarks of Councillors Fisher and Thompson, at the City Council meeting on Monday evening, with regard to myself and the report of the proceedings of the Chamber of Commerce, June 11th, of which I was the author. In the first place, Councillor Fisher's version of a private conversation which took place between us, is not quite accurate. I did not say that which he has attributed to me about producing my notes, &c ; indeed, I do not know that the notes are now in existence —while I mentioned other matters which if made public would have given quite a different aspect to the conversation. As to Councillor Thompson's positive assertion that the chairman did not make the remark reported, I am sorry 1 cannot agree with him. The report was" literally correct—the words were used ; but even when transcribing my notes I had doubts as to whether Mr. Buchanan’s words expressed his meaning. There was a doubt in rnj mind as to whether I ought to give his words or what I conceived to be his meaning. As I was writing out the report in the first person, or giving what is termed a verbatim report, I decided on the former course, leaving it to Mr. Buchanan, if he thought fit, to correct himself. This is a difficulty which frequently presents itself to the mind of a reporter in consequence of the careless manner in which speakers express themselves, and the only wonder is that reporters pressed with work and having little time to think do not more often get into trouble. It would be presumptuous for me after four or five months have elapsed to constitute myself interpreter of Mr. Buchanan’s mind, or to explain what I thought and still think he meant, but I may say this, that from my recollection of the circumstances, and after a hurried glance at the report to-day, I believe that the words which have set some of the City Councillors by the ears might reasonably bear quite a different construction from that put upon them.—l am, &c., Your Reporter. October 28.