In Reply to the Mayor.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 7159, 9 February 1901, Page 2

In Reply to the Mayor.

(To the juditor.) TTsl^~P e letter si Bued "Henry Haydon, Mayor," in last night's issue is truly characteristic of the writer. In his opening remarks the Mayor writes that I made " efforts to throw disfavour on Mr Armstrong's appointment at last -Tuesday s rneering," and in the same breath says, « As a matter of fact the | Council do not know Mr Armstrong in the matter at all." It i s qu i te true, S-, that I was not well supported in the Council when I raised the objection to Mr Armstrong's appointment. I mentioned that fact in my former letter, but up to teat time the Mayor, as Chairman, had been misleading the Councillors, and the documents from which I have quoted had not been produced. When i moved in the Council that a!I documents and minutes in connection with the carrying out of the present sewage system be produced and rend at the meeting, in order ;h.ii Com.eillors would get tit the true fac;s of the case, vlio Mayor strongly opposed roy resoluaon, which he is pleas, d to b:iv " U: to the ground." The Mayor ' Mr Mestayer is responsible to the Couacil and he alone." That i s , cry wo.l iv us way but Mr Mrst...y, £ w.;l uu ly visit tic works occasionally. What guarantee Jias the Couuc'l in ijje matter ? Noi:e whatever, if wejwd- by previr.u-. esp rience. And now I come to unoibur misleading stalein, nt iv ihe Mayor's letter referring to ii,, :u a :,H. t^ smauA to xVlr Armstrong, j.,, ,-r-p v "tn Mr Armstrong's letter tv th-*i'-unt-'i. of June 18th, 1890 taircvdv iri r.,-l . •) in which ho KB ks for an assistant, and i wbk;- >-~. ..,- Glis t ,, be solely respon^bio, ih c duucii's nr-rutss of the Bau . d date red as ioJur.vs : '/Proposed by Cr Luxibrd and seconded by Cr Wr'icr, that ih. engiiu-er i Mr AriMhtroiie) be authous. d io employ assistance to ihu extent of £l 2 yer week ior supc.ryi«i, iy the sewuge contract. -Lamed ' This is plain enough, Sir. Instead of givug Mr Armstrong £1 per week 6S asked for, tiv, Cnunei?granted him £2 per witk. The Mayoi-wishes you.-readers t0 -jfer r,h«r, toe Ctuncil ih some way api.oi.uud Mr tr^usum. ,-s an assistant. This i* qi ,i tfc nt roo. The Council paid the M p,,- w,,k us salary lor Mr Armstrong ussiimnr, but he was soiely responsible to Mr Armstrong vho had the sole c.uHjol of the *e\v--woik from the start to the finish, "if the Mayor or ahy ulib cU- wi;l ~..oductomc any minutes ot i!,e Council-or in • act, onytbicg to show ibat the Council in any way, or at auy ii-.1-c, relieved Mr Anmtruujj: ofihebole so pons.bility of carrying out the pre.-ci yewa^e svst-m taen I wi:l har.d over .£.5 , l 8 a oonation - todu hate of the iVm. rston Hosp-.tal j.li<3 Mayor writes in conclusion, •• 1 do not mean for one moment to infer thai the present sewage system wms proper; v earned out." It is sati-faclory to kuou mat the Mayor mak,s this ad.iiissiou, bus very unsatisfactory thai lie has clolc ail in bis power to get' the Council to agree to the same cngi.uer being np pomted to cai.-y oub the cstendo.l in concluding his retu.-irk-■upon the Coins'! whioa was in office why.n tba present sewage works were cwiwied out, he says, "they fii-d to run the job too cheap, aud failed " Considering, Mr Editor, that the* Council whs fa yi..g Mr Anu«tro U .r a «ood salary and also £2 for his ass^-, ant, 1 fail to see ths sense of such a remark.—l uui, etc.,

Wm. Pahk,: CoujDcillor for No. '2, Ward