ROAD BOARD COMPENSATIONS.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 204, 2 July 1878, Page 2

ROAD BOARD COMPENSATIONS.

To the Editor of the Akaroa Mail,

Sir, —A challenge appearing in a recent number of your journal, signed •' Henrj r Piper," is a very singular production. No charge has been iiade l>y any of your correspondents against *j tifeiiry Piper;" no charge has been made against any member of the Board. The accusation of " gross abuse and peculation" is equally untrue. If "Henry Piper," who so unwittingly puts on the cap, will calmly look through the correspondence, he will find that the substance of it consifets of a mildly put request, that payments made by the Board for road compensation should, like all other disbursed items- made by that body, appear in the local journal: The exceptional omission of these items, involving as they do, very serious amounts, has naturally made the public fidget ty. ,l Henry Piper's " letter is simply an insult to the public. He proposes a bargain, the conditions being- that names of your corre- ■♦ spondents he published before any further information is afforded. In the name of common sense, what has this to do with the question ? Either there is something wrong, or there is not If there is, all this finessing is childish. If there is not, what necessity for making terms ? " Henry Piper " should recollect that other cases of compensation in which he could have no interest have been dealt with by the Board, and when the public ask for a statement, ** they don't single out any particular instance, but wish for a full and open publication of the whole. As I asked before, why should this be refused? a correspondent writes under an assumed or other name, it cannot alter facts. Here we have the fact that £1000 or £2000 of ratepayers' money has been disbursed for road compensations, , and beyond rumours, the public has not been enlightened as to how or to whom the money has gone. I say emphatically that where a public body entrusted with public funds refuses to account to the public to whom such body is to all intents and purposes responsible, it shows]an abnegation of arbitrary authority, and a tyranny without precedent. Ec- * f erring to v Henry Piper's " second paragraph, he asks, why if peculation, &c, is going on, should correspondents be ashamed of their names ? I fail to see the corol- «t lary. What connection there can be between ray signature (whether it be . Brown, Jones, or Kobinson) and the question now before the public, is beyond my intelligence. There are many reasons why a writer assumes a signature besides being ashamed of his own. And whereas in this case all the correspondents have abstained from making accusations against anyone, or displayed animus in any way, there has been no reason why one's own name should be paraded before the public.

The matter, however, does not rest with 4, H. Piper;" he has /retired into private life, and we now look to his successor to give the information which hitherto has been so strangely withheld. "Henry Piper" alludes to some strange omissions in my correspondence as to cost of surveys. In truth, I don't understand him. If there has been anything improper in matters of survey, I shall be glad to assist " Henry Piper" in unearthing the culprit or culprits. In conclusion, •' Henry Piper" reminds me of the old hero in "Cnevy •Chase:" . . ', : " As one in doleful dumps, For when his legs were smitten off, He fought npon his stamps." Yours, &c, RATEPAYER.