A REJOINDER.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1013, 26 March 1883, Page 2

A REJOINDER.

TO THE EDITOR. . Silt, —I must apologise for again trespassing on your space in reply to the misleading medley in your last issue signed “ John .Milroy.” I am sorry (he contents are so jumbled and mixed up between “ Gian Aber ” and myself that itwould puzzle anyone except an Irish interpreter to dissect and give each his whack, lam sorry to find that (he Mayor does not consider his “ drain tile ” transaction deserving of the thinnest casuistical apology. Errare est humanum. He explains the kerbing transaction and payment to Mr Dale without it being,authorised by the Council by stating that I was a member of tbe Works Committee. Very thiu reason indeed., I never knew of the transaction for extra kerbing until the matter r was brought before the Council. Mr Milroy states that the cheque was presented to him by the clerk for his signature—he ought. to have ; added by his (Councillor MUroy’s) instruction, and without consulting the Mayor. The only lucid paragraph in the whole composition is a copy of a motion , relating to Leicester street, of which I atn Stated to be the proposer. No one knows better than the Mayor that In’s mode of conreying to the public that I was the father of the Leicester street job is purely an attempt to wilfully mislead. I have opposed froth' the commencement (as every Councillor knows) the large expenditure on that street. To explain bow I became the proposer of the above resolution : About this time Councillor Milroy expressed hisi intention of leaving Patea, and in the Council he made a speech advocating the expenditure of the whole;£10,000 Joan in three months to set the -place a-going, naturallyj as a person really interested in the success of our Borough, I objected to tills temporary, flare up and advocated that the expenditure should. be spread over a period of three years, and that only one tender should be out at one time, 1 think there were proposals before the Council for four different streets, and, to prevent (he whole work being tendered for at the 'same time, I proposed that tenders for Leicester, street be called for six months after accepting those for Bedford street. It lapsed for want of a-seconder.- I then proposed three -months, with the same result, and -finally I proposed the motion the Mayor has attempted to slaughter ine with, which was agreed to. Now, sir, you will perceive that my Object was to prevent all the works being rushed 'through at the same time, and when labour was very scarce. The Mayor must have d rawu on his imagination for the following'statement The;writer (R. A. Adams) says, the, loan has been pawned, and that if the ex-Mayor had not been removed from ; office this course would not have been necessary. ” Well sir, if that is not a perversion of what I stated (for the purpose methinks of arousing the temperature of his supporters, which lately has had a downward tendency) I must confess that I do not understand what X write. My statement was, “ If it was not for the personal feeling of the majority (of councillors) against the late Mayor the loan

would have l>ecn floated four months ago.” Construe it how ymi may, it cannot mean the removal of the late Mayor from office, for four months ago was a period before the election of Mayor, and I still repeat that if the majority of the council allowed the late Mayor to raise the loan, there would not he the necessity for the pawnbroking policy of the present Mayor. In conclusion, sir, I think there is something very mysterious about the Mayors conducing remarks ; something deep, beyond my era mil a r ability to fathom. What can he mean by “ local institutions,” “ three balls ?” Is the Mayor having a cheap pawnbroking advertisement on his own account, for I am aware that he trucks a little in the way of pledges down to billiard cues and balls ? —Yours, &c., R. A. Adams.