MAIN ROAD CONTROVERSY.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 649, 7 March 1914, Page 5

MAIN ROAD CONTROVERSY.

WHO IS TO BLAME?

MR WILSON'S REPY TO MR SCHOLES.

Sir,—ln your columns of February 18th, appears a statement made by Mr Scholes, chairman of the Waitomo County Council, in whicn he says that lie believed I had made certain statements to the MiniHtor of Public Works in connection «ith the main road. On every that the chairman returns from Wellington he seems bent on making puolic statements which are entirely misleading or have no foundation in fact. By way of disproving his last statements I quote a letter from the Minister of Public Works:

"C. K. Wilson, EBq., M.P.—Dear Sir, —I send you herewith a newspaper extract of Mr Scholes' report to his Council of his interview with me; and also copy of report showing what actually occurred. As you will see, there is a considerble discrepancy between the two. I had never at any time said anything which could lead Mr Scholes to the belief that you were my informant in regard to the want of attention by the local body to the road from Te Kuiti to Pio Pio. My information came from rry own Dppartment. I certainly did not inform Mr Scholes at our last intervew that no authorities for the expenditure of Government grants and subsidies would be issued except in the case of very urgent works, but I did say that the votes carried over from last year mu»t be expended first Mr Scholes does not appear to have informed his Council that I had promised to devote some more money towards this road, but could not tell how much until I bad received Mr Gavin's report. Moreover, within a very few days of our interview I informed Mr Scholes that in consequence of Mr Gavin's report.l had authorised the expenditure of £I2OO, which is now being spent. I send this to you so that you may make what ÜBe vou please of it.—-W. Fraser, Minister of Public Works."

So much for those statements. I propose to give an account of the Council's connection with this road since 1911. In 1911 a grant was put on the Estimates at the urgent request of the settlers expressed at a big- meeting h*ld at Pin Pio. The money was handed over to the Council and accepted by them for expenditure. Two separate contracts Were let —one for crushing, and one for carting, the latter by the Council. Very little was done, probably owing to the season. Next year the grant was renewed and further increased. What was the action of the Council? No attempt was made to cancel the contract and relet the same or enforce the penalties, if any, for non-fulfilment, and no attempt was made to push on with the work. At the last meeting of the council in 1912, I believe, a resolution was passed refusing to expend the money. The Council had called tenders for many other big works and accepted same, but this most important work held up. When the Government took over—the holidays intervening—the necessary delay in cancelling the contract let by the Council ensued, and a very late Btart was made, but at a much more expensive rate than if the work had been pushed on in the summer months, and that extra coat to a large extent was due entirely to the action of the council in hanging the matter up, and to the astonishment of the chairman a very long-felt want was nearly completed under very difficult and expensive conditions, It would astonish the ratepayers to know to what lengths the chairman of the County Council will go in his political hostility, and it is quite amusing to be so accused by that gentleman when hiß own political bias has gone to the extraordinary lengths of sacrificing the ratepayers' interest because they had elected me —his political opponent.—l am, etc., C. K. WILSON.