The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1884. MR QUINN’S LETTER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1214, 7 August 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1884. MR QUINN’S LETTER.

Mr Quinn’s letter is extremely ingenious and clever. The object it aims at is to secure popular sympathy, end it is well calculated to do that because he only- refers to such actions of his as are bound to be popular, whilst ho Tery ingeniously forgets all about other matters, lie commences by 'hinting that our article was prompted by unfair motives, notwithstanding that we praised him up a couple of months ago. We may as well let the public know what be refers to. This paper has supported Mr Rolleston’s land policy for the last two. years, and when he offered himself as a candidate for Geraldine we could not Tery well turn round and oppose him. If

we did so we should be held up to public execration* and as Mr Cox was a gentleman against whom we could not possibly say one word, we adopted the policy of remaining neutral. Mr Quinn, for certain reasons; did nbt think we ought to admire Mr Rolleston, and, because we did not obey his behests'he yowed vengeance. Without any more cause, he said he would keep every penny out of our way that he Could and do us all the harm he .could. Hp carried out the latter threat by circulating an untrue report in connection with the Gladstone election, and even went to the extent of interrupting and ridiculing Mr Tworney, whilst the latter was addressing the electors at the Washdyke on the nomination day. If Mr Quinn acts so spitefully for so small a reason, what would he not do if he were bullied and slandered as Mr Tworney was by him? The benevolent, gentle Mr Quinn is not the sort of man who if struck on one side of the face would turn the other sided Threatening to injure a person is a very nasty thing to do, and carrying out such a threat is worse—and all this because we refused to be lad by Mr Quinn. When we follow any one, he will be a man superior either in knowledge, in education, in intelligence, or in position to ourselves ; Mr Quinn is not superior in any pf these qualities, and may as wall realise at once that we shall not be guided in any way by him. Now, it is this quarrel that Mr Quinn hinted at in his letter in reference to the motives which prompted us. He knew he had given sufficient provocation, and, measuring us by his own bushel, came to the conclusion that it was on account of this the article was written. Now, the tact is, the article would hare been written if that quarrel had never taken place, and only for the elections it would have appeared much sooner than it d'd, because Mr Quinn’s conduct had completely' disgusted us. He accuses us of making untrue statements. The proper way to test the matter is let him submit our article and bis own letter to his fellow-commissioners, and let them say what is untrue in each. If our statements were false and Mr Quinn’s true, we will publish an humble apology in this paper. Can anything be fairer than this ? His fellow-commissioners alone are able to decide the question, for they only were present, and surely he will not say they would do him injustice. If our statements are proven true, the charge of unfair motives must fall to the ground, for we have only done’ our duly. Even Mr Quinn himself says if, what' we said were true he- would- not bo surprise! to be-called upon to resign. That is an admission ;hat, if true, wo were right in calling attention ,to it. Now, as regards ih,e lie-nse tees.. . Mr Quinn makes it appear lie worked from a desire to save the Board legal expenses. He had no other motive ; not he I But Mr Quinn did not say that in support of Mr Aspinall’s opinion there was l«id on the table a letter from another ( Town Board scaling that the license fees , :here were ■ the same as in boroughs. , Ihere was a precedent, but Mr Quinn gnored it and accused the Chairman, t ihat gentleman speaks truly, of taking 1 money under false pretences, and made * ise of very offensive language towards 1 ijm. So much for tlie license question, [)m word more, however. If we do not, ( mistake, a Judge somewhere in Otago A lecided a case somewhat similar n- ( i en '<ly, ; and we shpald’adyise jbha other

hotelkeepers to look it up before goirq to law. vVe urged upon the Chairmai privately hot to exact, from the hots! keepers tijo increased fee, but he pointn nut that he was bound to comply, frit! the law.: We caa say for him that it w«i , only because.he felt bound by law to d< it that be did it, and that it was mud against him own inclinations. M: Quinn says he objected to some of thi by-laws because he considered them toe stringent, md instances the fees chargee on billiard-rooms, Volunteer Hall, etc. elc. If Mr Quinn only objected to th< ones likely to prove oppressive no om could possibly find fault with him, but tin fact is be opposed nearly every by-lav from beginning to end. Here is «i instance of his opposition. The Chair man required a resolution, the origina of which required to be sent to tin Bank, to be signed by the proposer am seconder. This was harmless enough but Mr Quinn got in a fearful rage i a the idea of introducing “.parliamentary rules,” as he called it. If businesi were conducted properly, resolutions should be written and signed and kept so that in case of » dispute they could bo referred to. The fact, is, we wen not present at the passing of the by-lavri ho refers to, but we were present wher the by-laws for regulating the conduct of the meetings were discussed. Ihesi by-laws are only rules for conducting meetings, and it is to these Mr Quim offered opposition. , He makes it appeal that his opposition was directed against stringent by-laws because they were not necessary, as the Police Ordinance am Vagrant Act gavs similar powers Good sound logic ■ this I , If the Folic* Ordinance, etc,,,gave similar powers tf those got under the by-laws, where was the necessity for Mr Quinn to the by-laws ? According to him th< by-laws are not more strict than th< Acts referred to, and consequent! j fcannofc be so very hurtful. There i( this difference : Fraes inflicted undei the Police Ordinance anJ 'Vagrant Acl go to the, consolidated revenue ; finet under the by-laws go to the Board, To work under such Acts as Mi Quinn suggests would mean loss ol revenue to the Board. But what does Mr Quinn care about that, so long as he can persuade the thoughtless that he is working in their interests. As regards the opening of tenders, Mr Quinn says it was to expedite business he did so. The facts are these The Chairman had opened the leaders, but there was some mi - take, (which was afterwards set right) about the deposit money, and it was while this was going on Mr Quinn moved his resolution because, he said, the Clerk was responsible for the money. If another man were in Mr Gray’s place he might have taken it that it was as much as to say that he could not be trusted with the money. We do not accuse Mr Quinn with having moved the resolution with that object iu view, but it was certainly bad taste to move it at that moment. The Chairman is the only man who ought to open tenders, and Mr Quinn ought to know it. We did uot refer to this matter in our first article, because we did not want to make things look as bad as they were.' Mr Quinn may be right about Mr Brown's place, but if he reads our remarks on the subject again he will find that our article only advocated what Mr Quinn alleges ha had been fighting for.' He wants the people to believe ,that his opposition to the by-laws arose out of a desire to make them less stringent, but the first moment the occasion arose he advocated letting Mr Brown have the full forca of their atringency. If Mr Quinn were opposed to stringent bylaws, why did he not act consistently and oppose a hardship being inflicted on Mr Brown ?So far as,we are personally concerned we do not care what is done in Commercial Street. Our remarks were intended to caution the Board against exercising their authority too severely. By-laws are absolutely necessary, but it is not necessary to adhere to them in all cases. Strictly speaking, no one can say that it is right to allow Mr Brown to use the footpath as a cartway, and we did not say it was. We onlyjsaid that the public would not be convenieuced to any great extent by in flic ta hardship on Mr Brown. We may bo wrong, but our object was not to defend Mr Brown, but to try to dissuade the Board from persecuting the public br adhering too strictly to the by-law?. We do not know what Mr Quinu means about local industries/ He talks about three men being put to do the work of one man. How would Mr Quinu like a by-law (hat would put him to the trouble of employing three men where one had hitherto dona? We now challenge Mr Quinn to bring the matter before bis fellow-commissioners, and it lie lias treated them as he ought to, and , we have misrepresented him, surely they will do him justice. If the Commissioners say we have misstated facts we shall apologise most humbly to him.