Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image

were represented bv an influential deputation, and the whole qucs.ion was discussed at considerable length, and all aspects were ventilated. When il came to a discussion by the Council, tin- Southern Riding munJiiS were equally divided in th-’ir attitude. Messrs Searle (county Chairman) and Donovan stood firmly for the original route, and Messrs Houston and Je.frius lor the Mclntosh proposal Mr Ward complained that in view of the equal division of opinion of the Southern representatives, there was no lead for other Councillors, but he elected to support Messrs Searle and Donovan in t-neir attitude. Messrs Chester. man. Wells, Keenan and Murdoch threw in their lot with Messrs Houston and Jeffries, and so the Mi).li tosh proposal was accepted by the Council by six votes to three. Mr Houston put tliu position quite frankly when he stated he was not there to represent any section of the South, hut the ratepayers as a whole. He saw by accepting Mr Mclntosh’s offer that tin County ratepayers as a whole would bo saved a large sum, and the Government would be saved expenditure, also, which would go to other necessary works ,in the locality, fin addition, there would be a considerable saving of time. The Mclntosh road was to be open in three months’ time, while by waiting fur grants it might take two, and probably three, years to finish. The attitude of the opposing eettWs certainly weakened their case, by declaring; in their speeches that the work wan urgent and neceNsary, and finally concluding with the statement that despite the urgency and necessity, they were agreeable to wait for proper access until the Government grants were available to complete the proper access! A strong point was made also o* the petition signed by 46 settlers, but here again, the position was weakened bv the fact that only four of the 46 were users of the road, and that some of there signing the petition, although living in the locality for many years, had been only in the vicinity of the disputed route once! Admissions such as that, at once di counted the value of many of the signatures to the petition. The position now is that road aeeffis will be provided speedily for those concerned, and that was naturally a 'consideration with the Council. The full measure for the cause of the opposition to this desirable climax was not disclosed, but evidently there was some underlying cause not made public so for.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19310114.2.26

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 14 January 1931, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
411

Untitled Hokitika Guardian, 14 January 1931, Page 4

Untitled Hokitika Guardian, 14 January 1931, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert