The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Thursday, February 14, 1889. "LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE."

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 260, 14 February 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Thursday, February 14, 1889. "LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE."

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country's, Thy God’s, and truth's.

The members of the Harbor Board, at their last meeting, narrowly escaped taking a false step, which might have involved the Board in a loss of hundreds of pounds in law expenses. A Committee appointed to report on the engagements with the Board's officers, reported in regard to the Engineer, that there was in effect no stipulation as to his term of service, and they recommended that he be given six months’ notice (three months, they considered, would be all that was required by law), for the purpose, as it was afterwards stated, of defining the terms of Mr Thomson’s engagement. Had that course been resolved upon, we may be certain what result would have followed. Mr Thomson could only have taken it as a notice of dismissal, and he would have shown a very different spirit from that which a man in his position ought to show, if he did not demand some better grounds for discharging him, and further, he would have acted in a most undignified and even contemptible manner if he had not resented the humiliating position in which he would be placed. But on subsequent consideration, the Committee evidently saw the dangerous stand the Board would be taking up if their recommendation were carried, and as matters now rest we need not speculate further on the effect of a recommendation which is not likely to be enforced. We fail to see what necessity there is to probe the matter at all; it is an attack upon a shadow which portends of more danger to the attacking party than to the shadow. It is clear a grave mistake—or a mistake which might lead to serious consequences—was made when the appointment of Mr Thomson was first agreed to, and we can well remember the protest which Mr Townley made at the time against doing business in such a slipshod manner, though that member yielded to the assurance of Mr DeLautour that no trouble could arise. Admitting that to be one of the blunders made by the Board, and for which the majority of the present members are in no way responsible, the latter should be careful they do not make a further blunder, and thus not only add to the confusion, but make an alarming addition to the monstrous total which the Board has already incurred for law costs. Why is the question raised at all at the present moment ? What urgent necessity is there for having the position defined ? Why do the Board rush to their solicitor to get advice on a bogey of their own conception? Cannot they see that if it is possible to give a man notice to terminate his engagement because a better one must be drawn up, it is much more reasonable to give notice to terminate that engagement on the grounds of incapacity —the only ground, we suppose, on which notice would be given ? The members of the Board say there is no intention in what has been done to cast a reflection on Mr Thomson, but then people not acquainted with the circumstances are apt to look at these things through different spectacles, and inquire whether the logical inference is not that the Engineer has done or has not done something which has resulted in his dismissal being contemplated, If the necessity does arise—-and the compliments paid to the Engineer by members lead to the conclusion.that the chance is a very remote one—that the present Engineer’s services should be dispensed with, then it will be time enough to fight the matter out if there is any dispute as to the terms of agreement, Then will the Board act wisely in seeking the advice of their solicitor; then they will be justified in challenging the Engineer’s contention, and in asserting their rights. Unless there is a desire to get rid of the Engineer a solicitor’s opinion can be of no use at the present time. The position now appears to be that the Board (represent, ing 1116 rulcpayetsj were guilty of most

unbusinesslike procedure in not having a proper agreement with Mr Thomson; therefore it is safer for the present Board (also representing the ratepayers) to remain passive in the matter until, at least, there is good reason to bring it forward, and we believe they would, in that case, have no trouble in asserting themselves. If the arrangement is faulty on the side of the Board, does not the same apply in regard to the Engineer ?—that is to say, if the Board is not protected, neither, we should think, is the Engineer. The absence of any agreement, it is reasonable to suppose, leaves either side with a free hand, with the exception that an officer of the Board would have a claim for compensation if his reputation were injured by his being arbitrarily dismissed. But all these are points which do not require to be discussed now. We may be asked, why should the ratepayers be allowed to remain in uncertainty as to the position occupied by one of their officers, in his relations with the public ? If there is any uncertainty as to the terms of the engagement the public must blame their representatives (the previous Board) for not being more careful. At the same time we may add that the question as to the notice required, in the absence of specific arrangements is purely one for the lawyers to discuss, and until occasion requires it is simply wasting the ratepayer’s money to take needless legal opinions upon the subject.