A Queer Decision.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 553, 6 January 1891, Page 3

A Queer Decision.

•’ T.TO the EDITOR.I Sir, —I think, in the public interest, I may well protest against the line adopted by the Cook County Council concerning the appointment of an overseer for the proposed Kai'.eratahi bridge. Had my application been fairly considered in connection with the others 1 would have no right to complain, and wculd of course have bowed to the decision of the Council, but when my application is thrown out simply on the grounds that I was a tenderer X feel that it would be wrong to remain silent in the matter.- I do not suppose there is anyone ignorant enough to argue that the qualifications required in a tenderer detract from a man’s ability to act in the capacity cf GVer.eeer, and the only way that I can explain the decision of the Council is that they thought I might be unduly eeveie with the contractor, or there were other res sens (perhaps arising from political feelirg) for not considering my application. If the former is taken to be a reason it amounts to the aspersion that I would prostitute my position for private purposes The years I have'lwen >n Gisbr-rre and the works I have bad to do with make it unnecessary for me to stoop to defend myself against such aspersions, which wculd not alone fall upon me, but upon the engineer, too. When I recall to mind conversations prior to the co. siderction of the applications the true reason of the shabby treatment is plain enough. One gentleman, in the courts of conversation, m tt iOr ed that he hsd heard I bad fUt in an appl pntion for the position cf overseer, and asked me what I thought my chances were—did I have good recommendations? I -aid I flattered myself I had good, recommendations. Then, continued Ire, what steps have you taken in the matter?— have you button holed any cf the Councillor!? I replied that I would not do that sort of thing. W'b, had I button-holed any of their friends’ I replied that I had certainly not done that. Had I voted for Mr Arthur ? I said it was generally known what my political opinions were, seeing that I had seconded Mr Kelly's nomination. My friend replied that he was afraid I had little chance, but I scorned the idea of supposing that any Councillor would be capable of that sort of thing. Another friend also put the question to me as to my political views, saying with a curious expression on his face that he would give very little for my chance. Still I felt that no Councillor would allow himself to be biassed in the way indicated, but what am I to think now ? The precedents of the Council itself show that no weight is attached to the reason given. When the Te Arai bridge was first erected Mr Malcolm McLeod, an unsuccessful tenderer, was appointed overseer. Subs< quently the bridge was carried away, and I was the successful tenderer for its re-erection, while Mr John Somervell, an unsuccessful tenderer, was appointed as overseer. The work is there now for anyone to judge by. These facts show the utter inconsistency of the Council in throwing out my application for the position of overseer on the Kaiteratahi oridge, on the ground that I had been a tenderer. Had I been a supporter of Mr Arthur it is very probable that my being a tenderer would have been overlooked, and also that I could have had no better qualification than being a supporter of that political ticket. That appears to me now, :'rom experience, to be the plain truth.— I am, &c., D. A. McLbop.