The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, April 23, 1889. SOLICITING A TEST.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 289, 23 April 1889, Page 2

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

Tuesday, April 23, 1889. SOLICITING A TEST.

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

had it been suspected he would do, would have ensured his being opposed, it is very seldom that he can be induced to brave the feeling of his constituents, and Mr Chambers committed a grave error of judgment in supposing that his attempt on the present occasion would be any more successful. Mr Chambers’ better course would, we think, have been to place himself in the hands of the ratepayers, either by calling a meeting, or otherwise. He would then have been able to judge whether he had the confidence of those who elected him, and, if not, take the only course left open for him. If, as he evidently anticipates, he found that the majority of the ratepayers still held the opinion that they did when he was elected, it would be his duty to retain his seat on the Board, whilst Mr Shelton would be placed in the dilemma of holding or resigning a seat which he could scarcely be said to hold as a representative. We have taken up and supported what we consider the right side on this contract question, and certainly if Mr Shelton can bring no better arguments in its favor than those to be found in his letter, there is little chance of him convincing us that we are in error. On the whole, seeing that it will save misrepresentation, we think it well that the correspondence was published, although it is evident from the personal remarks which have crept into the letters of both sides that they were not originally' intended for publication. We cannot say that the writers have erred on the side of conciseness, nor that their arguments have much bearing on the points at issue, but at least both gentlemen have the courage of their opinions, and one seems not at all afraid of facing the ratepayers and seeking their approval of his actions.

A short time ago we drew attention to the tact that one member of the Harbor Board had challenged another member to resign his seat in order that both might ascertain which of them represented the feeling of the majority of the ratepayers. The correspondence with reference to the matter has now been published, and we are made aware that Mr W. K, Chambers suggested that he and Mr Shelton should go to the ratepayers on the following grounds i

I.—That Mr Shelton's actiftna were not in accord with the wishes of the ratepayers whom he waa supposed to represent,

2, That he had shown a distinct animus against the Board's Engineer, 3, That ha had interfered in matters ■olely within the Engineer's discretion.

These points are laid down by Mr Shelton, and not dissented from by Mr Chambers, and it may be taken that they are correctly stated. The idea of a gladitorial combat such as proposed was a somewhat novel one, and whether, had it been assented to, it would have worked satisfactorily is open to question. With regard to the second and third points laid down, we submit that they are not questions upon which Mr Chambers should exercise his mind at all. If, as he suggests, Mr Shelton has shown “ animus ’’—and there seems to be some difference of opinion between them as to the exact definition of the word—against the Engineer, it would certainly be bad taste on Mr Shelton’s part to sit and vote on any question regarding that gentleman’s conduct. But beyond treating it with the contempt which such a proceeding merits, we cannot see how Mr Chambers should be affected by it; so long as his own acts are those of a gentleman. It is not a question of policy, but of taste. Nor can Mr Shelton’s interference in engineering matters, assuming that he has interfered, be considered a ground of complaint by Mr Chambers. It is no doubt absurd for a Board to engage an officer at a large salary, because his experience entitles his opinions to respect, and then to totally ignore those opinions. Yet it was no less absurd for the Harbor Board to obtain the opinion of their solicitor, and then for the majority to ignore it because it was not in accordance with the desire of that majority, and we venture to say, however much Mr Chambers might deplore Mr'Shelton’s action, had he voted against the opinion, he would not consider himself justified in calling upon Mr Shelton to resign his seat for it. But although our opinion is against Mr Chambers on his second and third points, we have no hesitation in saying that, if he can bear out his first, Mr Shelton should certainly resign, but we think it should be at the request of the ratepayers, and not of a member of the Board. As Mr Shelton puts it, there are two prominent questions on which the members disagree :—

I.—The treatment (not the nature of the engagement) of the Engineer.

3.—Applying the contract principle to the completion of the breakwater.

A very slight consideration of the letters will convince the reader that our statement of the first matter, although it differs from Mr Shelton’s, is really the correct one. We cannot bring ourselves to see that the opinion of the ratepayers, whatever it be on the question of the Engineer’s rights or wrongs, can be of any avail. Even if Mr Shelton should resign, and be defeated, the ratepayers have been committed by their representatives to a course of action from which there is no with, drawal, and which, as we look at it, is directly antagonistic to common sense. It will be quite time enough when that matter is settled and not before, for Mr Shelton to flatter himself that his “ actions for economy ” have been successful. In the meantime the question is settled beyond the control of the ratepayers, and unless we go upon the axiom that “ one mistake leads to many,” no good purpose can be served by Mr Shelton’s'resignation on account of the treatment of the Engineer. We now come to the question of constructing the pier by contract, and this appears to us the strongest point in the whole correspondence. We can quite sympathise with Mr Chambers in feeling that although he was elected on the strength of his avowed opinion, among other things, that the breakwater pier should be constructed by day labor, he finds himself totally unable to carry out the views of the ratepayers. What must make his position ttill more galling is that one of the members who represents the same ratepayers is diametrically opposed to the views of himself and those whom he believes to support him. It will be remembered that Mr Shelton's election was unopposed, but Mr Shelton had not published his views on this question before bis election; had he done so, and been elected, he might then argue that his views ware in accord with those of the ratepayers. When a member is elected unopposed and without expressing his views, and he is afterwards found acting ir|a manner Woh,