HASTINGS BOROUGH INSPECTORS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 218, 29 August 1927, Page 9

HASTINGS BOROUGH INSPECTORS.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —1 had no intention, after once recording my protest, of ekeing out the discussion on the Borough Council’s action in dispensing with the services of Inspector Yates, but the circumstances, and according to the accepted rules of debate the opportunity of reply is due to me. As to whether Inspector Fawcett's retention in the service of the ratepayers is popular or otherwise, I am not in a position to judge, nor do I care. My complaint was that a responsible public body in New Zealand, having all the facts in mind, could so sport with the feelings of numerous applicants for a position, when it was obvious that the whole inglorious manoeuvre, under the guise of a division of duties, ostensibly to ensure greater efficiency, was set afoot with a designed end. and due to a cause which does not reflect much credit either on the instigator or the particular councillors who aided and abetted towards the ultimate unjust denouement. “Scrutator’s’’ letter demonstrates that the public is influenced, in its appraisement of public service, veiy largely by personal considerations. Had he been unfortunate enough to get a summons instead of a reprimand. there is no doubt a different story would have been told. It is clearly'a quid pro quo for favours received.

As to the ridiculous contentions of “Trader.’’ it was difficult precisely to decide whether his letter was sarcasm writ large, an exercise in leg-pulling, or the outburst of a person too mentally unstable to know the difference between sane considered eulogy, and sickly sycophantic slobbery. Mr. Editor .it is just her© I would prefer a question to your good self. During the few days my first letter was in your hands prior to publication, did you submit it to “Trader” or anyone else for the purpose of getting a counter. to publish synchronously with mine? There is strong presumptive evidence that you did. and one is led to ask if this is legitimate journalism. “Trader’s” extravaganza might well be dismissed just here, but two claims he makes, put in juxtaposition, so effectually damn his whole effort that they deserve attention. Trusting to memory, he said that Inspector Fawcett succeeding rafferty (what an injustice to Hogan) “educated the town to a marked degree in the way it should go,” and then with a naivette charming in the extreme, hut with a logic as delightfully flaccid, adds that after twelve years of prodigious tutorship we motorists “still observe the numerous notices by acting contrary to what thev stipulate.” That disposes of “Trader'’ whose stock in trace probably consists in little but eye lotion whitewash and patent back scratch'ers. '' ith Inspector Fnwoatt, with some reservations, I have no'quarrel. His capacity, up to a point, cannot be questioned, I quarrel rather with the press which presents him to us as some sort of a glorified prophylactic colossus, figuratively with one foot on Stortford Lodge and the other on larkvale School, and with a swivelled neck, argus eyes, and a disinfected broom after the pattern of Mrs Partington’s, absolutely forbidding the entry into Hastings of any germ, microbe, or bacteria, of a greater feral potency than those of diphtheria. mumps or measles. Of course the influenza epidemic was allowed n under special dispensation. And. of course, thev all come, hut the paragraphs with the übiquitous brackets are usually m>n est at such, times. I would like to ask whose opinions are entitled l > respect. and “Trader,”, too utterly unctuously dire •• hi find out why Inspector Kiernan re ritfn<*4. whether l»»«nertor Yates' 1

position has, or has not been untenable and intolerable for some time; what made the division of duties in the disaffected borough departments necessary; and then fry and persuade His Worship the Mayor and councillors to go and learn to play cricket. Meantime my prayer ascends for Mr. Yates, whose supersession is, in my opinion, a travesty on fair play, and a reproach to the public of Hastings who apparently view it with no special disfavour. And that because they are ignorant of all the facts. —Yours etc., J. T. FAWCETT. Hastings, 25/8/27. [Strong presumptive evidence apparently induces gentlemen of our correspondent’s temperament to cateli hold of dirty ends of sticks. By the small respect he has for us, as expressed in the “lickspittle press ’ paragraph contained in his first letter on the subject of borough inspectors, it is reasonable to assume that it will be a disappointment to him to learn that that letter was not submitted or spoken of to “Trader’’ >r to anyone else.—Ed. H.B.T.]