RAILWAY JUNCTION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4409, 3 May 1922, Page 2

RAILWAY JUNCTION.

RESOLUTION TO MINISTER. CHAMBER. OF COMMERCE. ANIMATED DISCUSSION. Animated discussion on the resolution put to Ministers of the Crown by the executive of the Paeroa Chambei of Commerce, suggesting the advisability of the Paeroa-Pokeno and Hamilton-Thames railway junction being in. the Mill Road area, took place at a meeting df' the Paeroa Chamber of Commerce op Saturday night, the president (Mr E. W. Porrit<) being in the chair. Mr E. Edwards deprecated the action of the executive in placing contentious matter before a Minister of the Crown without first ascertaining the opinion of .the public, or at least of the Chamber, thereon. He thought a squabble over sites would delay the riiain issue. The reasons put forward by the executive were, some of them, purely mythical—the question of cartage, for instance. The majority of the people were opposed to the suggestion. He moved that the resolution put forward be not approved, and that the Chamber disapprove of the proposal to place the station on the Mill Road side of the Ohinemuri River,; that this Chamber did not consider the removal of the station in the best interests of the business people or the residents of Paeroa; and further, 'that as the subject was a contentious onei, it should not have been ’ placed before Ministers of the Crown without the sanction, or at least the cognisance, of the, people of Paeroa. .

Mr E. W. Porritt (president of the Chamber) said the resolution did noask for the removal of the station.

Mr Edwards pointed out that the resolution did imply the removal of the sfation, inasmuch as Mr Porritt told q?e Minister that the Mill Road end was more suitable, having more room, for a station and yards. Mr Porritt said be had information to the effect that the Railway Department expected to have as big a station ..at Paeroa- as the one at Frank-

ton. . .. •' Mr D. teach asked Mr Edwards to take each • recommendation in the resolution and express his abjections thereto. The executive -had no means oif kr.nwing whether the people Of Paeroa were against the proposal, Mp Edwards : The latter is ‘the very reason why the resolution should n"t be put before the Ministers—that the executive did not know the views of the, residents. In face of the refusal of the Borough Council to support the proposal., the executive had still-gone on with it and brought it belfore .the Minister. A seiWfseletced body or coterie had no right, to present such a resolution without the apprpval of the elected representatives—Borough Council members.

Mr Porritt said he had put it before the Mayon, and; the latter had replied that it was not placed on tee order paper because “some” of the members were against it, and tha? the Cr.amber could put it forward on its own account if it desired.

The Mayor (Mr P. E. Brenan) said he consulted what councillors were available, but there was snch; a difference of opinion /that he did not think he should endorse tee proposal or otherwise. Personally, he was no: in favour of the resolution, as he did not think the Rawhiti (Mill Road) area was nearer to the ’centre of the town, present or future. He had no desire to be mixed up in the matter, but he thought the opinion of the public should; first have been ascertained.

Mr D. Leach wanted to • know by what means public opinion could beascertained. How did the Borough Council ascertain public opinion 1 Mr W. Marshall thought the motion should be split in two, dealing with the junction and railway , station question, and the action of the executive, respectively. There was a principle involved, and he thought the matter should have been brought before a meeting of the Chamber first; Mr J. .T. Brown said that thoughhe would be personally benefited if the station was put in the place where the Public Works Department at present intended it to be, nevertheless, in the interests of the public the Mil] Road area would be the better. Mr R. Whitten; as a member of. the executive, said the details of the proposal had been gone into thoroughly before the executive Qame to a decision.

Mr Porritt instanced Palmerston North, where the railway running through the town was admittedly a nuisance. The resolution was not put forward as a recommendation, but merely that the advisability of the proposal should be considered. Mr Edwards protested against the

“ ” of an executive of five, or six persons. The railway station would not be in Mr Brown’s

-property, tor it would not be further dovm than the gasworks. Also, a bridge costing some thousands of pounds would be needed if the station was in the Mill Road area. Mr Brown;: The survey pegs are on my property, anyhow. Mr Edwards: There are survey pegs all over, the place thereabouts; as many surveys have been made. The resolution was lost, bj' 9 votes to 7. A number of- members did not vote.

It had been previously represented by Mr Leach that the motion was tantamount to one pf> no-confidence in the executive. Mr Edwards explained that he did not move it in that spirit.