OPUNAKE WHARF.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 63, 8 February 1895, Page 2

OPUNAKE WHARF.

(to the editor.) Sir, —My innocent little letter of the '22nd ult. has, I observe, received marked attention from you. As I am misunderstood (I was about to write grossly), I trust you will allow me space lor a reply. I did not anticipate that such a storm in the teapot would or could arise. It is the present and future which concerns us, not the past, and why you went out of the way to refer to it in your biassed way, I cannot conceive, unless for the purpose of endeavouring to bias the opinion of settlers as to the future and to attack m« personally. As for the past, I am not ashamed of one word said, or one deed done, in connection with the subject.- I endeavoured to get a better scheme and a stronger company floated, foreseeing that disaster was more likely to attend a weak company. I never opposed the erection of a wharf, and I never opposed the Opunake Wharf Company. I took shares in the Company, and endeavoured to get property-owners in the district to do so, without a commission being offered, or without expecting any. Disaster has come upou the Company with all its allotted shares paid up. I would like to know what the term “ beautifully indefinite ” concerning my letter ; s intended to convey? I merely suggested that as the Government (per Minister of Lands) had stated to the Wharf Company (in reply to an application for assistance towards the repairs of the Opunake jetty) “ That no contribution can be given until a local body takes control of the wharf. The question will then .be considered whether Government will grant the loan (sic).” That the first step would be to ascertain what assistance the Government would give if a local body has or takes control of the wharf, and you, sir, not being satisfied to quietly discuss the question, think to gain your ends by personal abuse. I disclaim any desire of self-agrandisement in the matter, and as for your other choice expressions and innuendos I take no heed of, being quite content to leave them where they are. Being untrue, and entirely outside of the matter under discussion, I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that anyone who has the audacity to differ from you, and who proposes anything without consulting you, must be put down and sat upon by fair or questionable means. I shall not at any time be deterred, however, from advocating what appears, according to my lights, for the benefit of the district. On the. 25th April, 1894, a part of the jetty came ashore. How is it the Wharf Company has done nothing towards its reinststement ? It did the opposite, in fact, viz., sold the wreckage. Did you object to that? It has always been understood that the Company had laid the matter before the Government for assistance. You have never written a line against that course until you doem it accessary to

attack me. You state : “We are also satisfied that the great majority of them (the members of the Company) would rather find the money themselves than descend to the kind of grovelling suggested by Mr Moore.” Strange! A course previously pursued by the directors is not grovelling until I suggested the district applying for assistance. Besides I suggested no kind of grovelling, but merely an enquiry of the Government as to “ what assistance would be rendered to* a local body having control of the wharf.” So it is clearly seen that yon distorted my statements. I conclude you hastily, and due consideration of my letter, wrote your article. I think our energies should be devoted to fighting our adversaries. I do not wish the members of our wharf Company to lose a penny of their capital. It was known that a hazardous speculation was to be entered into, and I firmly believe not one member out of fifty ever expected to get interest or capital back. Shares were taken up for the benefit of the district. The hazardous nature of work may now be considered as slight, with proper precaution, it having been fairly proved that a jetty will stand in the bay. I don’t think there are many members who know the terms of the Wharf Company’s license to occupy part of the foreshore, and, to my mind, when the question is under consideration, members should beware of the conditions. The Opunake Wharf Company at present has the first say. If the members and others elect to come forward and find the needful, well and good. As nine mouths of inactivity have already gone by, against which you have not written one word, or made any suggestions as to the future, something must be done. The Wharf Company, I take it, should plainly be given to understand that it will not be allowed to block the road to the progress of the district. When the promoters of the Wharf Company proposed their scheme, they neither heeded or considered the existence of the Lighter Company, which was some years prior floated to carry out similar objects by means of boats. The Wharf Company being floated meant considerable loss to the Lighter Company; yet there was no thought of the capital of its members at stake. Progress was our watchword, and should ever be. You, sir, cannot expect more consideration to the Wharf Company than was given to their predecessors, should occasion arise. If you have a scheme for the benefit of the district, out with it, and let the district hear it. My own opinion is that unless the Wharf Company does something tangible withip a reasonable time the district must step in and endeavour to preserve and extend the remains of the wharf. You have a very poor opinion of settlers, as you state that “every man may have his price.” I difier from jou entirely. When the district goes to the Government for assistance (the Wharf Company only has approached the Government so far), it merely endeavours to get a share of the public funds of the colony, to which the settlers have contributed. There is no understanding as to the purchase of support or anything else, as you suggest.—l am, &c., A. H. Moore. February 4, 1895.