PERSISTENT MISREPRESENTATION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 167, 1 July 1911, Page 4

PERSISTENT MISREPRESENTATION.

It is difficult to understand why our evening contemporary so consistently and persistently misrepresents the action of the Napier Borough Councillors regarding the drainage of the lower portion of Napier. It is, of course, possible, and to a certain extent excusable, for a journal to make a mistake, but after being confronted with an error, surely it is not only fair but reasonable to expect that a repetition would be avoided. It is apparently useless to apply this rule*to the '‘Telegraph.” Granting that in its zeal to serve His Welsh ip the Mayor, an error was made in its first reference to this matter, we can find no possible excuse for continuing to wilfully and unnecessarily mislead the public as to the councillors" expressed wishes upon this subject On Thursday night the ‘'Telegraph” said “ For the rest, we take pleasure, especially in view of the fact that we have had to criticise the council harshly for procrastination in thetmatter of surface- drainage provision, in the fact that at last it has resolved to place, the responsibility upon the ratepayers of rejecting or endorsing the engineer’s plans for draining the low er portions of the town.” This is a sort of half-truth, which, if properly manipulated, constitutes one of the worst forms of prevarication. Reading on from previous .articles in our contemporary, we see that it is meant to imply by the statement “ that at last it (the council) has resolved to place the responsibility upon the ratepayers of rejecting or endorsing the engineer’s plans for draining the lower parts of the town,” that councillors have eventually given way to the Mayor’s transcendent ability and done what was right. Now, the facts of the case are that the cougX eillors have all along sedulously and carefully followed the engineer's advice. For proof of this we quote the concluding paragraph of the engineer's report, as published on June 7th:—“Diversion of the Tutaekuri River. —I am informed on good authority that it is extremely probable that the river will, before very long, be diverted either at the ‘ wash-out ’ or elsewhere, and I would again draw your attention to this in view of the large sums involved in the construction of these culverts which might, in the space of a year or thereabout, be proved to have been buite unnecessary. If the river ■were diverted, flooding of a serious nature would be at an end.” How have the councillors procrastinated ? They have heeded the engineer and endeavoured to save the ratepayers money by trying to ascertain what was to be done with the river. Such petty attempts to “boost” the reputation of one man at the expense of others is not only unfair, but it is puerile and beneath contempt.