CORRESPONDENCE.

Motueka Star, Volume I, Issue 14, 27 September 1901, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

;.„TO THE EDITOR Sir: me, through through the medium of y air valuable paper, to answer one ...or tw > questions asked by "iSo.v.ugh -O-.m -lcilior" in his letter wjii:a appeared in your issue oi the 17 iust. Id the. first place, he asks what t treatment li .waka shippers will receive 4., t i and from then- port now controlled PJl'by the Riwaka Board, no mention being * made in the Act of any concessions to a \y other port than Motueka ? I may state that if ".Borough Councillor" procures a lithograph plan of the Motueka survey district, wh.ch he can purchase for oie shilling, and consult it with the first schedule of the Nelson Harbor Act, he will be able t > trace out the boundaries of ahe Nelson Harbor Endownment. He will thus find that Motueka is the only other port within that area where any concessions can be made, Riwaka although in the ratinoorea is outside the Harbor end ownment; therefore I presume Riwaka consign-

ments will have to pay ordinary rates. "Borough Councillor" also asks why it is not moved that the Kelson Harbor Board take over the Riwaka etc.? I may state that that is a matter which does'nt concern him.

The Riwaka people are quite alive as to what is pertaining to their welfare, and when the proper- time arrives, if they see fit, I have no doubt will move in the matter, witnout any interference from "Borough Councillor." The two cases of exploiting referred to in his letter are not al all parallel. The Borough Council had no wharf or foreshore to be exploited ; the Motueka Wharf was to all intents and purposes a County affair, vested in and controlled by County Council, no exploitation has taken place in that case.

With the Riwaka Board it is quite different. They have wharves vested in, and are under, their control. You will thus see, Sir, that the Riwaka Road Board have wharves etc , to be exploited, hence the passing of the resolution which has so annoyed "Borough Councillor." As to the Borough Council not wanting anything that does'nt belong to them, I have not much to say. I do not question their honesty; at the same time I think it prefable that the Wharves and Foreshore at Riwaka be put out of reach.

Why did not "Borough Councillor" take the advice I gave him on numerous occasions? that was, to include the Motueka Wharf and foreshore when petitioning that Motueka be created a Borough ; there were no difficulties in the way, and I have every reason to believe it would have been granted ; but no, the answer on each occasion was, we dont want the blooming Wharf. We only want the Borough. But now, as events have not turned out quite to his liking, he tries to shuffle the blame at the door of ofvj^eis. In conclusion, I may say there are, and always will be, a few howlers in every community, and judging by the whining tone of his letter "Borough Cooncillor" is one of these. Trusting I have not tresspassed too much on youi valuable space. 1 am etc., Daniel Bate. Riwaka Sept 24th 1901.