OUR REPORTER IN REPLY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume I, Issue 96, 16 March 1881, Page 4

OUR REPORTER IN REPLY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAB.

Sir,— lf all of Mr. O'Donovan's assertions are on a par with his statepent, that I had advised the approbation of the road expenditure, at rhat he terms a " private meeting," I an only say that they are utterly without foundation. I gave no such

idvice. On the contrary, I distinctly ;old those present that they could do lothing, unless they had a quorum. [ stated that they might recommend

he expenditure to the Commissioner >f Crown Lands, and inform him at

Lhe same time that they believed their iction would be confirmed by the Board, at its neit meeting. I felt strongly that if they did not plainly bell the Commissioner of Crown Lands ;he whole of the circumstances, they nrould not alone be acting illegally, but to some extent unfairly, to the public, although I believed their motives were right. Riding, home with Mr. Quin and the Secretary, I igain strongly pointed "out to them,

in the course of conversation, that that was the only course open to them. Those gentlemen, I have no doubt, as well as Messrs. Southey and Hawke, will be able to contradict me, if 1 am stating an untruth. A report of what took place at the meeting was published immediately afterwards in the Star, together with the appropriations recommended for each road. If they were unfair, why did not Mr. O'Donovan pursue the same course that he did in reference to the amalgamation question — namely, request that the necessary sanction should be withheld? He had plenty of time to do it. He cannot plead ignorance, like other settlers who have had no experience of the working of our local bodies, as to what it was necessary to do under the circumstances. He was well aware of what was necessary to upset the amalgamation petition, and if I am not mistaken, he was equally well aware that if sufficient grounds could be shown to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, that gentleman would never have given his assent to the appropriations recommended by the three members. Then why did he not take that course? It would have been far more effectual than his exclamations of " S-i-r, I object !" But by doing so, Mr. O'Donovan would have been deprived of a grievance ; and a grievance is to some people's minds what laughter and good-nature are to others.

The remainder of this Chesterfieldian production calls for no reply. The faithfulness and impartiality of my reports have been borne testimony to by gentlemen who are competent to judge, and whose opinions I value. What Mr. O'Donovan's may be, is to me a matter of the most perfect indifference. In conclusion, I can only say that the tone of his communication — and of the note accompanying it, published in Saturday's issue — is. only what might reasonably have been expected by those who have had an opportunity of witnessing the overbearing, tyrannous conduct of its writer towards the foreman of works, the secretary to the board, the chairman, and his fellow-members. — I am,

&c, Your Reporter. March 14, 1881.