THE MOMAHAKI ROAD.

Patea Mail, 23 December 1880, Page 3

THE MOMAHAKI ROAD.

Sir, —In your issue of the 18th instant yon publish an article from your Waitolara correspondent, and a letter from Mr Fisher, upon which I should like to make a few comments. Your correspondent says ; “ From Momahaki to Waverley is 7 miles ; to Waitotara township from the Momahaki river the distance is only two miles, or to the railway three miles.” Now according to general opinion the distances stand thusly : From the Momahaki bridge lo ■Waverley about six miles ; from same bridge to mouth of Momahaki river 1 milci and from there to the Waitotara bridge I never heard called less than 4 miles, which with the other mile to the railway station gives exactly double the distance ns calculated by the correspondent. Moreover, both correspondents at Waitotara lay great stress upon the poor Momahaki settler having lo go 7 or 8 miles (o 'Waverley for the sake of paying 7 or 8 miles extra railway charges. What a parcel of idiots the Momahakis must he in the opinion of Fisher & Co. if they imagine the Momaliakis are going lo march right past their own Momahaki station, a distance of nearly 3 miles, for the sake of going to Waverley ; but perhaps our friends in Waitotara arc not aware of (here being a Momahaki station placed as near the junction of the Momahaki and main roads as engineering difficulties would allow ; also that the said junction is just about half-way belwccn Waverley and Waitotara ; so that the Momahaki settler once on the main road could go just as quicky to Waitotara as to Waverley, and to the Momahaki station in one fourth of the time he could go to cither. lam sorry our Waitotara friends were not aware of the evistcncc of this station before. It would have sa\ed a great amount of waste of the milk of human kindness, in the shape of pity for the poor Momahaki settler driving his produce “ 8 miles to Waverley in the face of physical difficulties, with an up-hill road all the way.” So much for the distances. How about the other merits of the respective roads? The “ physical difficulties ” mentioned by Mr Fisher, in the road adopted by the lload Board, are one cutting from the Momahaki to the fiat (about as long and perhaps a little steeper than the Waitotara cutting on the main road) ; and that is all. Once on the fiat, the road through the Williamson property to the main road is fit for a carriage drive, just as nature left it ; whereas the road down the valley would go one third of the way through heavy hush which, without metal, would be impassable in winter time, would require heavy cuttings made round throe bluffs on tnc Waitotara river, besides three orfourbridgesacross streams miming into the river.

Besides, granting that the merits of the two roads were equal, why should the Waitotara folks impute to the Road Board any mercenary motives in bringing the road the way it is? What difference would it make to. the members of the Board, well-to-do farmers all of them, whether the trade of the Momahaki block goes to Waitotara or Waverlcy? The Road Board have no tea, sugar, or drapery to sell, nor do they want to buy any butter, cheese, or bacon. It is my firm belief that the Board, in a purely disinterested manner, and to the best of their judgment, made (be road where it would do the greatest good to the greatest number, and according to the means at their disposal : but the funds being all expended for the present, it is useless talking about opening new roads for some time at any rate. Even supposing the Board quite willing to open the road, they can’t do it without money, and that they have not got. And now* lastly, about those same Momahaki settlers whoso interests Mr Fisher is so anxious to represent, how comes it that fully half of them signed a requisition

asking Mr A. Howie to allow himself to be nominated as a candidate for election as member for No. 5 Ward ? It looks as if they thought others besides Mr Fisher could represent the wishes of the MomaJiaki settlors.—l am, &e., Ratepayer No. o Ward. Waverley, 20th. [Note. — Some lengthy passages have been omitted from this letter, for reasons which, on rcJlcction, will be apparent to the writer. Personal attacks must he excluded in any case. — Ed.]