HICKFORD'S LINE OF ROAD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 57, 12 March 1880, Page 2

HICKFORD'S LINE OF ROAD.

TO THE BDITOKO? THE MANAWATU HERALD. Sik — I am sorry to see by yonr report of the Council's last; meeting that Mr Sanson, when referring to ray letter re Hiekford's lino of road, so lost his self-control us to make the most unguarded and unwarrantable statements. He said— "The inference I evidently wished to be drawn was that he and Air ' Gowei had combined for selfish reasons to ask for a road ;" *nd, later on, in his peroration, showed how correct that inference would be by saying " if the road were not made, he would throw up his soot ion:" Adding the following false statements — That, " the road I wanted made — Jones' road — would only benefit the Hon. R. | Campbell, as none of the settlers ever used it." Now, in the £rsfc plaoe I did nob mention Jones' road in my letter, and even if I had I should not have been wrong in saying it is a very important road to the sottlers, as it would, in fact, be the principal one, were it and the road I mentioned in my letter made good. Mr Sanson could scarcely h»ve been In | his ri^ht mind, as otherwise I do not think he would have allowed himself to suy, that " the Hon. K. Campbell hud at the timo of the sale promised to make a good dry road for each settler, and that he (Mr Sanson) had taken up his section on these oondi fions." To prove to you that Mr Sanson did not take up his sections on these conditions', I oncloso a copy of the ngieement signed by him, by which you will bo able to see whether Mr Sansou has any right to expect the Mon. U. Campbell to make roads. A man of Mr Sanson's businesslike character would not be likely to allow suoh an important olause to be omitted if he really considered it part of his agreement. I myself sold about one-third of the sections in the Block, and I defy Mr Sanson to bring forward one man out of the lot that will any I have made such promises, and I am perfectly sure Mr Campbell has not done so. If he had, the roads would have b»en made Mr Campbell made most of the road* that are in the Settlement, and amongst othere, Hickford's road from Campbelltown to near the boundary of Mr Sanson's sections, which, as the road was not made past his sectioi»s,"may be the cause of him using such strong language. If such ia the case it is entirely his own fault, as he with the other member of the Council levied a shilling rate ou tie settlers, and spent the money so raised elsewhere; thinking, I sup. pose, that Mr Campbell would continue making roads while they consumed the rates. As the settlers were rated I loft off making roads, but seeing they were in such a bad state, urged the settler/ to try to get the Hoard to do something for them. This they did. The answer they received was, " The Board has no funds." I then through one of tlie members -offered to ailranoe the money to the Hoard to complete Hickford's road, but they refused to accept it. In the face of all this Mr Sanson wishes it to be believed that I am adverse to the road boing made. What I do object to is, not that Messrs G-ower and Sanson should ask for a road, but that they should ask Mr Campbell to make it, while they themselves, having more interest in the road, keep their pockets buttoned. As regards Mr Gower' s remarks, I quito agree with him in thinking that the increase of the rates should be spent in benefitting those that have increased them, but I should like Mr Gower to explain what ho meant by saying that " the reason he asked that Mr C -mpbell be asked for £:}Q.) was not on account of what he would receive, but on account of what he had received." The only truthful explanation would run as follows : — That Messrs Douglas & Co. , some years ago purchased the land at 12s Gd per acre, and that since then so large an am unt has been spent on it in improvements as to bring the cos*- up to about £2 per acre, and that Mr Campbell bought Douglas & Co. out and sold the land at a minimum price of £2 per acre, on deferred payment extending over a period of five years,— plainly showing that Mr Campbell is still a long way out of pocket, and yet,- because of this, Mr Gower would ask him for £300. A mere schoolboy could prove how incorrect Mr Gower is. in saying that Mr Campbell would dear about £20,000 out of the block. Mr Lurkworthy, on the other hand, purchased his land at 20s per. acre, with no restrictions, has spent little or nothing iv improvements, and Mr Gower, as I hear from good authority, valued it not long since at £8 per aore. ' If, therefore, Mr Gower thinks a mau should give away in proportion to the profit he makes, he, on behalf of Mr Larkworthy, certainly owes the public a very large sum. And, in conclusion, I beg to remind Mr Gower of the old adage, " That people who live in glass houses should not throw stones." 1 am, &0., J. M'Lenxan. [The agreement referred to by Mr M'kennan ia too long for insertion in our columns. Mr M'Lennau has, however, left the original agreement duly signed by Mr Sanson at our office, also a copy of same, and after looking through the agreement carefully, we can see no promise made of roads to bo formed by the Hon. Mr Campbell. With reference to the placards referred to by Mr Sannon in his speech regarding the " sale," Mr M'Lennan has also asked us to explain that no public auction took place, all the original selections being taken up privately. —Ed. M. HsßAir.]