The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.) TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 130, 3 February 1874, Page 2

The Standard. (PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY.)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1874.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The autocratic, imperious, spirit of the Chairman of the Poverty Bay District Highway Board is again manifesting itself. In last Thursday’s issue of the Herald, Mr. Poynter writes to that journal on the question of “ High- ■“ way Board advertisements,” and gives his own unauthorized explanation relative to the contract recently entered into between the proprietor of the Standard and the Board for the current half-year’s advertizing; and also unauthorizedly enters into a new arrangement for advertizing with the Herald, without the sanction of the Board. It is not our intention to follow the red-herring scent Mr, Poynter has so deftly drawn over this neat little piece ot business, by cavilling as to whether the instructions given to the Secretary comprehended that advertisements would be given to the Standard “as a rule,” or whether the words “ Standard only,” should be in large letters or small letters. We will not make a scape-goat of the Secretary —if the Chairman of the Board does —but we must again remind Mr. Poynter that he states what is incorrect. The “ directions” relative to the advertisement alluded to, w’ere “ given verbally” at this office, as Mr. Poynter states, but that’s only half the red herring ; the other half is the “ fishy ” part of it: the “ directions” were written down at the dictation of the Secretarg, the sole suggestion made was that the word “ only” should be added, as, as it stood, it did not definitely convey the fact, which might have been expressed in a few words, that, as a contract had been entered into with the Standard, of course, advertisements would not —during the term of that contract—appear in the Herald. The Secretary concurred in that suggestion, or we could not have taken upon ourselves to print it. But these little “ fry,” although their piscatory aroma is unpleasant, are not to draw us from the main question. What we wish to show now is that Mr. Poynter, as Chairman of the Hoad Board, has exceeded his powers, by acting independently of his coadjutors, and without their consent; and has, by the assumption of authority not vested in him, virtually*broken the contract entered into with this journal,

by making a private arrangement with the Herald to advertize for the Board on “ open terms,” thus giving that paper a co-equal (if uot a superior) advantage, with ourselves; minus, too, the restrictions of competition. And we say that such a proceeding is both unjust and unbusinesslike. It was our intention to let this matter rest until the Board had considered what the terms of the Herald's proposal to advertize six months gratis, really amounted to, and, relative to which, something more has yet to be said; but this attempt to forestall what the Board may do, and wiiat the Chairman concludes it will do, in reference to it, on his recommendation, has precipitated our present notice. Shortly, the matter stands thus : — The Road Board called for tenders from the Herald and the Standard to state terms on which either was prepared to insert the Board’s advertisements for six months, and the tender sent by the Standard being the lowest win accepted, but not until after much personal opposition from the Chairman had been overcome. Mr. Carlile, at present representing the Herald, immediately after learning the result of his tender, notified to the Board his willingness to do six months’ advertizing for it/br nothing ! The Board, not exactly understanding such a strange offer, left it in the hands of the Chairman to enquire about the matter (which, we need not say, he was only too glad to do), with a view to such further consideration of it as the Board might consider necessary. The enquiry, it appears, Mr. Poynter did make was, as we have said, on the autocratic presumption of an individual, who proceeds to negotiate fresh terms—independent of the contract already accepted by the whole Board —and here’s a specimen of his spiteful logic (the italics are our own.) He says : —

With regard to an offer made by you to publish Board advertisements gratis, 1 have to inform you that all notices and advertisements will be handed to you ; those required to be published in your paper will be marked, and you will of course charge for them ; the others, if in your opinion advisable, will be inserted by you. We are well aware that we have not much to expect from the Chairman of the Road Board in the shape of private favors, but we claim, as a right, that our business with the Board shall be conducted on honest principles, and free from personal bias ; — that its decisions shall be based on equity and justice, after due deliberation, and not on the capricious (psi dixit of one member of it.

That the reply of the Chairman to Mr. Carlile, nof being made with the sanction of his colleagues, is both capricious ami unjust, is self-evident, for it amounts to this: —“ With regard to “an offer made by you to publish “ Board advertisements gratis, I have “to inform you that * * * you “ will of course charge for them.” And we ask the Board, we ask the Ratepayers is this business, that a contract should not be respected according to its true intent and meaning ; and that it should be left to the publisher of a newspaper to insert advertisments when, “ in his opinion,” it is thought “ advisable ” to do so ? Mr. Poynter, we believe, is thoroughly impervious to any opinion, public or private, but we would ask the Ratepayers if they are contented and willing that this man should reign over them with such a supercilious disregard of all authority and business obligations ? Will they submit to this audacious usurpation of power by one man, who, although he be Chairman, is only an unit among five ? What right has he, more than any other member, or officer, to contract duplicated expenditure, which the Board may not, and should not sanction ? It is, besides, a question of economy on which the settlers should decidedly express an opinion. In our last issue we touched upon the irresponsible position of Road Board members, and we cannot but repeat that if the people who pay the taxes do not speak out distinctly in support of a right to have a voice in the expenditure of it, they will always be in silent tribulation. It is their silence alone that maintains such overbearing men as the present Chairman of the Road Board, in their places. All autocrats are cow ards at heart; and they give way at the first sign of a formidable earnest opposition. As we shall have something more to say on this matter as it proceeds, we leave it now for public consideration.

In another column will be found the copy of an apology sent by Mr. W. H. Blank to Dr. Nesbitt in satisfaction of a demand made by the latter, for the retractation of certain charges of favoritism implied by the former in an advertisement letter published in the Standard on Tuesday last. We are glad to find that Mr. Blank was prompt to undo the mischief that had been done, in charging upon a public officer, and he a Magistrate, acts of

“ favoritism,” and “ partiality; but a word of explanation is necessary on behalf of Mr. Blank. It appears that a letter was written by him criticising certain proceedings in the R.M.’s. Court,in which nooffensive wordswere used; that letter was entrusted to a friend to read, with permission to alter it in any way he might wish, and to forward it on to the Standard. In the altered form, after leaving Mr. Blank’s hands, it was published; and we believe Mr. Blank who states that he would not have consented to the alteration had he seen it in sufficient time to arrest its publicity. He has given ample proof of this in his apology, which we think might have stated that it was tendered on the Wednesday following the appearance of the letter, and before Mr. Wilson’s letter reached him demanding it. This explanation is due to Mr. Blank, as it relieves him of an imputation of recklessly asserting that which he cannot prove, and of being frightened into making an apology on the appearance of a lawyer’s letter. In the interests of the public it is as well that this unpleasant business is at an end. The whole affair has has been a mistake from beginning to end; and Dr. Nesbitt, while he had 119 other course open to him than to vindicate his honor as a Magistrate, has shown his great good sense in accepting the proffered apology.

For ourselves, we feel bound to make all the restitution in our power in having been the means of circulating —-at the instance of another—that which we should not have the temerity to write, much less to attempt to prove. And we take this opportunity of stating, in justice to a position which should always be guarded against calumny, that we believe Dr. Nesbitt—whatever dissatisfaction he may have given to losing suitors—would not knowingly and corruptly administer the law in favor of his personal friends; nor, as far as we have had opportunities of judging, in favor of any, other than the one whom he considered was, in the course of equity and good conscience, entitled to it.