The Waihemo County Council and the Disputed Road-line.

Otago Witness, Issue 1704, 19 July 1884, Page 19

The Waihemo County Council and the Disputed Road-line.

At the ordinary meeting of the Waihemo County Council held »n Wednesday a letter was read from the Council's solicitora (Messrs Fraser and Stilling), in which they stated they were greatly surprised on observing tho communicated report which appeared in the Otago Daily Times and the Palmerston newspapers of the Council's last special .meeting, as the remarks attributed therein to Mr Stanford had never been used by him, and in face of the matter therein discussed coming before the Supreme Court the wholo tenor of the report was most injudicious, and they characterised the whole matter as " a piece of unwarranted sharp practice." Or Robertson thought that there was only one thing in the letters read which required immediate attention, and that was tho one referring to the report of the speech supposed to be delivered to the Counoil by Mr Stanford at their last meeting ; and as Cr Bell's name was freely mentioned in that report, it would ba as well to receive the letter, «o as to allow of an expiation being made. He moved, therefore—"That the letter referring particularly to this matter be received."

Seconded by Or Dent and carried. Or Bell, in speaking on the matter, said that with reference to the report communicated to the newspapers mentioned, the position of thinga was this : In the Palmeraton Times issued after their laßt meeting he had noticed what professed to be a report of a speech delivered by Mr Stanford during the discussion on the question of trespass at Kitchener's property. He had read the report of that speech supposed to have been delivered, but which in reality was never delivered at all. He had not spoken to members personally respecting the matter, but at the time was somewhat annoyed at the appearance of it. The object of publishing such a Btatement was perfectly well known. The Council only met once a month, and it was thought that the matter would have been ] before the Supremo Court before another meeting was hold. The report as published was strictly written from an advocate's point of view, but there was a remarkable difference between the actual speech made by Mr Stanford and that which was published. He did not know who supplied therep«rt to the papers, j but such matter had never been brought to light before the Council. Mr Stanford, in fact, had no locus atandi to address them, but as an act of courtesy was permitted to do so, and had he made use of such statements as were in the report attributed to him, be (Mr Bell) would j have at once risen and objected, and the result would have been that instead of the report which has appeared a true statement of the i proceedings would have been laid before the public— (Hear, hear.) The circumstance, as it now appeared, prejudiced the matter, pending as it was in a case before the Supreme Court. Mr 801 l quoted from tLe report published, and said that here they were placed as if an advocate had come before them with certain views, and because they refused to listen to them, or would not agree to them, they were threatened with all manner of vengeance. No one outside the Council could say that the Council were to blame in the matter, and the beginning of the caßo was some 13 years ago, when the Council was not in existence. The pßrson who refused the arbitration all along was Mr Kitchener, and this fact was well known to the Council ; and when finally acting on* Mr Kitchener's own lines, an arrangement was come to. Within a few hours these arrangements are upset when they are supposed J,o have been satisfactorily settled by the Council. They had all along tried to do Mr Kitchener justice, and in the pretended report they were abused for a fault which was not theirs, as they were not in existence at the time. Mr Bell further quoted the article, especially the portion referring to the " bogus offer" made by the Council, and which was asserted as being only a " device to gain time," &c, &c. He (Mr Bell) did not wish to say the very harsh things which he might be juatified in saying while passing sentence on the person who had written the report, and subsequently " smuggled it into the newspapers." With regard to himself, he never wrote any letter to the Palmerston Times on the subject. That statement was false. The whole thing was a misrepresentation, and concocted evidently with a view of throwing dust in the eyes of the ratepayers. Facts had been completely ignored, and the Council charged'with acting in a way that they had never done. Mr Kitchener's case had been decided by resolution (which could be seen in the books) to the effect that it should be settled by arbitration. On a Friday this resolution was submitted in writing to Mr. Kitchener, who previously had agreed to it, and the following Monday the road was closed, in spite of a promise to the contrary. Thus it had been made to*appear that the Council had taken every possible means to wriggle out of what was an honourable affair in a very underhand way. The Council had now discovered that they had no power to refer the matter to arbitration. Meanwhile Mr Kitchener allows the Council to expend some two or three hundred pounds in building a bridge, takes £10 1 from the contractor for allowing tho stones to be quarried on his property, and then stops the whole work. .He allows all the preliminaries to be arranged, gets the road made exactly the width he wants it, is arranged with regarding the fencing, and then suddenly stops all operations. • The whole matter was nothing more than an attempt on Mr Kitchener's part to levy blackmail on the Council because they were supposed to be interfering with a "trumpery poplar tree in the middle of a cow paddock." He was endeavouring to squeeze hundreds of pounds out of the Council's purse by coming forward, through his solicitor (Mr Stanford), with a bill for £800 in one hand and all sorts of protestations for the ratepayers' welfare in the other; and for the parties to come n.dw and, by means of this newspaper report, hold them up as dishonest and everything that was infamous was, in his view a procedure (whether Mr Stanford wrote the report or not) which merited the strongest condemnation ; but ho himself would not express it in language. He would conclude by moving — "That the Council regrets that the Daily Times and the Falmerston Times should have been imposed on with a pretended and entirely false report of tho speech delivered by Mr Stanford to the Counoil in re Kitchener's case, especially in view of the facts that at tho time proceedings were actually pending before the Supreme Court, in which Mr Stanford himself is engaged as solicitor for Mr Kitchener ; that the report in question is in every way utterly misleading; and contains misrepresentations and mistatements such as the Council couM never permit to be actually " made without calling forth the truth in reply." Or Dent seebnded the motion.

Cr M'Laben said that Mr Stanford did not in any degree use the language contained in the report referred to. Cr Robebtson explained his action with regard to the voting in the matter re the closing of Kitchener's road, and referred to the report as being wholly a misrepresentation of what was said, and as a tissue of misstatements from beginning to end.

Cr Dknt thought the matter wholly a onesided affair, quite false, and calculated to mislead the public. Cr M'Lbod said that if such a speech had been made he had never heard it.

Cr Ha? quite concurred about the "unspoken speech." There wore very few words in it whinh Mr Stanford had Said.

Cr M'Kbkzib said that when he read the report he was somewhat surprised as well as humiliated to think that his colleagues should have allowed such statements to be made at the Council table without refuting them, but was very much pleased when he heard from Cr 801 l that no such remarks had been used at_ the meeting by Mr Stanford during his address. It was, however, rather fefearp practice. Ho believed there were no authorised reporters present at that meeting, and evidently someone interested on Mr Kitchener's behalf had undertaken to supply the necessary information, aad the whole of the statements re the closing of road at Kitchener's were entirely wrong. Cr Bell, in replying, said that he regretted that in justice to the Council strong language had to be indulged in. The whole matter was a gross piece of indiscretion, and he hoped it would not be repeated. The Chairman was glad to sea the attitude taken up by members with reference to this* matter, but as they had all done justice to the matter he had nothing further to say. Cr Bell's motion was then put and carried.