The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1884. THE TEMUKA ROAD BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1137, 9 February 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1884. THE TEMUKA ROAD BOARD.

The Temuka Road Board reached the climax of absurdity last Tuesday, The case may be summarised as follows : Some time ago Mr Quinn charged the Overseer with having thrown dry cement into the running stream when repairing the approaches to the Opihi bridge. This the Overseer stoatly denied, and it was decided to call the workmen that were engaged on the job to give evidence on the subject. The result was that the men proved that dry cement had been thrown into the running stream by the order of the Overseer, and a resolution was moved to the effect that three months’ notice should be given to him, The motion was lost on the casting vote of the Chairman (pro tem) although that gentleman said, at the previous meeting that if it was proved the Overseer had been guilty of telling a falsehood, they could no longer have any confidence in him. In giving his casting vote he said that the case had been proved, and that the Overseer had exhibited much cowardice by denying that be had thrown dry cement into the stream. When the minutes of the proceedings came to be read last Tuesday, of course the Chairman’s remarks did not appear on them. Minutes are only a record of the resoluticns passed, and other items of interest that need to be preserved, but never of the discussions that take place. The Overseer was, therefore, perfectly right in not recording the remarks of the Chairman, but evidently Mr Quinn did not think so, for he insisted that these remarks should be embodied in the minutes. He held that he had proved the charge he brought against the Overseer, but that as the resolution was lost there was nothing to show it. With all due respect to Mr Quinn we submit that the proper course for him to have adopted was to insist upon the evidence taken down in writing and attested to by the various witnesses being tacked on to the minutes if he wanted a record of the case kept. This would hare been the correct course to adopt. The one adopted was an absurd one, for it places the Board in a ridiculous position. The placing of these remarks on the minutes amounts to saying—“ We believe that the Overseer threw dry cement into a tanning stream, and when taxed with havingdone so, he denied it, and persisted in telling us that it wap not true, till a number of witnesses proved that it was,” It is not very pleasant for the Overseer to have such a record staring him in the face every day he opens the minute book, and no man can read it without exclaiming : “Can it be possible that the officer whom the Board think guilty of these things is still retained in the Board’s employment ? Mr Quinn no doubt aimed at bringing ridicule and odium on the Board in getting those remarks placed on the minutes. What he aimed at probably was to drag all the members into committing themselves to an acquiescence in the remarks, and thereby making them equally responsible, and be did it most successfully. Their action in submitting to this betrays great weakness. Had they declined to record these remarks on the minutes they cotld hold up their beads and say they did not think the case was proved to their gatißf«ction,aad hence the reason,

they still retained the Overseer in their employment. Now they cannot say that. Mr Quinn has led them into the trap, and if questioned on the subject they must now say “We believe him guilty of the charges made against him ? but we have not dismissed him because ,” and here they must stop, for there is no excuse under heaven they can make for their action. It was a clever move on the part of Mr Quinn, but be ought to let things alone now. He has gone far enough, and can do no good by going any further. If the members think that the man who threw dry cement into a running stream is fit to be entrusted with the spending of the ratepayers’ money to the tune of over £4OOO a year there is no use going one bit further with the matter. It would be absolute folly to do so, and consequently we hope that Mr Quinn will not persist in the course he has hitherto adopted, but will rather leave the matter in the hands of the ratepayers. One thing we were surprised at Mr Quinn agreeing to without a murmur, and that was the payment of the witnesses in the cement inquiry. This had no right to have been done, and if it appears in the shape of money paid for giving evidence we feel sure that the auditor will not pass it. If Mr Quinn had fniled to prove his case he ought to have paid it, but as he did not the costs should have been borne by the other party to the suit. However, things are gone beyond criticism, so it is as well to let them remain as they are for the present.