THE RECENT MEETING AT AWATUNA.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 19, 4 September 1894, Page 3

THE RECENT MEETING AT AWATUNA.

• (to THE EDITOR.) Bib, —l see that Mr Maloney takes exception to my report of the meeting at Awatuna re land fund, “ as being anything but a correct version of what actually took place.” This is a serious charge. A correspondent, above all a country correspondent, should be correct and impartial in his reports of public meetings, as he is liable otherwise to damage, not only himself but the authenticity of the paper for which he is reporting, and the above charge is a very sweeping one. But was my report of the meeting really so utterly false as Mr Maloney says ? As to my first statement, which Mr Maloney quotes, it is quite correct, as the settlers who were present can attest. Mr Maloney must remember that my report was a very short one, and that therefore I took the case generally, and not particularly. I saw no one back up Mr Maloney in his statements, while several opposed him. As a contradiction to my report that he received very little support, he seems to rely very much upon his motion being passed by a three-fifths majority—- “ That a public meeting of ratepayers in loan area be convened in a central position to consider the proposal.” True, this motion was passed after many had left the room, and the majority (three-fifths) by which it was passed was a very small one, being but little more than one-half of those voting. So I don’t see how, in the face of this, Mr Maloney can assert that he received other than “slender support.” Mr Maloney again quotes from my report re “ statements lacking proof,” and he presumes that these statements were made by him. But why does Mr Maloney presume that these statements were made by him ? Alas! “ Conscience makes cowards of us all,” and Mr Maloney’s conscience must have given him an ugly twinge when he came to this and immediately took it to himself. As a matter of fact, it was not Mr Maloney alone that was in my mind just then, though be might have been uppermost. The unproved statements I referred to were chiefly in connection with the petition circu-

lated in this district, asking the council to build bridges out of land fund. The effects that would follow the granting of the prayer of these petitions were, Mr Maloney/ asserted, misrepresented. This was denied by the canvasser, and though Mr Maloney declared that there were some in the room who had told him so, none of these witnesses stood forth to prove his assertion. As to Mr Maloney’s statement that the best answer to his assertion is furnished by the fact that a counter petition is now being numerously signed throughout the district, I would point out to him that that formed no argument at the meeting whieh it was my duty to report, and that he still must acknowledge that his statements there were unproved. I might have pointed out a good deal more to Mr Maloney, but I think that I have answered his main contentions, so I wash my hands of the affair. Besides, I know that editors get cross when one flirts too much with their space.—l am, &.., Awatuna Correspondent.