SATURDAY NIGHT'S MEETING.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1073, 15 August 1883, Page 2

SATURDAY NIGHT'S MEETING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — According to tho report of Saturday’s meeting in re opening'of railway, it seems to have been a similar affair to what tho celebrated Tooleystreet tailors had. “ We ” call a meeting was the heading of the petition. One signer suggested that the “ we ” should road the Mayor—another that the word undersigned be added to tho “ we ” —(he last suggestion was acted upon. It has puzzled many to find out why the first suggestion was not carried out, as it is the usual mode of calling meetings of this sort, hut Sir, I think I have solved tho problem. The “ we’s ” wanted to jump the Mayor’s position in the demonstration, “If “we ” have tho Mayor and Council in this business “we” will \ he nobody, so “we” will call a meeting without ashing them to sign the petition, and “ wo” will abuse them in their absence (for none of them who have any spirit in thorn will attend) and “ we ” will carry out the demonstration independent of the Mayor or Councillors.” That, Sir, is tho whole secret of last Saturday night’s meeting. Some of tho “ wo’s” who were not in the secret expected tho Mayor to bo present.

Do the promoters of that meeting think that the Mayor is so dull that he cannot see when he is slighted and covertly insulted. I for one am glad that the Mayor knew his position and stood on his dignity. The “we’s”ought to have asked the Mayor to call the meeting, and then they would have some reason for their abuse. One speaker was great on the Councillors not being, present and that their absence was a slight on the community. With all due deference to the “we’s,” I think that the community will think more of that councillor who attends to his business on Saturday night, when business is to be done, and pays by it 20s in the pound, than if he wasted his lime attending meetings called on that night by nobody in particular, and pay nothing in the pound. Those “gentlemen” are my sentiments, and I find them echoed by all honest traders in the community. Another speaker, who seems to be blessed with cither a very imaginative disposition, or stuffed-up by a would-be Mayor, states “ that the Council had sat on the proposal, and the ‘ we’s’ should punish them.” I suppose the “ we’s ” intend calling another meeting to decide what punishment, or perhaps it is left in the hands of the luncheon committee ; but if they are to be flagellated, let it be done justly, as the statement is simply untrue. The Council never sat on the proposal, and were all favourable to a demonstration of some kind, and gave the Mayor carte blanche to act for the Council in the matter. I should like to ask the “we’s” what more could they do? The Council thought rightly that .movements of this kind should emanate from the general public, in the shape of a petition to t he Mayor requesting him to act in the matter. A Council with any respect for themselves could not pass the elegant, lucid, and beautifully construed resolution that was proposed, viz., “ That the borough he proclaimed a holiday !” I do not think that the Borough Councillors are even np tofi&Sti standard necessary to understand a motion of that kind. I find the majority of the public regret that the Mayor deemed it -necessary do take any notice of last Saturday night’s meeting, for it cannot’ be taken ; as a representative affair by any means ; and T have a higher opinion of the Fatea residents than to think that they would countenance a meeting got np for the express purpose of vilifying the Mayor, abasing absent persons, Jand proposing Billy Wilson as a member of the commit tee.—Yours, &c., Councillor. August 14. : -