The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 31.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 197, 31 July 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 31.

After a most exciting hunt, the ghost of Common, Shelton & Co.’s valuation squabble has been run to earth, and J. Reynolds, Esq., still goes on his way rejoicing in his title of Engineer, Valuator, &c., to the Borough Council and Harbor Board. Throughout the last act in this somewhat sorry drama there has been a plentiful sprinkling of references to street-comer reports, and it appears to us that the proverbial man in the street has had a good deal to do in fostering the whole business. • What with this and the fact that certain information has been vouchsafed as a secret to some members to which others have not had access, the affair has met a fate very similar to that of the Kilkenny cats. It is, of course, very easy to spot the winner after the fight is all over, and now that the curtain has fallen everybody knows who was in the right of it. But it was not so at the commencement. We can hardly blame Councillor Joyce for the part he has taken. Councillor Joyce is a thoroughly conscientious man, and one whose absence at the municipal board we should very much deplore. But his zeal sometimes forces him beyond the bounds of discretion. Having once got on the scent of what he believed to be a public wrong, he refused to leave

it until the quarry was despatched. And we admire his pluck. What we deprecate most heartily is the fashion some Councillors have of acting on information irregularly supplied, and thereby leading astray those who have not an acquaintance with similar facts. In this case we are told that certain members were informed in secret (mark the italics) that the Engineer's valuation was X"i,300, while the valuer himself, after much controversy, says it was X'Boo. Whether the secret was supplied in ignorance, or for the purpose of misleading those to whom it was given, or even whether those particular figures were supplied at all, we have no means of knowing, but such a mode of procedure is highly reprehensible, and could only have the effect of causing discord among the members of the Council. We consider that a Councillor who possesses information bearing on an important question, if it is of such a nature or has been obtained in a manner that precludes him from giving it publicity, should at least state that he has knowledge and intends to act upon it, and not pursue tactics which appear altogether too common. By such a course representatives whose primary object is the interest of their constituents, would not be led into making charges which at first sight appear well founded, but which prove, on examination, to be rather shadowy. Now, however, that the valuation has been fully argued, we hope we shall hear no more of it, at least for a very, long time. At the same time let Councillors, and ratepayers too, recollect that “ experience bought is better than taught," and both for their own peace of mind, and that of their constituents, disregard the purveyors of secret information. It is at best a doubtful benefit, and in the majority of instances is given with some ulterior object, which is usually only revealed after the harm has been done.