THE POWER SCHEME.

Southland Times, Issue 22956, 31 July 1936, Page 9

THE POWER SCHEME.

To the Editor.

Sir,—ln reply to your footnote to mv last letter: I do think that there are times when a good newspaper should withhold its views; that is, when it is in the public interest to so. Even a wise word at the wrong time is better left unspoken. Besides, you would have a greater influence, and could serve the province better if you were less partisan than you have been in this controversy. For instance, you have objected to statements in favour ot the Board that were perfectly justifiable, and at the same time allowed a grossly unjust statement like the one appearing over Mr G. A. Hamiltons nume to-day. He says: “We find . . . the Power Board was attempting repudiation of part of its interest on overseas loans.” When a writer makes a statement like that, I think it is the duty of the editor to put his blue pencil through it. You say you originally opposed a referendum. That implies that you do not oppose a referendum now—in a word, you have changed your mind. You have been pretty hard on the Board for doing this same thing. Is not a black pot as black as a black kettle? There is this difference however, the Board changed its mind because of obstacles thrown in its path. There is no apparent reason for your change of mind. , . . You say that the Boards decision was made by the narrow margin of seven votes to five. If the decision had been carried on the casting vote of the chairman, it was still the decision of the Board, and as such, was fully binding on all members of the Board. That is Democratic practice to which there are only two alternatives—a dictatorship or mob rule, that is, savagery. I do not for one moment suggest that you are not fully entitled to disagree with the Board’s opinion, but when you say “the Board must decide—it is the Board’s responsibility,” and then because its opinion is different from your own, you refuse your loyal support and start “throwing spanners in the cogs” then I say you are doing the province a very great disservice indeed. As to the “irresponsible baiting and brow-beating" I wish to be scrupulously fair, but I am convinced that certain people who had no responsibility whatsoever in the matter, encouraged and inflamed by your writing have called public meetings, (where speakers were howled down if they spoke on the “wrong” side of the question) passed resolutions, sent telegrams to Wellington, and in every possible way hindered and embarrassed the Board. If that is not baiting and brow-beating our public men, then I don’t know the meaning of the term.

In conclusion, sir, can’t we agree on one point, and that is, that it is not the duty of the Board to prove to all and sundry that it is right, but rather that it is the duty of the critics to prove that the Board is wrong, and that this can only be done by outside accountants and engineers; and further, that until they produce such proof they should not hinder the Board from carrying out the work it was appointed to do? —Yours, etc., NON-RETICULATED. Otara, July 29, 1936.

[(1) In our correspondence columns we have omitted neither statements in favour of the Board nor statements against the Board unless they were considered unfair, personal, or libellous. Letters questioning the Board on facts have been referred to the Board’s chairman for reply by way of footnotes; and he has also been invited to make full use of our columns to reply to any letters at all. He did, for instance, reply to a point in Mr G. A. Hamilton’s letter. (2) Our attitude on the referendum has been clearly set out in our editorial columns more than once. (3) We have never questioned the fact that the decision of the majority on the Board must be the decision of the Board. (4) Our correspondent says we are doing the province a disservice by refusing our loyal support because the Board’s opinion is different from our own; but in the same sentence he says “I do not for one moment suggest that you are not fully entitled to disagree with the Board’s opinion.” (5) We have not “baited” or “brow-beaten” any of our opponents; on the contrary we have given them the fullest opportunity to state their case in our columns. (6) Since the Government’s offer is better for Southland in the immediate future at least (because of the permanent removal of the rate) we think it is clearly the duty of the Board to show that by retaining the scheme it could ultimately give the people an adequate return in cheaper power for the sacrifices they have been making and apparently will still have to make. The Power Board has not established any such case; nor have its members been able to produce facts in support of many of their claims. —Editor, The Southland Times.]