MR E. M. SMITH'S LETTER.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 9767, 27 July 1893, Page 2

MR E. M. SMITH'S LETTER.

TO THE EDITOB,

Sib, — In replying to Mr E. M. Smith's letter which appears in your issue of Wednesday last, I will confine myself to tho main points. To the statement made by me at the last meeting of the Harbor Board (of which, thanks to Mr Smith's influence with tho Government, I am no longer a member) I adhere, and now desire to explain briefly why I do not believe the late Mr King made any pro miao to Mr Smith that his oxpenses to Wellington would bo paid by the Harbor Board. Years ago, when the late Chairman's ill health necessitated sea trips to Fiji and to Australia, the Board appointed me acting-Chairman, and more recently, whonever Mr King was unable to attend the meetings I was invariably voted to the I chair during his absence or illness. Thus Mr King became accustomed to communi cato with me on harbor matters, and from time to time, up to within a few days of his death, he sent letters and messages to He, and I frequently visited him at his residence Ido not think ho said or did a single thing in connection with the Board's affairs without taking me into his confidence. Only a fortnight before his death, the late Chairman was very much upset by statements made at a meeting of the Board by somo of its members, who severely ciilicisod mo for having conveyed to the Foreman certain instructions from Mr King, and also condemned him for giving an order for about £10(J worth of mateiiul, wnich as a matter of fact weirder As, nor I, nor anyone else had done. Mr King was 60 nrmoyed by this incident that he wrote a resignation of both chairmanship and membership, and it wus only in deference to the wishes of friend?, who woro anxious that his long and honourable connection with the Board should not bo torminute I in such an unfortunate manner, that he consented to witl.hvld tho letter of resignation. From t : itß lima Air King was scrupulously careful to avoid the assumption of authority which might he questioned by members of ilis Ho'aid. When I visited Mr King on or about 18th April, ihe day on which he told mo ho would like to see- Mr Smith before ho went to Wellirgton, it waa understood that Mr Smith was on the point of leav ng in fulfilment of his offer to interview the Government at his own exponse, which offer was accepted with thanko, as per resolution rocorclod in tho Board s minute book , Is it at a!l likely that, at a timo when working nion were being invited to contribute their half-crowns or clay's pay to the fund which wo were raising, the Chairman would, even if he had the power., privately absolve Mr Smith from an obligation which he had voluntarily and publicly assumed ? I had a further and final inter* view with Mr King;, on Monday, 24th April, three days before his death. His conversation on that occasion was largely about harbor matters, and he referred to Mr Smith's visit of a few days previous

but not a word did he say to me about his I expenses being paid to and from Wo'lington. He did, either then or on a former occasion, suggest that it migbi be desirable for Mr Smith to go from WeVingion to Wcttporl to see about a crane and some , trucks, and remarked that i£ ho did so wo would have to pay his travelling expenses. I As tho honourable member for New Piymouth has carefully avoided any reference to what occurred at the Board's mooting on BUI March, and subsequently, I now ask bim to reconsider his intention to " write no more," and to answer, through your columns, the following question?, viz. :—: — 1 Did you, Mr Smith, on Bth March last, voluntarily offer to go to Wellington atyourowncoßt for tho purpose of supporting the Harbour Board's application for prison labour, and other assistance ? 2. Were you, Mr Smith, the writer of a letter signod " E. M. Smith," which appeared in the Daily Newt of 17th May? The letter in question was a reply to an enquiry, — whether, and how much, Mr Smith, M.H.R., and Mr Kolly, M.L.C., had subscribed to the Harbour Protection Fund. The person who signed your name to his letter said, " I have jußt returned from Wellington, where I have been on harbour business. . . . it cost me £7, yet I am held up as not having subscribed to the above fund." 3. Wh«n Mr McAllum asked yoi for a subscription to the Harbour Protection Fund, did you, Mr Smith, tell him that you had already given your oxpenses to Wellington, and could not afford to do more ? 4. Lastly, Mr Smith, if you did offer to go to Wellington at your own expense^ if you did write to the Daily News that you actually had done so; and if you did represent the cost of your visit as your donation to the Harbour Fund, does not the matter now stand vory much in this position ? That you accepted from the Harbour Board a vote o£ thanks for whut you have not done, and apparently never had any intentioa of doing. That tho statement made in yoir letter to the Daily News is absolutely incorrect as regards the expenses of your trip to Wellington. That you took credit for a fairly substantial subscription to tiie Harbour Fund while, as a matter of fact, you have not subscribed one solitary sixpence to the Fund, but have obtained from our needy Harbour Board not only the cost of your visit to Wellington on their and other people's business, but the co-t of attending the late Premier's funeral at Wangnnni. . Mr Editor, I challenge Mr E. M. Smith, M.H.R.,to answer these questions honestly and straightforwardly, avoiding all side issues (which he can make the subject of other letters, or of public addresses) and confining himself absolutely to tho question of that £7.

I frankly admit that the item in itself is only a email matter, but tbo principle at stake i 3 a very important one, though some people prefer not to see it. — I am. &c, F. P. COBKILL.