Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, APRIL 16. 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1311, 19 April 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, APRIL 16. 1883.

Mnsm. Common, Shelton, 4 Co.’s somewhat delayed reply to the Harbor Board means simply that they, as a merchant firm, intend and de facto, do set at defiance a public body. The story ha* been often told, •ad the ratepayers are fully aware of the agreement with the Borough Council and Messrs. Common, Shelton 4 Co , made as ha* bean alleged but never denied, through misrepresentation*. We hope that the allegation* made are untruthful. If they are not, then they are discreditable to both parties Discreditable to Messrs. Common, Shelton 4 Co. for descending to make a false statement, and doubly discreditable to a body of men appointed to conserve the interests of the ratepayers, but who, through apathy or want of forethought, fail to fulfil the duties they have undertaken. Messrs. Common, Shelton & Co. say “ we are quite willing to refer the whole matter to arbitration, and will be willing to meet a Committee of the Harbor Board to arrange the terms and conditions of such arbitration.” This in itself is fair, but there is something else to be considered ; Me*srs. Common, Shelton 4 Co.'Bright to sell to the Borough Council is disputed, as it is asserted that they hold no title to the property they are now in posseesion of, and in consequence could not dispose of it. But it must be remembered that they are now dealing with an altogether separate body, viz., the Harbor Board. Now the gentlemen composing the Borough Council and those composing the Harbor Board are one and the same, but there is a difference in their duties. We hare previously mentioned the agreement on which this much talked and written of claim is based, and it appears to us that confusion becomes more and more confused. That an agreement has been entered into by the Borough Council with Messrs. Common, Shelton 4 Co. cannot be disputed, and that none exists with the Harbor Board, is equally indisputable. The latter body, therefore, we imagine wipe their hands clear of their own action, whilst sitting as Councillors. The whole onus of this mixed up affair should be cast on the Council not upon the Board, and if it can be shown that Messrs. Common, Shelton 4 Co. hoodwinked our City Fathers, let it be amongst them as to what shall be done. The Harbor Board has no power in the matter, and from all we can learn will not have until the dispute is settled.

according to thoß of a port of the dinienr aione of Auckland. Is one of the greatest errors we can fall into. As an instance of this we may call to mind the framing of our Borough Council by-laws by those of Wan* ganui. We found that our requirements were very different from theirs, as we pointed out subsequently ; the correctness of our assertion being since proved by our Council agreeing as to the necessity of revising the same. How much more likely, then, is the laws of a place, so greatly out of all proportion in every respect as the above-named city is to ours, to be unsuitable to us. The requirements of Gisborne are peculiar to Gisborne alone, and there is little or no similarity in this respect between us and any other port in the Colony That we nan glean many useful hints from other harbor laws cannot be denied, but to apply them tn toto would most certainly cause us much loss of time and bother, and lead us into many vexatious errors.