Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Mr Graham—Harbor.

|TO THE EDITOR.] Sir, —Although a supporter of Mr Graham at the last election, and approving generally of the policy pursued by him in Parliament with regard to colonial affairs, I confess I am grievously disappointed at the incapacity he has displayed in dealing with the local Harbor Bill. Although advised to withdraw the Bill sooner than let it pass with the objectionable clause inserted by Sir G. Whitmore, he did not not do so, but agreed to the Bill, giving as his reason that the clause was all right when understood. Apparently no one can apply the same interpretation to the clause as Mr Graham does, for there seems to ba general dissatisfaction at the position the Harbor Board are placed in owing to the insertion of clause 5. Mr Graham, however, cannot understand why the Board do not agree with his explanation of the clause ; in f ct he seems surprised that the members of the Board should presume to have minds of their own. According to a letter publshed by him, he says the Board would be justified in reading clause 5 as it was intended to read, but the Board very righ ly will not do this, but wish to read the clause according to its legal meaning. Then Mr Grab un ascribes the view taken by the members of the Board to their indignation having got the better of their judgment. This statement of Mr Graham might very well have been left out of his letter, as it could scarcely be termed complimentary to the members themselves. Certainly their utterances at the two last meetings would not lead anyone to suppose that theit indignation had got the better of their judgment, nor do I think that anyone could accuse a single member of the Board of being unable to calmly consider a question of this nature. It would have been better, I think, had Mr Graham let well alone. It cannot be said that his efforts with regard to harbor legislation have been brilliantly suacessful, and this latest move has certainly made things much worse.—l am, <fcc. Disgusted.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GSCCG18880922.2.27

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 199, 22 September 1888, Page 3

Word Count
355

Mr Graham—Harbor. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 199, 22 September 1888, Page 3

Mr Graham—Harbor. Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 199, 22 September 1888, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert