That Stone Contract again.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 300, 18 May 1889, Page 3

That Stone Contract again.

[to the editor.] Sib, —As a ratepayer I should like to know how the contract for supplying the Harbor Board with stone now stands. I have carefully read your reports on the subject, and although I believe I have up to the present kept myself fully posted up as to the position of affairs, and the various stages through what I may term the stone question has passed, now I have lost the thread. I understand from your reports that the contract has been abandoned and, from what I can judge, that M r McLoughlin has been instructed to continue with drays until the next meeting of the Board; but what is being done in the meantime ? Do the ratepayers bear the extra cost ? Have tenders been called fo r a fresh contract ’ If so, are they to be de* aided at next meeting, or are matters still allowed to drift on in this loose way ? J have not seen spy advertisement calling fresh tenders ; therefore I assume that the Board are taking things very easily, and shutting their eyes to the difficulties which hem them in. You even go the length of saying that Press representatives were excluded from last meeting of the Ijoard. As we always haye to depend upon the Press for our knowledge of what is passing—and I think the newspapers faithfully perform this duty —it is us that most keenly feel any gtiqh that is given tq the Press ip these matters, for we who are most interested are kept in ignorance. But in any case what grounds are there for discussing public matters in secrecy ? In cm of your leading articles I observe that you say : “ When full publicity is not given to little matters of no great importance in themselves they become cloaked with a mystery whigh gives ri%o tq mistaken views 'in the minds of ths ratepayers.” Now, I contend that this latest phase of the stone contract is a matter of great importance, yet it is not given full publicity ; you explain that it is not the fault of the Press, but if it were so it would be less aggravating than to think we have to blame those we have elected to re> present us for treating qs thus. $t may help io ” riaak the affair with rpystery,'-’ but from somg point? it is pot likely to ’! give rise to mistaken views.” —I am, &e., Covntrv.

[The meeting io which our correspondent refers was not a meeting of the Board, but of the Public Works Committee of the Board, and Committees always have the privilege of excluding the Press. From a public point of view we look upon the practice of excluding the Press as qbjectiqaable, qnd consider that the privilege should only, unless in exceptional oases, be used to give greater freedom of discussion ; but the representatives of the ratepayers have the power and it must be assumed that they aro competent to judge.— Ed. Standard.]