The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1896. TOWN BOARD.

Opunake Times, Volume IV, Issue 178, 17 March 1896, Page 2

The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1896. TOWN BOARD.

In another column we publish a letter from Mr J. Stewart, purporting to be a reply to an article in last Friday’s issue in which we commented on his action with regard to the tenders for King Street. Mr Stewart evidently fancies himself as a Board member and looks on himself as faultless. If he contented himself with thinking so he might pass with some people as a wiseacre, but in order to do so he would need to maintain a rigid silence. Inconsistency is his great failure, and if any of the ratepayers would but attend a Board meeting and hear the number of times he will change his opinion' on any subject whilst it is being discussed—except repairs to King Street or Gisborne Terrace—we are quite confident they will endorse our opinion. His letter teems with inconsistencies. He says in it he has much pleasure in endorsing our opinion of the late chairman, which was that he was thoroughly straightforward and impartial, and in the next line doubts the reasons set forth by him in his resignation as the true ones, thus accusing the late chairman of prevarication. But, may be Mr Stewart thinks—that is, if he ever thinks at all—that prevarication is in keeping with his ideas of straightforwardness. He accuses Mr Rogers of being egotistical; but what of himself, judged by the statement re King Street: “I determined, as a useful and permanent work, it should be carried through.” Now we would ask Mr Stewart if there could possibly be anything more egotistical than that. Why, we ask, did he make such a terrible determination ? Echo answers, to give him a short cut from his factory to his private residence, and to enhance the value of his property in King Street. Mr Stewart refers us to a leading article in our issue of February 28th as a justification for his not regarding the lowest tender, and after referring to it we have come to the conclusion that he either never read it, or that plain English is beyond him. What we condemned was accepting the lowest tender when it was below a certain minimum, to be fixed by the engineer or overseer. It is very amusing to be lectured by Mr Stewart on what a Board’s duty is, &0., when in all probability this is the first time he has ever sat on a public body, and then by sufferance. As he seems to think he represents the ratepayers, we would challenge him to resign and contest the seat against Mr Rogers, and see whose action the ratepayers will endorse. We should be very pleased to do the advertising and printing for the election gratis. We shall conclude by asking Mr Stewart if he had also “ determined ” that the works on King Street, east of Layard Street, passed at the last Board meeting, should be done, or how the application for them emanated.