LAST THURSDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 115, 2 September 1876, Page 2

LAST THURSDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL. Sir, —The following paragraph, which aj peared in your issue of yesterday, would, not contradicted by me, perhaps by some 1 your readers be believed to be "the truth, tl whole truth, and nothing but the truth" :■ "Our morning contemporary, with its rig economy of truth, for which it is now gettii noted, in the matter of the Municip Council's reports, has the audacity to sta 1 in a paragraph this morning, that certa Councillors and iU reporter were present a certain stage of last night's proceeding The object of this untruthful assertion is, course, quite apparent. The idea intend to be conveyed to the public is that a ren sentative of Tun Mail was not preset will perhaps be information lor our co^ ec porary when w° state that our rep^ ( actually remained listening to Mr. Gra; harangue for a quarter of au hour later tL the writer of the Times report." As you were not present at the meeting, will, for your information, briefly state wt occurred. At a few minutes before ti o'clock, Councillor Grave rose to speak Councillor Booth's amendment. Your 1 porter and myself were then present tabn notes. At ten minutes past ten o'clock, (at Councillor Grave's request) left the roc aud proceeded to the I!oyal Hotel, where obtaiued for his refreshment a bottle lemonade (with a " "in it). On retail ing to the Council Chambers—ten miniil afterwards (or by the clock twenty mini! past ten) I found that your report had taken his departure. Sometime afi I returned, Councillor Crave, who 1 still speaking to Councillor Booth's atneS ment, was informed by the Mayor that i had just discovered that, according to t By-laws, he (Councillor Grave) could 1 address the Council on Councillor Boot amendment for adjournment. Council Grave then sat down, but afterwards i 10.50 p.m.) rose aud moved an amend® on the original proposition moved by Cot cillor Headland ; and he (Councillor Gra' continued speaking to his amendment 01 it was agreed (at 11.30 p.m.) to adjourn ti matter under discussion to Thursday next

So, Sir. ins'end of the "local "in yest day's North Otajo Times being untrue, J will now perceive that it is true ill fW respect. I think, Sir, irj justice to me, you shos put the following question to your reports —" At what time did you leave the Co® Chamber—after the meeting had adjourn (at 11.30. p.m.), or an hour previous to tl time ? If he says that he left the meeting 10.30, he would be speaking the truth; b if he says hj« was present when the Cei? adjourned at 11.30 p.m., I most assert that it is false, and the Mayor, Cos cillors, and Town Clerk (who were press will endorse my words. This is plain & lish, but as you have taken the trouble tot and prove that the "local" which app®* 1 in yesterday's issue of the Tmies is putr® feel called upon to \yriie plainly, so ti there may be "no misunderstmding. In conclusion, Sir, allow me to expres. l extreme regret that j'ou should have 1 prompted, by some cause or other bj known to yourself, to insert the "local complain of ; but my regret is 3es ened the thought that you will, now you knoff 1 truth of the matter, tender an ample» satisfactory apology for the wroug done. I am, &c., Robert Lawrence Sept. 2, 1876. [We publish Mr. Rule's explanation %. pleasure, the copy of which y/e have to our Reporter for his reply.—En. E.M-J