HERRIES' MEMORIAL.

Matamata Record, Volume VI, Issue 492, 26 November 1923, Page 2

HERRIES' MEMORIAL.

CONFERENCE OF LOCAL BODIES. Committee to Make Recommendations. Tlie conference, of representatives of local bodies to consider the proposal to oicct a memorial to the late Sir William Herries was held at Te Aroha on Thursday afternoon, when those present were Messrs. R. Coulter and G. Hedge (Te Aroha borough), G. Howie and J. B. Thomas (Morrinsville borough), J. Polilen and Hallett (Matamata county), W. C. Kennedy and J. On (Piako County), F. E; Hughes (Hungahunga Drainage Board), G. W. Horn (Waitoa Drain* age Board) F. T. Rowe (Elstow Drainage Board), and R. C. Somers and A. W. Edwards (Te Aroha Jockey Club). :' . Mr. R. Coulter was appointed chairman, , In his opening remarks the chairman said that the Te Aroha borough council had considered it a proper thing that the local bodies throughout ithe electorate shuld erect a memorial to the late Sir William Herries, and so it was that a conference of all interested was called. It was also thought that Cabinet might like to contribute, and in response to the invitation, the Prime Minister wrote advising that they would like to participate in the scheme and for that purpose would subsidise (£ for £) any amount up to £250. Representatives of the Jockey Club, also, had been asked to attend the conference as the late Sir William was keenly interested in tlie club since its inception. He moved:"That this meeting favours the erection of a memorial to the late Sir William Herries." Carried unanimously.

Mr. F. W.> Wild informed the meet-, ing that the local bodies on the Taw* ranga side of the range requested that notice of any decision which the Te Aroha conference might arrive at h» forwarded to Mr. C. E. Macmillan, M.P., who would call a conference of nil the local bodies in that area and discuss the proposals. Mr. Horn said the members of his Board were a little doubtful whether in fairness to the ratepayers drainage boards should be asked to contribute. He considered that if so it would mean that the county ratepayers would be contributing twice once through the drainage board and again through the county council. Mr. Hughes remarked that at the last meeting of the Piako County Council it was considered that probably it would be better if drainage boards were not asked to subscribe. The chairman was inclined to the opinion that drainage boards should not contribute. Mr. Pohlen viewed the matter m a different light. He. said.that county council rated for maintaining roads, and drainage boards for drainage purposes, and he contended that by the latter contributing the subscription ot the county council would be reduced equivalents. Ho himself was payer to both the county council and the drainage board and was quite willing that the latter should stand in the scheme. From experience he knew that drainage boards had benefited more in proportion from Government grants than had county councils. It is erroneous and misleading to .say that the ratepayers will pay twice, he concluded. Mr. Kennedy was opposed to any one section of the community being "hit" twice, and by bringing dramage boards in this would be the case. Mr. Thomas was of the same opmMr Hedge understood that the question of contributions was voluntary—there was no compelling anybody to pay. • j ■ Mr. Hughes did not want the conference to "gather the impression that drainage boards did not wish to contribute, for they had recognised the good the late Sir William Hemes had done for the district. , ■ • *' Mr. Somers suggested that the matter of drainage boards 'contributing be left optional. , It was decided accordingly. Mr. Horn contended that the resolution was a good one, inasmuch if the county councils had already spent nearly to the limit of their unauthorised expenditure and was unable to subscribe as much as it would like to, then drainage boards might make up the difference. The question of the amount of local bodies' subscriptions- was then discussed, Mr. Pohlen holding that the Government subsidy should be taken full advantage of. He moved:—- " That the local bodies, jointly, . contribute £250, plus the Government subsidy of £250, for the erection of the memorial." Seconded by Mr. Howie and carried. Mr. Howie suggested that the memorial, instead of being erected in the graveyard, might be placed in a suitable position in the borough of Te Aroha. Mr. Somers said that in his opinion over the grave was the right place to erect the memorial. Mr. Pohlen recommended that a committee be formed to finalise matters, and that it be asked to take into consideration the proposal to erect the monument in an appropriate place within the brough where it would be in constant view, and the memory 1 of Sir William perpetuated. If the memorial is erected in the graveyard, he submitted that 90 per cent of the people who subscribed to it wQuld never see it. It was the contention of the chairman that it would cost £IOOO to erect in the borough anything of a presentable nature. ■ Mr. Kennedy agreed with the suggestions of Messrs. Howie and Pohlen. Mr. Hallet said there would be no discussion as to the borough where the monument should stand, and he considered that if it was decided to place it in the town instead of at the graveyard county councils would view the scheme in a far different light. Mr. Kennedy moved, and Mr. Pohlen seconded, that if the money available is sufficient to erect a suitable monument that it bo erected in the borough of Te Aroha. Messrs. Somers. Hedge and Kennedy (and the chairman ex officio) were appointed a committee to procure designs and prices of the memorial, and to submit to all the local bodies concerned tracings of the most suitable ones, with any recommendations which they might think proper to make. The same committee was aked to go into and recommend the basis upj (Continued in Next Column.)