THE WAIITAKERE QUARRY

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 10 February 1916, Page 3

THE WAIITAKERE QUARRY

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —May I again ask for space to reply to Mr Dye re the Waitakere quarry, as he has gone to some trouble to misconstrue some of the statements I made in my letter of January 6th. Mr Dye states it is fairly well-known that this quarry was discovered many years back. I quite admit that it has been known for many years that stqne did exist at Waitakere, although I, for one, did not know that stqne of such quality existed in the County to any extent in such an accessible place, I believe also that Mr Jackson (County Engineer) has known for some time that good stone was available there when the County required it. The time has arrived when the County Council has awakened to the fact that if it does not acquire a quarry of its own it may be left without metal for our roads (although Mr Dye still slumbers).

Mr Dye keeps harping away about x scoria, knowing full well that there is a serious agitation on foot at the present time to stop the removal of scoria from the volcanic cones that surround Auckland. -We must all agree that the agitation is a right one. The Council also knows that the life of the present quarries about Auckland is short (at least in such positions as are suitable for Waitemata. That being the case, I ask, would the Council ba doing its duty to the ratepayers to wait until the last moiiieqfc before procuring stone where they cquld qper t a qnar/ry when required ?

Mr Dye quotes the late Mr John O'Neill, but he forgot to state that Mr O'Neill and myself brought the matter of procuring our own quarry before the Council over three years ago, and the Engineer was instructed to see if he could procure one in the vicinity of Mt. Albert at a reasonable cost, but he f^jled to find one. The only outcome of the liiova was that tiits Council came

to better terms with Morningside quarry for a supply, and shelved the quarry purchase in the meantime.

Mr Dye continues : I never imagined seeing four ridings were allowed to drop out, one riding not being auxious for it and Kumeu and Kaukapakapa protesting that efforts would be made to compel us. lam sorry for Mr Dye's innocence. Did he not sit in the chair when it was arranged that the Council should go and view the quarry site ? Did he not hear the four East.Coast members state that they would not go, as the quarry would not suit their ridings ? Did he not at Waitakere station, after we had viewed the quarry, instruct Mr Bethell to procure an option in legal form over the ground, and instruct the Engineer to prepare an estimate ? Did he not preside at the next meeting of the Council, when a committee was set up to decide what amount each of the seven ridings interested' should contribute towards cost of purchase ? Did he then protest against his riding being included?

Mr Dye's statement re not using blue metal and in the next breath stating that contracts have been let for 130 yds shows that when he can procure it he uses it; and goes to show up his inconsistency. Then a little more of Mr Dye's cunning innocence comes in and he states : We are letting another contract for carting ane. spreading over 200 yds of river shingle, and under two miles from the railway line which Mr McLeod says goes through the district. I stated there were ten miles of railway through his district, not two.

Mr Dye continues, re cost of acquiring and opening Waitakere quarry: Mr McLeod makes it appear that the total cost will amount to £1000 and he distinctly includes cost of purchase, branch line, and stone-breaking plant and ' remarks not a very big item. I am really sorry for Mr Dye's innocence for any !sahe man who read my letter must have known that £1000, instead of £10,000, was a printer's error, for I gave the total purchase money at £1100. It is an old sayng—none so stupid as those who do not wish to understand.

I stated in my last letter that I wanted truthful statements for the ratepayers, not quibble from Mr Dye. If he wished to do likewise why did he not contradict the statement which appeared in print that 100 acres was being bought at £25, per acre instead of £5. But like many other things it did not suit his book.

Mr Dye then deals with standing orders and notice of motion that they can be twisted to suit him or the chairman. That is quite true, for he has twisted them for two years whilst in the

chair. lam not going to occupy your valuable space in reply to his twaddle re standing order, but I will just mention that Mr Dye has carefully avoided the one point I raised —That if it was good for him to take the business without notice of motion it was good for the present Chairman. Mr Dye further states, re the point which is not clear to

Mr McLeod, he says he was authorised precisely in the same manner as Mr McLeod when he went to the County solicitor for advice, 8y this statement Mr Dye insinuates that I went to the County solicitor without anthority from the Council, which is not true. But even if I did, two blacks do not make a white, nor justify Mr Dye, and the excuse, is in keeping with many others that he makes. —I am, etc.,

James McLeod,