Mr Sandland Explains.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 567, 7 February 1891, Page 2

Mr Sandland Explains.

|to the editor, j Sin,—-Pardon me when I say that I make very grave objection to the way in which I was reported anent my waiting on the Borough Council in reference to the Taruheru foot bridge. Your reporter has left out the principal parts of what was spoken by me, and thus destroyed the natural sequence and its relative surroundings. For instance, he has mentioned that the Mayor said that I was disrespectful, and that he should move for the Council not to hear me, but has not mentioned that I appealed to the Council, who ruled that I spoke strongly, but was not disrespectful. Other sequences were left out, making the report appear like so many spasmodic ejuolilatiom;. This appears all the more objectionable because the Mayor was more than carefully reported. Now, Sir, I hate all toadyism, and us a mark in this respect I ask as an apology to me you allow me to publicly resent It, by giving this insertion. Another important point your reporter omitted was markedly absent. He said something was said about a writ of inandamus, wueyeas what was said was that I hoped the Borough Council would not compel those who Suffered by the loss of the bridge to apply to the Minister of Justice to cause u writ of mandamus to be issued by the Supreme Court, calling on the Borough Council to show cause why they would not repair the bridge. Some misapprehension appears to exist in the minds of many as io tbe position I take up anent tbe bridge. This, with your permission, I will clear up at some future time. Only, Mr Editor, fair play and no toadyism in all reports.*—l am, etc., J. SiNDI.AgT. 'Wo deviate a good deal from the usual course in publishing the above letter, but not by way of apology when stioh charges its toadyism are imuie.—'Ko.J