The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Thursday, September 12, 1889. THAT PETITION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 350, 12 September 1889, Page 2

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

Thursday, September 12, 1889. THAT PETITION.

Be just and fear not { Lot all the ends thou aim'et at be thy country's, Thy God's, and truth's.

We believe that one of the best means the ratepayers have of pronouncing their disagreement with the actions of those gentlemen entrusted with public affairs is by memorialising the local body concerned. Discussion through the Press is perhaps a superior plan, because it allows both sides of a question to be argued ; but everyone has not the time, the inclination, or the ability of writing letters that would bear weight, and the attaching of one’s signature to a petition affords special facility for expressing dissent—unfortunately the facility sometimes lessens the effect, because there are people who will attach their signatures without troubling themselves about the contents of the petition. The petition presented to the Harbor Board on Tuesday night, in regard to the Tauwhareparae Block, bears us out on this point. While it is headed “ we, the undersigned ratepayers,” the names of some of those who are not on the harbor rate list have been attached. Of course, on the other hand there are many good names signed, but when reasonable doubt is thrown upon a thing it has much less weight. In regard to the Harbor endowment we do not intend to say anything. We have already given our reasons for being reticent in the matter, and see no cause why the line we • have taken up should be departed from. But it is open to us to analyse the petition and express our surprise at the manner in which it was “sprung” upon the Board. Mr Sievwright has been most consistent in his opposition to the resolution of the Board, and his opinion is entitled to respect, but we should have thought that members would have had timely warning of a matter of this nature, instead of allowing it to be forced upon a bare quorum of the Board. Mr Townley argued very ingeniously that the question was a much graver one than that in regard to the contract system, but the argument proved a great deal too much. While a large proportion of the ratepayers, both in number and value, signed the comparatively unimportant petition (which did not leave Mr Parnell’s shop), the more important petition, in regard to a matter which has been discussed for over two years, contained only a small number of signatures. Mr Sievwright says that those people who opposed the prayer of the petition ought to have given expression to their disapproval of it. Surely he must have been having a sly joke, knowing, too, as he did that the ' petition was brought on as a surprise. Now let us look at the petition itself. It is signed by 79 persons representing ,£273 8s 8d per annum, out of 888 ratepayers representing /"s.ioo. But that is not all. Ten of those persons who have signed themselves as ratepayers are not on the rate list, and 18 others have not yet paid even their last year’s rates. So that the total is thus reduced to 51. Some of the values represented in rates are—4s gd, 8s 4d, 6s 3d, 3s Qd, 833 d, 7s 6d, js 6d, 6s 3d, 43 2d, 7s 6d, 4s 2d, 33 4d, 7s 7d, (Js 3d, 6s 2d, as id, and is 3d. And among those who have not yet paid in to the Treasury are the two persons whose rates amount to 2s id and is 3d ! Then as to Mr Sievwright’s statement that there was no effort made to obtain signatures; we have information which enables us to stats that on that point Mr Sievwright is mistaken. There is also a feature which appears to us to be more than a coincidence. Anyone that is well acquainted with the district can trace the petition, by order of the signatures, from Makaraka, round by Matawhero, and thence to Ormond.

The fact remains that only 5 r ratepayers could be moved to sign the petition, notwithstanding Mr Sievwright’s burning eloquence, or his clever letters to the Press, backed up by the accusation of a newspaper that the majority of members of the Board were the worst " jobbers" in New Zealand. Need we say more?’

That “ things are not always what they seem ” was well exemplified in a case heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when Ryan was accused of horse stealing. From the evidence given by Mr John Lucas 1 it appears that when he was landlord of the Settlers* Hotel, Ryan came to his house and ran up a score. Ryan was unable to pay, but was the owner of a horse, which was made over to Lucas with all the formalities usually attending a sale, and in order that Ryan might have a chance of repaying his debt and getting back the horse, Lucas lent the latter to him for a week. Subsequently Ryan took the horse to Napier and sold it. He was then arrested for horsestealing, but the fact that a , publican is debarred by section 134 of the Licensing Act from receiving in payment or pledge for liquor and entertainment anything except coins, cheques, or orders, had been overlooked, and the point being raised by Mr W. L. Bees, the Chief Justice ordered the jury to return a verdict of acquittal. A sale note is not after all very conclusive evidence of a purchase, and this is tho second instance lately—the Tologa Bay cases afford the other-where they have turned out to be a delusion and a snare. The present case, however, is a warning to publicans, if they are not already aware of the section, not to accept pledges from their customers, as they are liable to a penalty of £lO if they do so, and the pledge is recoverable by the party who gave it.