Mr. Chambers in Reply.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 299, 16 May 1889, Page 2

Mr. Chambers in Reply.

[to tub editor.)

Sir, —In throwing open your leading columns to a person whose object is to vent personal animosity, you should at least take care that such a course is warranted from a public point of view by the facts of the case. A reference to your report of May 11 will show that Mr Bennett lost hia temper and accused me of sneering, because I suggested that as both Mt* McLoughlin and Mr Bioheno seriously differed as to whether sleepers had been asked for or not, the Board should look on it as a misunderstanding, especially as the request was made in a loose way, not having been made in writing. It must be plain I said this to shorten discussion, as the charge must fall through unless supported by something better than one man’s word against another’s.

To twist this into a sneer at anybody or anything shows a peculiarly distorted mind, or else the dire effects of spleen on a man “ who whatever he does he sticks to ”

I am quite willing to admit that I spoke as often as I thought the question demanded, and perhaps oftener than was quite fair to the other members, but I do protest against an unwarrantable personal attack by Mr Bennett on myself being handled in the way your unattached leader-writer does. What I called the Chairman's attention to, was the irrelevant matter that was being introduced by my peppery friend, not the abuse and misrepresentation of myself. I have been too long in public life to let such gentle irritants trouble me.

It does trouble me, however, to see personalities at a Board meeting made the subject of a leading article in such a distorted fashion,

Such a vinegary article, with its little slab of butter at the end, would have appeared in better taste with the aggrieved party's name attached, instead of appearing as the expression of public opinion.—l am, &a., W, K. Chambers. May 15, 1889.

[The best reply to Mr Chambers would be to allow his letter to appear without comment —we are sorry that he should place such a wrong construction on our ar'iole, and that he should have stooped to reply in the strain that he has done; we feel sure that he himself will keenly regret it when he has time to think over the matter. Neither our leading columns nor any other part of this journal are open to persons “whose object is to vent personal animosity,” and such a course is never warranted from a public point of view” ; but with all deference to Mr Chambers, we reserve to ourselves the right of freely criticising the proceedings of public bodies. We hardly know who Mr Chambers refers to as “ the aggrieved party his letter indicates that he feels aggrieved, though why we cannot understand; but the writer of the arlifle alluded to would have less hesitation in signing his name to it than we belhve Mr Chambers would have in writing what he has done if he had only taken a little longer to think over it.—Ed. Standard.]