To the Editor.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 17 April 1907, Page 2

To the Editor.

fir,— l cannot in justice to myself al low his Worship's letter of the 15tl inst. to pass unnoticed, seeing that hi has singled me out particularly upoy this occasion. His Worship is cvi dently under a misapprehension as re garding the finality of a presiding offi cer's power in the question of rulings Such must be bowed to at the time and I do not think that his Worship will ever accuse me of having treatec any of his rulings with disrespect, nc matter how much I may have disagreec with them. The rulings of the Speakei of the House of Representatives, and if my memory serves me rightly, oi the House of Commons, have beer called into question from time to time and it is not sufficient that a presiding officer shall say "Sit down. I rule yoi -mt of order." If his ruling is questioned he must certainly state his reasons for such ruling, and if the deliberative body so choose they have the Dower to either reverse their President's ruling or to make provision that uich ruling will be non-effective in the future. If his Worship will refer 'o the letter I quoted, he will find that ■ie did not there take any exception to the funding of the overdraft, his only objection being that he did not think it possible to do so without special Parliamentary powers being obtained. In reference to the question of the charges made against the City Surveyor I must toko issue with him as to the personnel of the Committee set up. Seeing that it was his Worship that had formulated the charges it was naturally impossible to place him upon the committee, as he would be required to give evidence upon the question at issue: but had he not been satisfied with the constitution of the committee at the time it was set up, he would certainly have suggested the addition of any names that he had chosen, and I do not think that anyone reading the evidence that was brought out at the committee meetings and afterwards published, could have come to any other conclusion than that at which the committee arrived. I again assert, without fear of contradiction, that' so liar no serious charge has been made. by. the. Mayor against the City Surveyor that could have been sustained before a judge and jury of 12 men who were sworn to bring in a verdict in accordance with the evidence submitted. I have frequently protested against his Worship raking up the actions of a previous Council. The whole question of the tenders of the dam, together with its extras, were things of the past, -md to my mind should not have been introduced into financial discussions that only affect the present Council. I know nothing whatever about the merits or demerits of the question as to the acceptance of tenders and the payment for extras, but I do know that any Council who would pass accounts for £4000 more than the contract price called for, without knowing that they were paying such a sum, were certainly not doing their duty to the ratepayers. . I quite agree with His Worship that the officials of the Council should have drawn their attention to the fact, but at the same time where such a great discrepancy occurs, I should have thought that the figures would have been too glaring to have even needed the Council s attention drawing to them. The charge that the Mayor makes by reminding me of my own deficiencies is Jlmost too paltry to answer. Councillor Harrison and myself both noticed the" apparently high price of the coal in question. The account was duly certi»ed and appeared upon the bill head n a reputable firm. We naturally came o the conclusion that the matter was >nly one that required a simple explanation, which upon reference to the City Engineer was received, and acknowedged to be reasonable even by his Worship himself. I am, etc., Wm. SPENCER HAMPSON. Nelson, April 16th, 1907.