Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1898. THE RECENT MEETING.

Te Aroha News, Volume XIV, Issue 2122, 30 June 1898, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1898. THE RECENT MEETING.

We think it must be conceded by every fair minded person that the raising of the question which formed the ‘ raison d’etre ’ of the meeting held on'Monday night was a mistake, and that the meeting was a most unconvincing occurrence. To slightly vary a wellknown epigram, it might be said that ‘What was true was not new, and (a great deal of) what was new was not true.’ We have no wish to palliate any wrongdoing, but to characterise the action complained of. as a forgery is, in our opinion to ucduly stretch the meaning of the word. The principal elements of a forgery are the wronging of some actual person, and the unlawful gain of another, and both these features are wanting in the case under discussiou. Where every one—the Board included—admitted that the delegates were morally and legally entitled to the money, ailti'Xhat some means other than those usually employed, would have to be re sorted to in order to obtain it, why then all this pother ? A moral and legal right clearly existed but Ja technically wrong method was adopted through the rank stupidity, of the party chiefly concerned. The action taken on that memorable orcn sion in our opinion was worse than crime—itwasahlunder And blunder are often punished more severely tha. crimes in this world, at least. Som of the members of the Board at thu.

ime, were moat anxious to explain ffiat they never saw the voucher complained of, and seem to discover exone ration in that fact. They are most unhappy in taking that position, as most reasonable people will conclude that they were guilty of negligence in paying over money without satisfying themselves as to the bona tides of the payment. One speaker at the meeting said that the question for ratepayers, was, that supposing this matter were winked at, and we had an unsorupu'ous chairman, engineer, and clerk, what guarantee had the ratepayers that their money would not be improperly used ? This at first sight may appear plausible, but a little consideration will show that it is some what'Superficial; la the first place, in the face of what has occurred, no man is ever likely to even suggest.the falsification of a voucher, and *in the second place before such a thing coffid occur, it would be necessary to have as chairman, engineer, and clerk, three men who would be destitute of all principle, and to think that such a combination could be secured is simply absurd. When all is said and done, what actual harm has resulted ? The money was refunded immediately the impropriety of the proceeding was pointed put. And to this day the ratepayers have never paid for work which was done and expense which was incurred on their behalf. All parties to the transactian have admitted that a mistake was made, and have doubtless bitterly regretted their action ever since. Nobody was wronged, and, in the interests of justice and cemmou sense we think the whole question ought now to be relegated to oblivion. To open up the matter after a lapse of four years savours somewhat of persecution. As between, the two candidates for the office of Mayor, we have already expressed our preference, and we see no reason to depaz*t from it. All we ontend for is that the election should proceed strictly on the merits of the two candidates, and that as regards the dead past, a little of the charity which is so freely extended to oth*\s, should be bestowed on oue who ha - surely done enough penance for any lapse from the path of strict uct'tude.