PETTIFOGGING.

North Otago Times, Volume XI, Issue 358, 27 October 1868, Page 3

PETTIFOGGING.

(To the Editor of the Oamarc Times.) Sir, — I was astonished, on reading Or. Shrimski's letter of the 16th instant, to find that in several instances he is trying to convey wrong impressions to the public with reference to the action of the Council at a meeting at which he had the " honor" to be fined L5. He commences with an apology for using the word " pettifogging," stating that it was the only word (as a foreigner) he could command to express his foreign ideas. Why did he not use the same courtesy towards the Council, instead of heaping insult on injury, when called on by them to withdraw anything offensive which he had said ? I must here remark tha? Cr. Shrimski was not fined for using that word alone, but in connection with it, hia impeaching the truthfulness of one of the Councillors, also for his general disrespect and defiance of all Council law and usages. Mr Shrimski goes on to ask, why the money should be thrown away, and give his explanation of the same. In the first place, Mr Hunt did not come to the Gouncil as a consulting enpineer, to advise them how to proceed with the work, but to tell them how he would do the work, and what he would do it for ; rery generously offering to lose from IAO to 1/15 by it rather than see the work of the port completely ■topped. Cr. Shrimski also stated that a special meeting of the Council was called for this purpose. This again •was not as it should be, as there was other important business to be transacted. His reference to the two Councillors who show such care over the public and their private purses, is hardly merited, as he will find, if he will trouble himself to make the necessary inquiry, that they did not spare their private purses on this occasion. Mr Shrimski goes on to ask if it is proper to accept an offer before it is stated what is to be done. In the offer made by Mr Hunt, it was distinctly understood what was to be done, and that was more than fulfilled. There is nothing in our Standing Orders defining how tenders shall be called, so that in emer-

gency -cases, like this one, the Counoil would be quite justified in calling them as suggested, without meriting the term pettifoggers. A *» What Mr Shrimski was thinking about when ha says that " no one but Mr Hunt could possiby Bee a notice posted outside the Council Chambers" I am at a loss to find out, as it was broad daylight, and Mr Hunt is not the only man in the place with eyes in his head. With reference to the spending of a considerable sum of money for the private ends of two Councillors. I have simply to say, thnt I did not think him so narrow-minded as only to recognise Mr Ashcroft and myself in a work which affects the whole district, both collectively and individually. Along with the two Councillors, why did Mr Shrimski not mention Messrs Cargills and M'Lean, who had a cargo of posts and rails ; and Mr Spence, who had a cargo of coal in the bay, and whose vessels would very probably be on demurrage, being stopped in fine weather ? Why? Evidently the desire to convey wrong impressions to the public, which, if left unrefuted, would lead them to believe that Mr Shrimski was right. Mr Shrimski winds up by informing the public that expressing his opinions is injurious to his own interests. This, I am sure, Mr Shrimski might have left out, as we all know his weakness. He also says he will endeavor to prevent this trading upon ratepayors' money. I only wish we had a lot more to trade upon, especially as it comes out of the Provincial chest. In conclusion, Mr Editor, I would ask you whether the term pettifoggers, applied to the Council, or pettifogger, applied to the originator of such a factious opposition, is the most applicable. Yours, &o., Henbt Aitken. . Oamaru, 22nd October, 1868.