Marokopa Telephone.

Kawhia Settler and Raglan Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 362, 22 May 1908, Page 3

Marokopa Telephone.

[Advertisbment.] Mr John Shaw hae received the following letter from Mr E. 0. Stanley, and tbe subject dealt with is a public matter be has decided to have it published in fulls—

“ I received your loiter enclosing guarantees for the telephone and handed the same to the persons xianud in your letter, and tto have refnaed to sign them in their pre•ent form, their chief objection being that the route of the telephone lino is not defined in the guarantees, and contend that the Kawhia County Council may repudiate any resolution defining the Kime which may have been carried at a meeting held at the Marokopa bridge. You must admit their contentions as reasonable as no sane man would tign such unsatisfactory guarantees as those sent to us. It appears to me the County Council expect us to txasft them regarding tho route, but they do not feel disposad to trust us as far as the money is concerned- We all know what a mess they made of tbe telephone line round the harbour, taking it to Te Maika instead of Te Anga, and I for one do not feel disposed- to trust them again. What advantage would it be to ua to contribute towards a telephone line to tbe Marokopa Heads, unless it camo via Te Anga, and there was an office there, or near that vicinity. I noticed two letters in our local paper signed by you and regret you should have written in the strain yon did. Ido not feel it was just on your part to throw the blame of the delay on tbe settlers at this end of the (’•strict when you must have seen by the report of a Council meeting, when this subject was under disOtjsaion, the Chairmn .i stated the delay was caused by conditional guamnteoe being sent in which they could not accept, as we had not sent an;y in we could not have been to blame. Again yon stat? Jr your letter to the pap®* - that Messrs Ross and Pollock and Mr Carr v-fere the only persons who had signed tbe gutu-antee in t hie end of vhe A wakino County. At the same time you must have teen awars that at least one of these was a oenditicnal guarantee, and hence valueless, according to the County Chairman’s contentions /.gain you try In your letter in the paper te Liter that we all broke cur promiser by not signing the guarantees while you knew all the time that 1 for one did not promise yon or any other person that I would do so. I promised one pound, which I paid into the County Office last September, and shall be prepared to, do', so per y r, if requested by tbe Corneil, for five years, and you will find that E. C. Stanley’s word is not a rotten’stick! to lean upon*, and far more to be relied on than some of tbe guarantees you may get signed. I have never broken my word to yon or any other person that lam aware of.’ Would it not have been more just to have stated thc% facte P Let ua try to be just when we rush into print. For my part Ido not intend for the future to .attend any public meetings or take any ' interest in public Matters untn things are very much altered for the better.—Yours, etc., EDWARD C. STANLEY.