The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1883. OUR EXPLANATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1172, 10 November 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1883. OUR EXPLANATION.

At the last meeting of the Temuka Hoad Board the Chairman accused us of having deliberately u cooked ” our report of the previous meeting for the purpose of injuring the Overseer. It was not that we made a mistake, but that we intentionally and spitefully made untrue statements. In the course of our life—and we have reported more meetings than Mr Talbot lias ever dreamt of—such an accusation has never before been made against ns. We have always prided ourselves on impartiality, and we did not even dream of such a thing as that any one would accuse us of foul play. It is not necessary for us ti» deny the charge. The members of the Board admitted that they had made the assertions accredited to them in the report. In fact, it was shown

that every word of oar report was correct. Although we were completely acquitted of the charge brought against us, a few words of explanation cannot prove inappropriate. In the first place we wish it to be understood that it was not Mr Twomey attended at the last Board meeting, and that he no more interfered with the report than did the man in the moon. Our last report therefore cannot be put down to the spite and malice of Mr Twomey, and as it exactly tallies with the summary given of the proceedings in the Timaru Herald we presume that it will be accepted as correct. We make these remarks to show our readers that we have not used unfair means this time at any rate. The ‘spiteful report’ we published on the 4th of October last. If our readers will take the trouble to get a copy of that date they will see that besides the Road Board we also published very long reports of the meetings of the Linseed Company, the School Committee, the Horse Parade, and the Inquest at the Crown Hotel, together with other items of news. It will be seen that in order to get all this matter into oneissue the reports had to be condensed, and owing to this unusual pressure on our space the Road Board meeting was not so fully reported as it has been on other occasions. We gave as much of it as we thought would convey to our readers an intelligent idea of what transpired. One reporter had to do all this. Mr Talbot knows very well that our reporter had to leave the Board meeting to attend the horse parade, and that whilst he was absent he had to depend on bis brother reporter for an account of what transpired. The fact that our report was held to be correct shows that the gentleman through whose courtesy we obtained the information did not deceive us. In order to attend the Linseed meeting the same evening our reporter had to, prepare his copy as quickly as possible, and under these circumstances it would be nothing extraordinary to find that he had made a mistake, But evidently ho did not, for the members of the Board admitted they had made the remarks attributed to them. We make these remarks to show the public that we had to absent ourselves from the Board’s meeting and had to rely on another for information, that we had too much matter for the paper, and had- to condense it and hold half the linseed meeting over till next issue, and that our reporter had so much to do that it would not be a matter tor wonder if he did make a mistake. The members held that he did not. Mr Talbot knows our reporter absented himself from a portion of the Board’s meeting and that he attended the Linseed meeting the same evening. Reference to our files will show that the number of reports referred to appeared, so what we have said must be hue this time. We have only to add that we have scarcely ever had a letter to the Editor correcting any of our reports, so we must have been pretty accurate.

MR TALBOT’S ACCUSATION. Mr Talbot accused us of giving a garbled and one-sided report of the previous meeting for the deliberate purpose of injuring the Overseer, “ Garbled and one-sided” are the exact words every one who complains of reports use, but it is very seldom any one has the effrontery to accuse the reporter of impure motives. But “ Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Our readers no doubt have seen from the report published in our last issue that we were exonerated from the charges made against us. As we have said, Mr Tworaey did not report the last meeting, but if there are any who doubt the accuracy of that report we commend them to read the Timaru Herald. It will be seen that both reports tally exactly. It will be seen that sentence by sentence Mr Talbot tried to pick holes in our report, but that the members present admitted they made use of the language accredited to them. Mr Talbot, no doubt, thought he could blacken the fair fame of our reporter by getting the Board to pass a vote of censure on him. It was, no doubt, a sore disappointment to him to find justice standing up against him and saying “ You shan’t.” It was a sorry plight for him to appear in, but he has only himself to blame. Finding the members present upholding that the statements in the report were correct he next accused us of leaving cut something. It was for putting in what we ought not at first, but when this would not do it was for leaving out what we ought to have put in. It was something about carpentering work, and Mr Quinn told him it was after the discussion reported took place that the carpentering business was mentioned. Worsted here

