PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1881. TOWN HALL COMPANY.

Patea Mail, 13 January 1881, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1881. TOWN HALL COMPANY.

A letter in another column gives a different version of the proceedings at the shareholders’ meeting held in Patea. The facts stated in our report were supplied by the company’s manager, on application. Having no reporter present, we are unable to vouch for one version or the other. We understand that a reporter would have been admitted. The official information supplied to us was that the resolution to wind up was adopted without discussion ; and on our expressing surprise at that, it was explained in this way: “ What was the use of discussing the thing, when the mover had proxies in his hand that would swamp the lot.” Such was the explanation of a shareholder, and one who is supposed to have “ expressed the opinion that it was desirable to wind up.” The policy of winding up is a matter of opinion. Our opinion was and is that a section of land given to a public company as a public company ought not, as a matter of policy, to be acquired by an individual for any purpose whatever. Having been so acquired, we hope it will be used so as to bring credit to the holder and advantage to the public. From Mr Christie’s assurances on the subject, we believe it is intended to be so used, A duty rests on the Mail to be vigilant in the public interest. In this case we have protested against the private acquisition of a plot of land given by Government for a specific public purpose. Would that land have been given to an individual in the first instance to build a public hall ? We think that no Government which did such a thing could survive the exposure. There must be a public principle governing the use of public lands, and that principle cannot be extinguished by extinguishing a Town Hall Company. The alienation of this public land is not justified by pleading that the law officers of the Crown forgot to provide against alienation. In their simplicity, they did not suppose that such an operation was within the range of probability, yet it has happened in two recent instances in Patea. As to our course in these cases, the public could have no confidence in the integrity of a journal which shirked its public duty to suit individual interests.