The Wairarapa Daily. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1887. MR. R. K. SMITH.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2533, 24 February 1887, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1887. MR. R. K. SMITH.

Having a lively fear of libel action 9 before oiir eyesjntl a • possible ;dread of the substantial damages witb wliieh we have been menaced we write tb<3 name of Mr R. K. Smith again with fear and trembling, Yet mingled with our apprehension is a sentiment of, wonder I We wonder how it is : that Mr E, K.. Smith should'have gone for us! His solicitor says because we published Mr Georges report, and yet our local contemporary did precisely the same thing, and we venture to ssy that he has received no lawyer's letter and that he has not been "required to make an ample public- apology to Engine B. K, Smith, We .are also told that our ,<ppients on the report; have yfrjijatye j# substantial damages ; and yet .oyf copjMOfffy commented ;on the Very report ajso without jnopring. any lifbi%, fttiij) we admit there some Blight diitoca ji) the comments.

Our contemporary proved that even if the tank leaked the Engineer was sound as a bell 'while wo mildly emphasized the fact that the tank did leak, and that the Engineer was in some [degree responsible for its condition. If Engineer Smith's professional reputation has sustained injury, it has suffered not from our almost friendly criticism but from Mr George's drastic report. Why does not Engineer Smith, if libel actions are his chosen remedy, go. for Mr George? Again, His Worship the Mayor and some members of the Borough Council haVe publicly stated some hard'things about Engineer R.; {han''-TirV have said;- and"yet' Engineer' E, Ki' Smith does ncit appear to"be 'goirig.for' them. Strange to say, he passes' over his real and avowed enemies,'and tries to gag the Press. 'lf he. really has a good case it, would, have'been far' better for him to, have''allowed the Press full liberty for discussing it. I What we want to know, and ,wliat the i public has a right to insist iupon know-, ijig, is whether the big brick structure was really meant' to be, a tank or an aqueduct? If Engineer Smith will only say straight out that it has been designed for an aqueduct, we will at once admit that he has achieved a triumph and that'he is entitled to a testimonial for his engineering skill; but if he will persist in, calling it a tank, we must, notwithstanding lawyers' letters, question in the mildest possible manner his success as a tank builder. A leakage of 600,000 gallons a day is hardly consistent 'with the popular idea of a tank, and though candescent Smith and incandescent ' Hooker may swoar to the contrary, we mu9t still persist in our protest. We would not mind a hundred gallons a day disappearing; we might overlook a dribble of a thousand gallons, and even if the daily output were.ten thousand gallons, we might be contented, but GO,OOO gallons a day, 420,000 gallons a week, 21,840,000 gallons per annum is a little too much, and all the incandescent certificates in Creation will not reconcile us to it. At least fourteen gallons of water have to be run into the tank to make a solitary foot of gas. We fearlessly appeal to any gas engineer, who is neither candescent nor incandescent,- to say whether fourteen gallons of water to afoot, of gas is not a big average.