STRANGE PROCEDURE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 781, 2 April 1910, Page 14

STRANGE PROCEDURE.

MR. BUDDO AND AN AMALGAMATION PROPOSAL. PROTEST FEOM AEAMOHO. The following letter which has been handed to us for publication explains itself:- - Tβ Hua, Aiamoho, March 24, 1910. The Honourable the Minister for Internal Affairs, Wellington. ■ ■ Sir,—Be Aramoho: As chairman of a hastily-convened meeting of Aramoho ratepayers that waa held to-night, upon receipt of a copy of your communication, to the Wanganui Borough Council, it waa unanimously decided to emphatically protest against what is regarded us a most unjust act contemplated by you, and to lay before you the following, some of the salient points of the Aramoho borough question. We should like to deal more fully with the matter, were it not for the voluminous nature of the pr icoedingß. t Agitation has been going on intermittently for some few years past, with the object of securing public improvements at. Aramoho of a more advanced nature than those hitherto provided by the Waitotara County Council. Such improvements could be secured either by annexing the district to the Borough of .Wanganui; by forming it into a separate borough; or by making it a separate rating area in thee county. Amalgamation ■with Wanganui was the first course considered. Public meetings were held. The Mayor of Wangaaui (Mr. Mackay) addressed them, urging amalgamation, and suggesting probable terms for it, pointing out at the /same time that without Aramoho Seing' , a separate local district no binding arrangement' could be entered into. Deputations went into the whole question with the Wanganui Borough Council.

Tho outcome of this longthy deliberation was that, at a large meeting of ratepayers held in May, 1908, it was unanimously resolved to abandon the idea ol amalgamation, and to take the steps necessary to have the Aramoho district proclaimed a separate borough, and' a committee was appointed to carry out the wishes of tho meeting. The ratepayers' instructions to that committee Have never tinea been varied: tho committee has had occasion: to go to considerable expense in carrying ont their trust. The legal requirements were complied with. The necessary petition, signed by double the requisite number of district electors, was forwarded to the then Minister for Internal Affairs,' the Hon. Dr. Findlay. The Minister invited objections in the usual way; duly considered the case; decided to give effect to the petition; officially notified the ratepayers and the Waitotara County Council that Aramoho would be proclaimed a separate borough as from January 1, 1909, and even went so "far as to. direct the ratepayers to both nominate a returning officer and suggest a suitable date for the election of a council. The ratepayers complied. It happened, however, that before his Excellency's proclamation could ,be' gazetted change 3 were made in the Ministry. Yoj, Mr. Buddo, beca-ne Minister for Internal Affairs. Your own personal inclination, as publicly stated, lias been to annex Aramoho to the Borough' of .Wanganui. Disregarding Dr. Fimllay'n decision and. promises, you professed uncertainty as to what ought to be done. After extreme pressure had been exerted, and six months had elapsed, you decided to settle the question /by referring it to a commissioner, appointed Mr. Kerr, S.M.,' to adjudicate. The commissioner sat' for Uo days; made an exhaustive inquiry; heard all the evidence offered on both sides, and personally inspected the proposed area. His' report, dated June last, recommended that ■ a separate borough be proclaimed, men-i tioning. that itwas ; the wish of.,the ma-, jority" of the'"district elector^''aM: point;-; ing out that if the electors should wish it the district could be annexed to' Wanganui later on. Your course was then perfectly, clear. .Still you-did not actUnaccountable delay followed. The impression spread through Aramoho that, for some reason not publicly known, you were determined not to allow a separate borough on any account, and that it was useless for ratepayers to persevere in that direction. Then a, petition, fostered by outside influence and by peculiarly interested parties, who used the argument just suggested to induce people to sign, was secretly taken round and forwarded to you, praying for amalgamation with the Borough of Wanganui. This document was.signed by.many who had givenup all hopo of having a separate borough. •- ' . And now coines the absurdity of the situation. Notwithstanding that, the' original, petition had been in'your office for Eome twelve months; that your predecessor in office had officially : granted it; that-the commissioner appointed by yourself had later on again adjudicated upon it; that the time for receiving objections'had. so long gone by; that, in fact, the separate borough ought to have : boen gazetted eight months earlier, to'Dk the extraordinary course of accepting this later petition as an objection to the original one.' From ,that time there has been chaos. What good object was to be gained by appointing ' a commissioner if you had no. intention of accepting his finding? . . After still further delay you arranged to meet representatives' from both parties in conference at the Wanganui Courthouse, and to'corns to a decision "on the spot." At , that conference'far too much of the short time available was allowed to a non-ratepayer, Mr. Mackay, the Mayor of Wanganui, who, with interests directly in conflict with those of Aramoho, had all along striven to bring about amalgamation. You yourself tried to persuade us to fall in with his wishes. Very few of those who wanted to speak had an opportunity to do 00. Of those present a very decided majority ■ favoured a separate borough. Still you were dissatisfied with the position, and refused to come to ,a decision. You insisted upon our getting up still further petitions—to shuffle the cards again, so to speak, and try the result of another deal. By this time the ratepayers were getting very tired of this sort of thing. The public twitted the Aramoho people with remarks upon.lack of progress; the Aramoho people blamed the committee, and the committee,. with just cause, blamed you. Some electors declared they would do no nnro signing. All along the Wanganui Borough Council had been urging Aramoho to join the town. Now, still another influence made' itself felt. The Wanganui East Borough Council had conceived the notion of building another bridge connecting their borough with Wanganui at a very expensive eite less than a mile from the presiat Town Bridge. The Wanganui Borough Council fell in with this proposal. But engineers and others hnd recognised 'for many years previously the oxistence • opposite Aramoho of a very much better site as regards cost and general utility. The Aramoho people had displayed in eagerness to promote tho erection of a bridge at this site. It only required the formation of a separate borough to enable them to do so. Amalgamation, however, would stop all chance of a bridge being erected at this upper site, and compel the Aramoho ratepayers to share the cost of a bridge worse than useless to them. Thus the combined influence'of Wanganui: and Wanganui East to secure tho amalgamation of Aramoho becomes apparent, and suggests a power behind the throne. . After the conference referred to it seemed for a time as though the Aramoho people would not bother any further. However, those interested in amalgamation got to work again, using tho same arguments as before, ip fact, circulating the report that the Minister had set his face against the separate borough movement, and that it was abandoned. Their petition was forwarded to you, containing what appeared to be a majority of the district electors' signatures. It was pointed out to you, infer alia, that these signatures were not all genuine. It happened that by this time most of the members of the Ratepayers' Committee were temporarily absent in various parts of the Dominion and beyond it. They had some time before offered to try to satisfy you by laying tho matter before a meeting of Aramoho ratepayers, only. to meet with the reply from you that you would take no notice of Buch a meeting. They had suggestod-

