TO THE EDITOR.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 508, 14 April 1880, Page 3

TO THE EDITOR.

[Correspondents are invited to discuss matters of public interest, with fairness and brevity ; the Mail being an impartial medium of dis-, cussion and advocacy for. all affairs relating to the County of Patea.] THE RAILWAY QUESTION. Sir, —Inj'our last issue, a writer signing himself “ A sincere well-wisher of the town of Carlyle,” professes to give you such information as will enable you to arrive at a true estimate of the position of the Railway question. He asserts tha fc he is actuated by the purest of motives —a desire for fair-play. I gather from the tenor of his letter, that his idea of fairplay is this. There are “ about a dozen” of people immediately interested in the site on either side of the river, and if the Government do not accommodate himself and the eleven others interested on the other side, by giving them a Railway on their private land, that will be a clear case of unfair-play ; and that the finger of soorn will be forever pointed at those who advocate the placing of the Station on the public land on the town side. This is about the gist of his logic ; and although it may be very effective when dealing with a client who is not a free agent, the thin veneer becomes apparent when such logic is displayed in the columns of a public newspaper. The writer professes to be animated with a desire to benefit the public. If he were honest in that desire, why did he not impart, for the information of the public, the information he has now given? He now says “ the engineers have been for some months employed in testing both sides of the river, and have decided to cross to the Whenuakura side." Is that true ? If so, why was not the first public meeting informed of it ? If this writer, one of the twelve (twelve apostles), has been trying to make a cats-paw of tiie public, he willfind that the finger of scorn will bo pointed in a direction different from that he has indicated. Can this writer honestly say that the testing on the town side has been one tithe of the testing so persistently persued on the other side? This sincere well-wisher” says there were about fifty people at the second public meeting, “so he has been informed.” Why did not the twelve apostles attend and swell the number to sixty-two ? They might have had the meeting postponed, until the other seven arrived from Wellington. Sir, I say that there were a hundred, if not more, people present at that meeting ; that it was to all intents and purposes a representative one; that it had been convened because the Government bad stated that the question of site had not been determined upon ; and that the responsible Minister was coming here to investigate and determine the matter. The meeting took such a course as they deemed fit in the interest of the public, to have the matter put clearly before the Minister. Well, “ all this was very sad.” It did not accord with the “sincere well-wisher’s ” preconceived ideas of fair-play. Then he says “ a meeting of gentlemen who, apart from any private interest, believe that the Whenuakura side will prove the best site for the town and district at large,” was held, and that Messrs. Cowern, Adams, and Tennent were appointed a deputation to wait upon Mr. Olliver. Now, when did this meeting take place ? where ? and who were present? Why have the minutes not been published ? If these gentlemen were actuated solely for the public good, regardless of private interest, whence all this secrecy ? No one will deny thet these gentlemen had a perfect right to meet and to appoint their deputation, if they could not carry their point at a public meeting ; but whilst conceeding this, I deny the right of “ a well-wisher ” to misrepresent the status of the public meeting, and by such means endeavour to direct the “finger of scorn ”to those who attended it. The writer says, “ the deputation wore appointed for the express purpose of urging on the Minister the proposed site below Milroy’s Wharf.” This is of a piece with the other allegations. The deputation wore appointed by a resolution, and neither tde meeting nor the deputation knew anything about the proposed site below Milroy’s wharf. The sincere well-wisher says that both sides of the river are “ therefore undoubtedly private properly.” Farther on he admits that the laud on the town side belongs to the Harbor Board, and infers that it is comparatively valueless ; and still further on he endeavours to direct the linger of scorn at the Harbor Board for giving away a “ valuable endowment” which he then contends, “in the interest of the public, they have no right to do,” Now, sir, the Government have the right to take tho land free of compensation ; and it is onl}' intended to take one chain wide. From the boundary of the line to (he breastwork will be about two and a half chains, by about one thousand feet river frontage ; and I say that will bo, in a very few years, one of the moat valuable estates in the county, and one of the best securities we shall have for carrying out the harbor works. That being so, I think “ the interest of the town and district at large” will be best consulted by looking after the interests of tho harbor endowments. Should the lino go on the other side, this reserve will be rendered valueless ; and this may also be said with reference to another large reserve on the other side of the river, for if the line passes through it, only a narrow and inaccessible strip will be left on each side of the line, of no use to the board or to anyone else. •

In conclusion, sir, I would- advise a “sincere well-wisher” to state facts in his future communications, otherwise his professions of public spiritedness and sincerity may be doubted. And I would ask bear in mind that the first-public meeting, was principally got up by those interested in the other side—at least they were the prime movers in the matter; and if the public have not acted in strict accordance with his sincere well-wishes, he must endeavour to restrain his spleen within bounds, and not be so ready to point the finger of scorn, as that is not the way to secure FAIR PLAY. : P.S.—Perhaps the writer might add more force to his arguments if he signed his name ; in which case I shall be happy to meet him on the same terms.