SHELLEY BEACH RAILWAY

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 8 September 1921, Page 3

SHELLEY BEACH RAILWAY

[10 THE EDITOR.]

SIR, —In your issue of Sept. Ist (in your " Local and General " re Shelley Beach railway) you use my name as if I had been causing disorder at the meeting, and I strongly object to your statements, as not being fair or according to facts. I had no " passage -at - arras " with the chairman. When Mr Stewart started his second speech I asked the chairman how many speeches each speaker was allowed to make ? The said one each. As Mr Stewart still went on speaking, and not in the way of a personal explanation, I rose to a point of order, and objected to Mr Stewart going on. The chairman then stated he had given him leave to go on, and no more was said. When I spoke later on I was replying to Mr Stewart's statements about* the Kaipara bar. The chairman then interferred with me, and said I was going away from the business of the meeting—Shelley Beach railway. I said I was only replying to Mr Stewart's statements re the Kaipara bar, which had a lot to do with the railway. I had no passage-at-arms with MrStewart. T am next charged with the same offence with regard to the solicitor, who was brought from Auckland by the opposition. Mr Mc"Veagh was, to my mind, slightly misleading by stating that a Railway Board could rate under four heads. I doubted that statement when I was speaking, but I in no way interfered with Mr McVeagh when speaking. The difference is this : Mr McVeagh did interfere with me when I was speaking ; but I do not complain about that, Mr Editor; I only want to show that your statements are not fair to me. Mr McVeagh showed that there was class D in the Act, making four classes, but admitted later that a board could not rate under D. 1 contended that if D could not be rated, D would not be brought in. Next you state that I was several times called to order by the chairman when making statements irrevalent to the question under consideration. I have already stated all that took place between the chairman and myseJf, and I leave itto your readers to judge whether I was in order or not. The chairman said at the outset that no personal matter was to be brought in, but later on he allowed Mr Aitkenhead to indulge in personal matter, and untrue statements at that, and did not call him to order until ho had finished what he wanted to say. Then Mr Aitkenhead coolly said: "T do not want to refer to the matter further." But why did not the chairman

ask him to withdraw? I hold that Mr Rimmer should not have been in the chair, as he was one of the conveners of the meeting, in opposition to the proposal. The meeting was supposed to be a meeting of Mairetahi ratepayers. I would ask, Was there any check taken to see that only ratepayers voted ? I saw more than one vote who were not, and plenty who would not come under the rating area, as they reside and hold property in the south end of Mairetahi that would not be affected by a railway board, but were bluffed into voting on a matter that will not' really affect them. —I am, etc.,

James McLeod

Sept. 4, 1921