also the taking of a poll. To this again you rai£ed objection. The remnant of the committee called a publio meeting to explain the position. That meeting was largely attended, especially by non-rate-payers, and exclusively by men. The presence of this extraordinary disinterested element and its behaviour in endeavouring to defeat the .objects of the, meeting could only be accounted for in one way. Ratepayers who nad come to take part in the proceedings were too disgusted to either speak or vote. One of tho conveners only ; attempted to address tho meeting. A resolution in favour of amalgamation was. certainly carried—bnt by whom? Ratepayers abstained from voting.

The nature of this meeting, as was. explained to you, may be panned from the' following-.—The Wanganui Borough Council, which met that same night, adjourned, and, headed.by Mayor Mackay, renaired to the meeting at Aramoho. Mr. Mackay. a non-ratepayer, mark you, neither the representative of a ratepayer, not only assnmed the r : "''t to snrak, but actually moved a ro-nbiKmi which was calculated to indue 0 v-" fn peal the fate of Aranioho without morn ado. But the most significant featurn wn* exhibited in the fact that, when the Wanpanni borough oonncilldrs voted, the only two of them who are ratepsvers in Aramoho voted for a separate boroncrh: all the others (non-ratepayers) vnted for amalgamation. Little nerspicuity is needed to fee that the.whole position is summed. nD in this voting of those councillors. Tot, despite what you had said to the contrary, you now seized upon the resolution passed at.this meeting as something fit to euide yon. . , : In- the face of, the anparently unassailable, petition for amalgamation sent to vou—a petition which you accepted as starting the whole,, question de novo— the available members of the Ratepayers' Commits essayed what would nnnear to an ontsiSer as a hopeless task. Thev promotfd a counter petition, objecting- to amalgamation and praying for a separate borough; but no systematic canvass was made. Many ratepayers refused to keep on signing on a question they contended hni b«n seWed, or ninrht-rohare been.settled long befoTe. Many, having given up all hope of inducing you to grant what they had previously asked, hstd "signed for what they took to'be the only, thing you '.would give .us (anialgamaripn), and, much as they ■ regretted having done so; argued that they could not stultify themselves by signing now in the 'opposite direction. Many, however, did so sign, at the same time ! advising you ,by a special clause added_ to the petition that they revoked the signatures they' had previously given for amalgamation. In this way a counter petition, representing, so far as the genuine signatures of interested parties went, just about the same strength as the new petition for amalgamation, was sent to you by the date named for receiving objections! And, seeing that,you. had previously, allowed objections on the side of amalgamation whioh had come in months behind time, ratepayers who favoured a separate borough naturally looked for the eamo treatment. Thus, 'supplementary, lista , . of signatures were forwarded from them. . ■ , .-.. ' . ■