again, be pointed out that the number ot piles mentioned was ludorrect. He was told by Mr Quinn that .was correct also, but he would not be robbed of that one little shred whereon to hang his charge. He stuck to it tenaciously. He made it his strong point, and as the bead of King Charles the First used to crop up in the memorial of Mr Dick, of David Copperfield fame, so the piles irresistibly intruded themselves into Mr Talbot’s conversation, Everything he said bristled with the piles, he began with the piles, enlarged upon the piles, relied upon the piles, finished with the piles, and, in fact, appeared to have the piles on the brains. And this miserable shred ot evidence was all he had to foist upon us the odium of having tried to make it appear that Mr Landgridge was unduly favored by the Overseer. Nothing was' further from our intention than to suggest such a thing. The fact is we believe Mr Landgridge a very competent man, who ought to be where he is not, and if all we 'heai is true the Boaid saved money by having employed him. Now as to the piles. Our report placed the number at ten, but Mr Talbot said it ought to have been seventeen. Supposing we had made this mistake could not Mr Talbot have put it down to a printer’s error or some other inadvertence, instead of accusing us of having intentionally and spitefully stated an untruth? We have since asked Mr Bolton, who represented the Herald, what his recollection on this point was, and he maintains that either eight or ten piles was the number mentioned, Mr Quinn also insists that ten is correct. Our own recollection of the affair is that at first the Overseer said eight piles, and afterwards, as if he were reviewing the bridge before his mind’s eye and making a mental calculation, he 'stated it was ten. The following is the

portion of dhe report referred to “ Mr Quinn objected to so much being spent on paying a clerk of works, the amount being £8 8s for 1G days work. He said that he did not think his services were necessary. The Overseer bad very little to do and ought to look alter the works. It was a waste of the ratepayers’ money to pay go much for a clerk of works.

“Mr Talbot said they could not do without one when concrete works and pile driving was-going on. “ Mr Quinn after having elicited from the Overseer that only ten piles had been driven in the bridge said it was monstrous to pay L 8 3s for a clerk of works while driving that many. He did not object to a clerk of works being employed while pile driving or concrete works'weie going on, but he objected to employing him in looking after the superstructure of foot bridges and other small jobs like that. “Mr Barker said the difficulty could be got over by instructing the Overseer not to employ the clerk of works whenever he could avoid it.

“ Mr Talbot said he had given that instruction before. “ After a warm discussion the matter dropped.” Wo reproduce this in order to give onr readers every opportunity of judging for themselves whether it was dictated by malice or not. Mr Quinn . asserts that he made use of the language attributed to him, and, if he did, are we to be branded with unfairness for having reproduced his words? Is there one word in it to warrant the accusation made against us. We know it has been said that something was left out, but Mr Quinn held it was afterwards that these things were said. The fact is there were a great many nasty things said that might have been left out. The discussion was very warm, more than one was speaking at the same time, and it was not easy to follow the drift of the argument. But, supposingyre did leave something out, could not Mr Talbot hare written a letter to us the next day and asked us to correct it ? Would not that course have been a more honorable and straightforward one than to nurse up his wrath for a month, and then bring the matter up in the shape he did ? Could he not have looked upon the omission, if omission there was, more charitably and attributed it to inadvertence, or carelessness, or anything else ? But he did not. Mr Talbot talks about fair play. Does his conduct show a disposition to give fair play ? Mr Talbot said that all the trouble arose out of the Borough Council. We quite agree with him. “ Truthful James” in these columns exposed the Borough business well, and it was in retaliation for having published these letters that Mr Talbot tried to throw a slur upon the character of our reporter. We wish Mr Talbot to know that our reporter, has as unsullied a character as he has, that he sets as much value on preserving it from stain as he can on preserving his, and that he will defend it against any man living that comes to defame it. We wish him also to know that our columns are open to any communication he may favor us with, and that we

hereby offer him every opportunity of defending himself if he should feel aggrieved by anything said. We know this is sharp upon him, but he has provoked it and he has himself to blame. It is said the worm turns on the person that treads upon it. If the instinct of self-defence is to be found in so low » form of animal life it is only natural that we shonld posscss it, and if we exercise it when provoked, only a very bad stepmother could blame us for it....

THE OVERSEER’S GRIEVANCE. The Chairman’s ‘ cock-and-bull ’ story at the Temuka Road Board meeting ' last Tuesday was supplemented by the Overseer with a ‘cockie-doodle-doo of his own. He complained of the, unfairness of pur report, and left it in the hands i of the Board. Mr R. A. Barker was not present at the morning’s proceedings, but he came in later on. Now, Mr Barker supports Mr Talbot’s views on every question, and no doubt 1 ' it was thought he would support him in this matter. Mr Barker, however, has the sense of justice highly developed in him. Like a true Briton, he likes fair play. We have on , previous occasions pointed out that characteristic of that gentleman, and he acted up to our preconceived idea of him on this occasion. When the question came up he pooh-poohed it and asked, Was the Board to be made a Tiraaru High School of 1 and the matter fell completely through. The hope that Messrs Talbot and Barker would carry a resolution censuring us, as they did the Baipugh resolution, .vanished into thin , air. The Overseer made definite charges against us. He said what he objected to was our report on contracts 84 and 85. Now, this is all that appeared in our report about these;—

