CORRESPONDENCE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 73, 13 March 1908, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir, —From time to time least interesting part of the King Country Chronicle is the letters of correspondents, end particularly is this so in the esse of one under the signature of "V. L. Jackson " in the issue of Febr ua ry 28th. M r Jack son is quite right in assuming that Mr Ormsby holds not a brief for Ohura settlers. He will find, if it is but a question of Puketutu-Wsitewhenua route versus Oogarue-Matiere route, that in his solicitations for .our welfare, he is barking up the wrong tree. If it is only the simple question I have indicated, I have no hesitation in saying that in the course of time, and when the Government has matured the controversy to a definite issue, the great bulk of settlement in the Ohura would recognise that _no~ thing is to be gained by opposing "the decision of the Executive in such a matter, and that their needs would be served, ultimately, as well by the Waitewhenua route as by the other, besides benefitting" the settlers in the Mokau Valley, Mahoenui, Mangaotaki Valley and Mairoa, that would not otherwise be served. If some in the Ohura interpolate here, that the Ongarue route would mean two .years less construction, I reply that to benefit settlement in the Ohura is but an incident in the expenditure of a quarter of a million of money and not the main objective. Further, with regard to the argument that the Ongarue line is an authorised one, I would point out that it is preposterous to suppose that the administration of today is to be hide-bound by the opinion of twenty years ago. An engineering opinion that was certainly not the result of wide consideration or searching exploration, but was the outcome of that miserable political expedient —a compromise. As such it has served its purpose, but now that the Government, is looking around for its next great work, it behoves us to recognise that in comparison with other routes, there is not a single economic, justification for the junction of this important line to be at Ongarue. There is one aspect of the con trovers}' that never seems ,to be taken into account—the uselessness of it. In due course the pros, and cons, of the several routes will be laid before the Cabinet; the estimated capital cost; the probable running cost and the maintenance eost of each; a chart of the grades and curves, station points and feeding roads upon each ; the relation iof the several routes to other projected railschemes, and many other considerations of >vhich we settlers have little knowledge. Presuming the Departmental advice is opposed to the Ongarue route, it cannot be pointed out with tco great insistence that the Cabinet will examine the facts of the case with utmost care, and if bias were possible, it would be against any departure from the authorised line. If a Bill is ever placed before the House for a re-authorisation, it will be'because the decision is irrevocable, inevitable and unimpeachable. Political pressure, for or against any route, will be an impossibility in this instance. All points of the battle take place in the electorate of Taumarunui, and our sitting member or any future candidate, will not be so foolish as to take sides, but refer the question as departmental and not political (any candidate who acted otherwise would be unworthy of our suffrage). Taranaki or Auckland members will not support any side movement that will postpone expenditure. Let us in the King Country adopt the. line of " least resistance " —-the way of the Government. Let us not forget that long and painful experience teaches us : We have a crafty and unscrupulous administration, that will seize (when it suits thern) the adverse resolution of some schoolhouse meeting, as sufficient excuse for delaying construction. 1 write this letter to condemn the action of Te Kuiti in fostering an agitation (the motive of which is selfish and contempt'able in the extreme) that can have only one practicable result —the hanging-up for years of any expendi-" ture at this end, or what we might, if we were all unanimous in leaving the choice of routes an open question for the Ministry to aecide, make into the next national work for the North Island. —I am. etc., G. C. STEVENSON. Mangaroa, Ohura, 2/3 08.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —At different times, recently, I have noticed several items in your paper dealing with the OngarueStratford railway. I think it would be very unwise to let those go Scot free who consider there is justice and fairness contained in the opinion they hold with reference to the proposed deviation. Before attempting to show the other side of the question I desire to thank Mr J. Ormsby (who, as an old settler, and who understands the history of the line and the district)' for having shown those who pay'differ, that there is good reason fpf r advocating the Qngarue route. I noticed that one of the gentlemen in the controversy stated there was over-whelming evidence in favour of the Puketutu route; that the land was much better and the route much nearer to Auckland. Well, sir, I beg to differ with reference to the remarks about the land, and I make bold to state any ordinary tribunal his not be borne out by facts. then, with t'C; gard to the shoJtcr route to Auckland; There may be something in those remarks, but who is prepared io vouch for all the products of the (3lhura district going to Auckland." I am to think, with the entlie Wellington people afford"the backblocks, a fair amount pf the trade will go that way. Then, ggain, if that argument_ (shortness of foute) stand? good, wny not travel ffom Mangaroa to Flangatiki oi Otorohanga? There would be more common sense in a proposal of that kind than advocating a line to Puketutu, a place that is nowhere as a commercial centre, and never will be, but if the line by some error does junction there with the Main Trun.<. ' lime, u Will, fcf sure," ue detrimental to'the interests of Te Kuiti,_ a plape ijo nian cotdd object to it

j the deviation is decided upon. But, 1 sir, I am going to put aside Puketutu, Te Kuiti, Otorohanga, and other side shows and place before the people a few arguments in favour of the cid authorised route. First, on account of the line being authorised, I consider, unless for some extraordinary reason, the Government of!the day have a right to prove ioyal to the pledge of their predecessors. Secondly, all the land that has been thrown open in the district; the maps showing same to contain a tracing of the authorised line starting from Ongarue; the people of those districts, that is the Ohura generally, recognised the fact, and built up their homes and the districts accordingly. At Maliere, or thereabouts, a co-ope-rative dairy factory has been erected. A private company has also erected a factory, and a sawmill is under progress, while another one is about to be built. A township has been sold and built upon to cater for the public. Extensive saleyards have been erected to meet the wants of the Ohura, and, sir, there are industries which take some thousands of pounds to finance, and the one inducement held out for so doing was the authorised railway line from Ongarue. If it had not been for that I venture to state not one penny sunk in the abovementioned enterprises, would have been invested in their present- position. Now we find, at the last moment, there is a probability of the line being diverted. If such eventuates then the whole constitution of the Ohura will r be upset. I think the abovementioned facts ax*e sufficient to convince any reasonable person that the people of Ohura have a just right to advocate Ongarue as a starting point, seeing that the whole of the industries of the district have been built with the idea of being as near to the present line as convenient, and to reap the benefits of the incoming line-, as soon as possible. If the line goes by Puketutu it will place Matiere and surrounding localities eighteen miles from a railway on the east side, twelve to fifteen miles on the west, and not on the average of six miles j as stated by one of your correspondents, who, evidently, was out for an airing, and not to place the subject before the people in an impartial manner. With reference to the Puketutu route or a railway line into the back country from Te Kuiti I will not decry the idea, nor yet run down the land in the Ivicinity, but, from experience, say that I consider the country quite good enough for a branch line, and being twenty or thirty miles by road north of the Ongarue route, with twenty or thirty miles of country still further ahead, which would act as a feeder to a new line, I think it would be far more honourable for the people of those outlying districts to advocate in that direction, than to encourage the Government to hang up the present authorised route, and rob the. Ohura people of that which we consider our inherited rights.—l am, etc., OHURA SETTLER.