The Waitotara County rotls gtre no separate list ofMietrict electors for the Aramoho district, and the county recorde'in themselves do not admit of an absolutely correct list being ■ prepared from them. Furthermore, it was found that a_ list prepared m this way contained'the names of a considerable number, of persons who had ceased to hold interests in Aramoho. Nearly all of these last .-had 6igned'for amalgamation. On the other hand, there were a still larger number of property-owners whose names did not appear in such a list. Inquiry was .made concerning these, v and over 90 per cent. of. .those asked you to note their wishes in favour of a separate borough. Considering these, you were, soon furnished with' a majority of' district electors'''signatures (according to the 'county records), and a still greater majority of signatures of genuinely interested parties,'favourable to a separate borough. ' This was the position when you again proposed to settle the matter at another conference. Accordingly, on January 24 last you. again '-.met both parties at the iWanganui Courthouse. On this occasion the conference,was eyenibriefer than the 'last.fcfMr. of the Wa , - n'gantii East Borough Council and chairman, of its Bridge Committee, besides being: solicitor for tome of the advocates of amalgamation,, had the advantage of meeting you on your journey and Ispending ebme two hours in your company on. the way back. When proceedings opened .at the Courthouse, Mayor. Mackay was present, as usual,. and as, usual monopolised the lion's ehare of your time' and attention. In the little time at your disposal the large number of district, electors present found practically no' time. : ,to say anything, though therewere so many who wished to speak. The. advocates of a separate borough who were then. Vpresent outnumbered the amalgamationists by.about five to one. Once more'you refrained'irom coming to a de-. cision. .

. Though you.'had all along professed to doubt; and to : wish to ascertain; the wish' of the majority of the people, affected, you tnow declared you could not accept the supplementary; lists of signatures for a separate borough—that it was not usual to do' so—ignoring the fact that you had only/six months earlier accepted signatures for amalgamation when they were, a year behind time. Then you wished to strike, off the petition for a separate borough .the names of all -those who.'had revoked their signatures from .the other side'.. However,, when we protested, you. decided that these 39 people (there were said to be 39; of .them).: should sign again—that the two opposing parties should rush off and scramble for them, as it were. One side; at any rate, could: not stoop to do it- Did you not realise' the gross unfairness of accepting signatures from these 39, whilst refusing , to accept, not only the signatures .'of many others who wished to sign; but evenithe signatures of many others that reached you weeks before? ' You. will remember that one ratepayer told you candidly that people, were, complaining of secret pressure and improper' influence being brought to bear upon you: tliat it was supposed you had been "got .at" ..if. sir, you will review the,whole matter in an unbiased' way,.you .will, I leei , save, recognise that it is not easy 'to'arrive at any other conclusion. Time after time the majority of signatures and other' , evidence have indicated that the late Minister, and the commissioner 'appointed by you, were, right in deciding as they did. Yet, over and over again, when the question has. presented the same view to you, you have persistently refused to act. If your object was to tire the electors M asking for a separate borough, then'there is no doubt your efforts have met with some success; for certainly the people are'.tired. As time advanced the cry became more general: "Why sign for a thing that has already been decided in our favour?", or "What is the use of signing for a thing Mr. Buddo is determined not to''grant?" ■ '~.,.': In asking for a separate borough it has all along been' pointed out to you that amalgamation under existing circumstances would place Aramoho entirely at the mercy of Wanganui, and render the district-practically powerless to free itself again; but that if a separate borough were formed electors would then be freer than ever to join jjWanganui whonever they might wish, wsth the advantage of being able to protect themselves in so doing. It has been explained to you that whilst Aramoho remained a • separate borough the annual cost of administration would bo less than the same district would pay as part of Wanganiii. • The experience of Gonville and Wanganui East proves this. You were told by letter almost at the outset that the Wanganui' East ratepayers, recognising the advantage of .amalgamation, were petitioning then for it. Sir, was it truo? That borough, being in a. position to take that step (whilst wo are not), certainly did Inst month suggest joining Wanganui; but the motion for it was withdrawn. It has been made clear that, whilst a separata borough, Aramoho conld secure sev-; eral desirable improvements, some of. which Wanganni could not effect for us; others, which Wanganui would not countenance because of their interfering with centralisation in the parent borough. Amongst a score of such sound reasons mentioned to you it was shown that amalgamation would deprive Araraoho of ■ a subsidy ranging from ,£lB7 10s. to £450 per annum, as also of its claim to a grant for ■ a . recreation' ground. It was explained that, whilst Aramoho has absolutely no public debt, the. public debt of Wnagniuii is very nearly ,£300,000, or about ,£3OO per acre over the whole area, improved anil unimproved; that Wanga..nui is faced with the necessity of further

extensive borrowing (over .£50,000) in the very near future; that, so far from the rates keeping pace with the expenditure, the balance-sheets ,show that the borough's finances are going more and more decidedly to the bad each'year, and that, in the event of Aramoho becoming merged in' Wanganui, we must' take upon our shoulders a share of the debt, whilst at the same time- specially rating ourselves for our own improvements. The obvious result- would bo (what is becoming apparent on St. John's Hill) higher rates al Aramoho than in; the heart of the bor' ough, and less conveniences.

