ANOTHER HARBOR DILEMMA.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 279, 28 March 1889, Page 2

ANOTHER HARBOR DILEMMA.

The members of the Harbor Board never allow themselves to run short of debatable subjects; old subjects may be brought up more often than would fit in with the general idea of consistency, but the new dress in which they are presented on each occasion always gives them a fresh appearance, and the interest is kept up as strongly as ever. Whenever there is a prospect of laxity in this respect there is the old subject to fall back upon, the Tauwhareparae block. This, too, promises to be as unfailing as the celebrated oil test which has so long been like a nightmare on the newspaper writer’s mind. On Tuesday the subject of the notice given to the Engineer was again reverted to, and as the matter now stands a motion will be brought up at the next meeting to have the previous resolution rescinded.

From the expression of opinion given by members we are now led to believe that the only object in giving Mr Thomson notice was to force his hand with regard to the terms of the engagement. At the time, we resented the adoption of such radical means for this purpose, but agreed with what had been done, on other grounds altogether —that of retrenchment. The proposition we otherwise stigmatised as “an attack upon a shadow which portends of more danger to the attacking party than to the shadow.”

Mr Clark has previously expressed his opinion that if the necessity arise there need be no fear as to the course that is open with regard to the Engineer, and Mr DeLautour upholds this view, but on the other hand Mr Clark (who was absent when the resolution was carried) states he would do exactly the same thing as Mr Thomson has done if he had to contend with the same circumstances. Certainly he would, and so would any other sensible person. It might mean much or it might mean little; Mr Thomson, we suppose, would be guided by the advice of his lawyer. He (Mr Thomson) was served with a bald notice of dismissal and that is really all he had to consider: it was not for him to assume what kind and fatherly intentions the members had towards him, or, putting the construction upon the words of members which it is now explained was all that was intended, how could Mr Thomson tell what might be the terms stipulated in any proposed new engagement ? He might be told that he was to publicly pray, at the beginning of every meeting, that the actions of the Board might be guided by wisdom. The members might consider it an honorable privilege, while Mr Thomson would perhaps want to draw the line at doing it publicly, though in proper time and place he might consider it a labor of love and not even require to be asked. But then if he did not agree to the exact nature of the terms he could be told that on the morrow he must no more consider himself the Board’s guardian angel or servant, at any rate not a paid one. Of course, he acts like a sensible man, and makes sure of his position beforehand. If his solicitor holds an adverse opinion to that given by Mr DeLautour, probably litigation might be anticipated. People perhaps quite as shrewd as Mr Thomson, under the burden of a grievance, have been known to go to law even against the advice of their legal counsellors.

We have supported the motion on the grounds of retrenchment. That of course calls forth other points for consideration, such as whether the amount that could be saved would be worth the risk, or even whether it would be possible to make a saving in the Engineer’s department. If there is no ulterior object in view —and if there was it would probably be stated straightforwardly—the best thing is to try and quash what has been done, and not have a possible trouble created for no purpose whatever. Here again, however, another point arises. What has Mr Thomson got to say to it ? “Do the right thing towards Mr Thomson, and reinstate him in his former position," says Mr Chambers, but the same member charges the Board with having deliberately insulted Mr Thomson. How then, does the latter gentleman feel in the matter ? We give him at least credit for having more sense than to go to law if he can possibly avoid it and still ensure what he considers justice to himself; we doubt very much whether he would go to law in any case, though he would undoubtedly consult a lawyer.

Unless Mr Chambers has an assurance from the Engineer, there is nothing to show that the Board would not be in a worse position by rescinding their resolution, Merely doing that does not enable them to undo what has been done. The Engineer has been given a written notice M dismissal, a month has elapsed

since then, and another fortnight will do so before the matter can be further discussed by the Board— that will mean nearly half the period of the notice, so that the Board must be careful that in trying to rectify a false step they do not blunder into worse difficulties. Whatever the position might have been formerly, in any deviation from the original resolution, Mr Thomson’s own views will have to be consulted.