“In the matter of contract 85, the reason why no tender was accepted was tins: Mr Quinn after having examined the specifications found that it was required to put screened metal on the i.roadv As this greatly increased the costj Mr Quinn submitted that it would be useless expense, and pointed out : several roads which had been done first-rale with the shingle proposed to be screened. The Overseer insisted that the screened metal would be the best. Mr Austin said that his experience was that screened metal would not bind as soon as shingle taken out of the pit and put on the road a* *t was. He was opposed to “After some further conversation it was decided not to have the metal screened, and to call for fresh tenders.":

Is there one word' in that betraying spite ? What is in it ?, Simply that the Board thought to screen metal was too costly, and consequently ordered fresh tenders to be called. Wo thought; contractors would like to know why the tenders were not accepted, and this was our reason for going into the explanation. There is nothing at all said about contract 84, but we believe this refers: to it. Udder Heaven we cannot imagine how the Overseer can look upon this as an attempt to injure him. He also said that owing, to pur report contract 89 was not taken up for four days. This is what appeared i about it:—

“In the case of contract 89 it was discovered that th° Overseer had made a mistake in the specifications by omitting the maintenance of the fords, and the contract was let subject to the lowest tenderer agreeing to maintain the {omitted ford.”

There is certainly a mistake in this. The word “ fords ” should have been “ford,” otherwise it is correct. The Overseer told the Board that he had omitted to mark one of the fords on the plans, and when ho did so we thought, as ho did not conceal it hims e lf, we were not called upon to conceal it. Could it possibly do him any harm t 0 have made such a mistake ! is he the first man that made a mistake ? And yet he says it was intended to injure his professional reputation. (See Timarn Herald) Ye gods ! His pro-fessional-reputation, What noxt ! He wound ; up ; by stating that he and Mr Twotney were not friends, owing to Mr Twomey having done'' something in the office which,he could not allow- He did not tell what it was, and we shall not at present. Let Mr Twomey bear the odium of having done something which the Overseer would not allow. We may say one thing, however. It is exactly this something that is the cause of the whole of it. The Overseer knows that he treated Mr Twomey badly, and he thinks that Mr Twomey ought to try «nd ; injure him on that account. It is the guilty conscience business all over. We think, however, that we have shown that his grievances are ah imaginary and that Mr Twomey has not in the remotest degree done anything calculated to hurt or harm him. We defy anyone to show a para- ’ graph in this paper reflecting on the 'Overseer. The fact is we were asked to call attention to something once, but instead of doing so we spoke to the Over- ~ seer about it. and told him how the wind was blowing. He explained the, matter and there it ended. Can he deny that this is true ? And now he turns! 1 round and tells us we are trying to injure him. Ha told the Board that reporters should take no notice of what he said to ,• the Board. Bid ever a sillier utterance fall from human lips, Was nonsense ever stretched to such a length of absurdity ? How in the name of fortune could a report he written if the information he'jgiveßito the Board is to be suppressed ? Nosy let ua suppose that Mr Quinn asked him ivhat

the clerk of works was doing during the sixteen days that he was employed. The Overseer says we should not give his answer. The absurdity of his suggestion is thus made apparent. The Chairman says we ought to report fully what the c, Overseer says to the Board. What the Chairman complained of was that we left ' out something about the pile driving, and what the Overseer complained of ia that we put in the information he gave th# Board with reference to contracts 84, 85 and 89. One of them complained that we did not report the matter fully enough, and the other complained that our report too full; yet, though their grievances uwere the exact opposite of each, oher they made common cause against us. Need we 11 comment upon the imbecility of this proceeding. We shall not do so. The Chairman of the Road Board knows very well that he has only to ask the reporters not to take any notice of matters he does not wiflhreported and they will accede to his fishes., 'lf the Chairman does not do thisj we have a perfect right to report .-what we thitik interesting to our readers, and we decline to allow anyone to dictate to us.how we shall do it. In conclusion, they may as well know that it is "Usaleas for them to attempt to bully us into submission to their wishes. They cannot do it. They have no power over ;us. They may keep a little money out of our way, as they have done already, but we must not lose our independence for that. Come what will we shall not part with dur independence. We have now placed the pros, and cons, before our readers, , and let them judge whether we have been guilty of unfairness.