Tor various reasons (nature of the soil, proximity ■to the, river, etc.) the improvements needed.at 'Aramoho can be carried out more cheaply than is the case with similar works in Wanganui. Nor need they be in any way deoendent upon the Wanganui system of works. These remarks are specially applicable to drainage. After the conference at the' Court, 'house in January, the involved - state of this borough question seemed such as to defy elucidation.. Some ratepayers, I understand, ■ addressed you, begging you drop the matter, for a time at least, ill, except, perhaps, secret workers, ga?e the subject up in despair, and began to tali of overcoming the difficulty without reference, to you. The upshot of this ii that members of the Waitotara County Umncil have been interesting themselves m Aramoho's needs, and procuring esti. mates for the same. The ratepayers dis. play a general willingness to fall in with this,, arrangement, and are already movin? for ;a special, rating district in the county, accepting this as a solution of the dink culty.

Yot two months we have heard nothing oi your intentions regarding us. Then ■ comes a public display of what we regardV s f, pl ?f e of unpardonable impertinence - in tho Mayor of Wanganui moling, at a meeting ot his council, to urge you to - annex Aramoho to Wanganui straight'. j- s resolntl °n. of course, met ■ ; with the disapproval of the'two council, i ™ «■ a !u Property- at Aramoho. Of the other councUlors who are • not personally interested in this district, one very properly dissented,- • ■%,, £ ,v ls te < *>» wondered ? at that the resolution-was carried; for by amalgamation, Wanganui-has everyi thing to gain and nothing to lose, Aramoho nothing to gain and everything tolose. However, to suppose that yon would take any notice of such a resolu-> tion; from such-a quarter seemed the: height of absurdity. Yet, what do we " find? Ton immediately, replied, profess- •<■ ing to have svolved certain results (which / we cannot accept as correct) from a mass ;- of petitions and other documents that* would.baffle an actuary, and said thai" you intended to arrange for amalgamation to take.effect as from April 1. The/, date was an apt one. • ' Wo can hardly commit to writing all, that we feel. But we mast, sir, insist ; that this question 6hall be fairly dealt ' with, if dealt with at all. It has been ; - amply proved that a,separate borough' was,both desired and desirable.. If had been granted eighteen months, or "•' oven a year;ago, we should have by thic tune been on a proper footing" to deal : : ; with the,, subject of amalgamation. As '■' .things stand, we are>not ready for it It' is the least desired of the three alterna-. If Aramoho electors had to choose "'■ now between a separate borough anij: amalgamation,, the majority wonld, as be- ;: fore, declare for a separate borough. Were they given the , choice between the formation of a special rating area in the. county and amalgamation with the bor- " •ough' of Wanganui, the formation of special rating area would-be carried by' an overwhelming .majority. Amalgama-."' lion with the borough of Wanganui' is ; the very last thing Aramoho people would :■" have under existing circumstances. WβV are perfectly certain of the correctness . of these statements. If. you entertain ,"■• any doubt'about'them, then; for heaven's i sake, 1,, clean the slate again and let ua ; prove either or both of them fo"r you> : Perhaps, however, it is wisest to lay v the'borough question to rest; to allow th*;. Aramoho : people to cool down, and the I county'work to proceed. After, looking • into the question preparatory to addres«- ■ ing you, I cannot -help feeling that you - are labouring under some misapprehen- '• sibn; that thofe are some points in this; matter the full , significance of which' yon have not appreciated, and that, in : view of all the circumstances, you will .• both understand our feelings and stay ■(' your hand,,-.,' ,-. t Iv - t - •■-- it, ■£■ ■ l bthe¥ , "h'and,ifou should elect U to do this great injury to Aramoho, we. "■' •must simply set about some way of undoing the mischief. We take it that your <j duty ia to- consider the wishes of the Aramoho district electors and their in- ,; ". terests,' leaving Wanganui to take care '•'•' : of itself. . I: . - .;. .. • ! ' I em, Sir, ',•'.■ ; - ■> ■ ■'■', v ... Tours faithfully, : - ■:•• ■ ;-,•' • ;.„• (Signed) E. ELLERY GUBEET. : Chairman of meeting of Aramoho ""• ,'■- . ;, -Katepayers. P.S.—The meeting felt that in fairness ' to our. committee, and in the interests of -. ; ratepayers generally, 1 a copy.of this letter ■'" ought to be handed to the press, and ■ directed me accordingly. :