ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 401, 19 February 1879, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

[Wb are at all times ready to give expression to every shade of opinion, but in no case do wo hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.] “WAVERLEY” IN REPLY. (To the FAilor' of the Patea Mail.)' tsiu, —I -will not imitate the want of courtesy displayed by your correspondent “ Wairoa,” by imputing any untruth to him, and am quite willing to believe his statement—that the valuation list for the Waverley Town District is signed now ;• but you will be so good as to observe it was after ’my' letter appeared in the Mail that he inspected the valuation list for tiro purpose of seeing whether it was signed by the valuer or not, and found “ Waverley in error.” I repeat what I stated previously, that the valuation list was not signed then, and I can bring proof that it was not so. Perhaps- “ Wairoa” will inform me if there were any alterations or erasures in the list lie inspected. I have not seen it since-1 wrote to you on 10th instant.—l am, &c., WAVERLEY.

TOLL-GATE QUESTION. (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sik, —As private business compels me to be’ absent from the Waverley toll-gate meeting on next Saturday, perhaps 3'ou will allow me to offer a few remarks on- this burning question. As a Patea County settler, and an old Councillor, I was humiliated when I read the letter of the Chairman of the Council, which appeared in your issue of to-day. That the head of our principal local body should pen a document so devoid of sound argument, or any argument at all, so fretful and childish-in its tone, and so full of the tio quoque style of reasoning, is very much to be deplored, inasmuch as it will inevitably bring on us the ridicule of the outside public. But let ns examine Mr McGuire’s statements. He says that he writes by the unanimous request of the Council. I may be wrong, but I certainly understood that four members voted against the measure. Then he states that St. John’s toll-gate is a grievance. In this he is right—a toll is always'a grievance—but I would point out that the one in question was in existence before,the County system came into force, and therefore things are no worse now than they have been for the past two years. Again he says that in consequence of a mere rumour, the Council has determined 10 have “ their turn ” at pikes. Could anything be more absurd. It is like a person making a savage assault on a mosquito, only to find he has missed the insect, and inflicted a slinging box on his own ear ; or, as the old saw has it, cutting off your nose to spite your face. I fail to see that the Patea Council has been forced into the measure by the Wanganui one, as IVO change has been made, or it would seem were contemplated by the latter body. But the most astounding statement of all is, that the Patea Council, while being strongly averse to the erection of tolls, have determined to put one up in the interests of the ratepayers. This may be true with reference to the Patea and Hawera people,- but certainly is not so as regards Waitotara and Waverley'—for the levying of a toll at Waitotara would press only on that place and Waverley', as nearly all of the traffic stops at some point south of WhennaUura River ; and yet the other parts of the Comity will get as much as we who pay the piper, 1 say' wc pay, advisedly, for carters and storekeepers will

charge more in ■ consequence of having to pay toll, than formerly, anti the ratepayer loses the difference. Besides, a toll is the worst possible way of collecting revenue, as I think you will find it takes about onethird of tlie gross receipts for Collection and maintenance. If the Council would deal out even-handed justice in this matter, and are determined to impose a fresh tax on the already over-burdened settler, let them treat both ends of the County alike, by placing a toll north as well as south of Patea. It is simple nonsense to think they will spite Wanganui by this - present measure, for the proportion of Wanganui people who come up here, to those of this County who go down, is very small indeed —probably hot more than one in fifty. In conclusion, Sir, the principle of the thing is bad, and the feelings which have actuated, the Council and dictated the Chairman’s letter are to be regretted, as they are calculated to engender animosity between neighbouring public bodies, which at all times should be avoided, if possible. —I am, &c., JOHN W. KENAH. Waverley, loth February, 1879.