Awakino County.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 285, 13 August 1910, Page 5

Awakino County.

To the Editor

Sir,— Kindly permit me through the medium of your valuable columns, to reply to a letter from Mr John Wouldes, of Kiritehere, re the merging ot the northern portion of the Awakino County into the Kawhia County, appearing in your issue of July 27th. His reasons are very wild and rambling, and I think I would be safe in prescribing patients to take them with the proverbial "grain of salt." First, he says the "ocean is the highway of the world" —something new for us poor creatures of toil in the back-block-5 to find out —"and the Kawhia harbour is one of the outlets to that highway, having resources to the extent of 500,000 acres at the back." Nobody that ever I have heard has said anything in the shape of running down the possibilities of the Kawhia harbour or its resources at the back. What I do contend is that the northern part of Awakino is, by not only commercial circumstances, but naturally destined never to be, a contributing party to Kawhia. We have no roads running in the direction of Kawhia and even if we had what benefit would we derive when we got there in comparison to Te Kuiti. From the Main Trunk line we can gain access to the principal markets of the North Island, and Mr Wouldes before to-day has availed himself of that opportunity. Again, he says that their interests are with Kawhia and not with Waitonio or Awakino. Well, I think I have surely proved the opposite in answer to the first reason. As far as the Mokau being the outlet for the Awakino is another example of that gentleman's level-headed and brilliant thinking powers. Regarding the formation of a river trust being not worth consideration, Mr Wouldes again displays his ignorance of local matters. For his information I might state that a river trust is the only solution of dealing with the Marokopa river. On a petition of two-thirds of the settlers affected by the river the Govemor-in-Council would proclaim the area under the control of a trust in which would be vested all rating and borrowing powers the same as other local bodies. The number of trustees would be determined by the Government, who would be the controlling power. Each trustee vyoyliJ haw to be a ratepayer in the area. Mr Wouldes says that the Pomprangi district has been left out of the proposal, because it is hostile. Well, sir, Pomerangi is not and cannot be left out. because yia the thy Pomerangi and Mangahoe settlers will use the Marakopa river as a means for transit for all time and on account of that river being part of the boundary of the Kawhia and AwaJdnp coppties are in the affected area. Mr Wouldes further contends that if the proposals of the objectors are given effect that "we would resemble a small donkey with a huge burden." I don't know whether he imagines that if their proposals are defeated that the

settlers in this district will develop asinine ways, and I must say that if such is the case, all I can say is "cap fit him, cap wear him.—l am, etc., ROBERT HALLY. Moeatoa, August Ist, 1910. To the Editor. Sir, —It was with much amusement that I read Mr John Wguides' epistle re county matters, in your issue of July 27th. Readers will undoubtedly value his opinions highly when" they understand that it is only a few years ago that Mr Wouldes discovered that there was a road from his place to Te Kuiti and that there were settlers all the way. Of course, he always went to Kawhia, and it is only fair to surmise that his imagination bears one grand panoramic view of that place, hence his belief that via Kawhia is the only way to the stars or to immortality.--! am, etc. SINE DUBIO.