OPUNAKE WHARF.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 60, 29 January 1895, Page 2

OPUNAKE WHARF.

In our correspondence columns we publish a letter from Mr A. H. Moore on the above subject. The letter is beautifully indefinite, but still there is enough to show which way the current flows, when we take his previously expressed opinions into account. He would apparently wish to see the Wharf Company's license cancelled by the Government, because, through the fault of the Government, the Company is not now carrying out its functions. This we must say is very liberal, and we must confess we cannot understand any settler in his sober senses advocating the forfeiture of his fellow-settlers' property to the extent of £I3OO merely to give vent to his own personal spleen, and for his own aggrandisement. From his previously expressed opinions the only local body he anticipates getting control of the jetty would be the Town Board, of which he is the executive officer, and we do not suppose he contemplates running the double concern at the present salary, and the increased emolument would be sufficient grounds for the forfeiture proposed. He then takes us to task for speaking our mind on the manner in which the Government has treated us, but whilst thanking him for his fatherly advice we thiuk we are quite as competent to judge what line to pursue as ho is to instruct us. He now admits that" the wharf is of paramount importance to the place, but he seems to forget that he fought the proposal tooth and nail, and did his best to prevent ifc ever being made a reality, and we must candidly admit that his opposition made the accomplishment of the object ten times harder for the promoters than it would otherwise have been. Now, when a second attempt is to be made he steps in again with a cross s/jent to baulk the project, if he can. There was originally a sum of £2600 spent on the jetty, and' it was admittedly worth every penny it cost. Part of it—the mo3t expensive part, too—is still standing. There are £I3OO of shareholders' money in it, and it is estimated that £IOOO will re-erect it and put a T on ifc in addition, which would make the total cost £2300, when it would be of more value than before, so that we estimate every pound of shareholders' money in it is still worth 20s, and we are much mistaken if the shareholders are fools enough to throw this away for the sake of subscribing the capital required to re-iu-state it. We are also satisfied that the great majority of them would rather find the money themselves than descend to the kind of grovelling suggested by Mr Moore. Every man may have his price, but we feel sure none of the shareholders have fixed such a low reserve on themselves as the few pouuds each it will take to maintain their independence.