TO THE EDITOR.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 529, 5 June 1880, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR.

[Correspondents are invited to discuss matters of public interest with fairness and brevity; this journal being an impartial medium of discussion and advocacy for all affairs relating to the County of Patea.] HARBOR BO AW CORRESPONDENCE. ■ Sir, —Mr Sherwood, in his letter of the 29th May, says that my statement that thesecretary was not allowed to read the telegram is.not according.with fact; and that it was handed round and read by all the members. I can only again state that one who bad evidently; read the statement outside handed it to mo previous to the chairman taking his seat, and it was not handed round and read by the remainder of the Board, as stated by Mr Sherwood, and the Chairman .most. distinctly prevented the secretary from reading it, claiming it as private. This lie tacity admits, and when I explained that I had road the telegram previous to the meeting, and that itscontents did not appear to be of a private nature, but had reference to the business of the Board,-he reiterated his claim to it as private, stating it was an answer to one for" which he had paid. I submit, sir, that no. member after the. chairman’s explanations could ask to have his private telegrams read to the Board. Mr Sherwood docs not confine himself to.the point at issue as to whether these telegrams could be considered as private or official, but after an admission that they were “ semi-official,” and an endeavor to throw odium upon me as obstructing his best efforts, when he knoAvs that ho has relied upon ray support, to carry through many matters of importance to the Board, he draws a red herring across the track, and dangles :a “ new” line of steamers, management, officers, and all complete, before the public, promising them low freight, cheap goods, and no end of nice things, if they will only shut their eyes and believe that he will get them. But to get back to the point, my contention is, that the Board having an office and an efficient secretary, the .business .should be done as far as practicable through him ; and being a public body, our business is of a public nature, and the fact .of the Chairman paying postage of a Telegram does not constitute that telegram and the correspondence that may' follow his private property. While admitting that the Board have allowed the Chairman every latitude, I presume that they have a right to expect that their confidence will not be abused, and I for one think it is not asking too much to expect all correspondence on purely' Harbor Board matters to bo in the possession of the ; secretaiy, and not carried about in the pocket of the Chairman, and the contents claimed as private information for himself and friends. There are a few inconsistencies in Mr Sherwood’s letter, to which I would like to draw attention. In the first place, he says, “The Board having unanimously decided to apply r for an order in Council to erect the wharf in question,” by which I understand he refers to an application for a wharf on the town side of the river; and in concluding his letter he says, “ I believe I am correct in saying that it is to Mr Gibson’s antagonism to having anything done on this side of the river that Ins present action is due.” In answer to this, I beg to state that on the Bth December last Mr Sherwood proposed, and Mr Adams seconded, a resolution applying for an order in Council for a wharf on the east side of the river, and that an amendment was proposed by' Mr Horner, seconded by myself, that an application be made for an order In 0.-JiXv. o;. P in..« on th° town side of the river, and that acuummodation for the Boiling Down Company he included in the application. I enclose certified copies of the resolution and amendment, by which you will see that Sherwood, Milroy, and Adams voted for the wharf on the cast side, and when the resolution became the amendment, they' voted against it. Therefore this resolution asking for an order in Council for the canying out of Sir John Coode’s plans on the town side of the river was cancel in spite of the opposition of Messrs Sherwood, Adams, and Milroy, and not unanimously, as stated by him. I must ask y'on to publish the resolution and amendment, with the division.—Yours, &c.,

John Gibsox. Patca, 4th June. COPY OF RESOLUTION'S, DEC 8. Proposed by Mr Sherwood, seconded by Mr Adams, “That plans of Sir John Coode for wharf on the east side of the river be prepared, showing sections, and forwarded for an.order in Council.” Amendment proposed by Mr Horner, seconded by Mr Gibson, “That wharf accommodation for the Boiling Down Company be included in the application at the same'time as the wharf on the town side of the river.” On division, the ayes wore five, viz., Gibson, Horner, Balmforth, Adams, Fisher; noos (2), Milroy and Sherwood. On the resolution being put to the meeting, and division being called for, the voting was as follows :—Ayes (4), Gibson, Horner, Fisher, Balmforth. Noes (3), Milroy, Adams, Sherwood. True extract ; Trios Eytox, Secretary.