Who Split the County?

Patea Mail, 17 October 1881, Page 2

Who Split the County?

The Chairman of the County Council told the ratepayers’ meeting at Kakaramea, with reference to his action in causing a division of the County, that what they had read in the newspaper was not trne ; that the petition for a Hawera County was started before the Waimate Road Board question came up; and he challenged any one who had written that in the paper to stand up and prove it. The County Chairman shall have his proof. It could have been given at the meeting; but the proper medium for a journalist to address the public is through his paper. If the County Chairman had observed a discreet silence, we would not have pressed his errors against him. After his defiant challenge at Kakaramea, he shall have the truth pressed home.

It has become the fashion to imitate. Major Atkinson, by making bold assertions, and defying some particular person to come on the platform and disprove them. This was done recently by the Town Board Chairman, who got his proof in due course ; and now the County Chairman is eager to be in the fashion.

Proof No. 1. The petition for a Hawera County was started, as he says, before the Wairaate Road Board question came up; and so far he has the form of accuracy, without its reality. For it is a fact that the petition, after being started, fell through utterly. Months passed; and when the Waimate question came before the Council, and assumed an aggravating and deplorable form, chiefly through the action of the Chairman, it is a fact that the defeated champion of local management did declare that he would pay the Chairman off; it is a fact that the champion went to Hawera and revived the petition for separation ; and it is a fact that separation has followed as a direct result of the Chairman’s action in resisting, by Ipvery trick of technical obstruction, the natural desire of Waimate settlers to have local control of their roads.

Proof No. 2. The tendency of the Chairman’s recent actions in matters affecting the northern part of ■ the district has been the reverse of what should be expected from a sagacious, politic, far-seeing, diplomatic manager of district interests. None of these qualities have been apparent in his County policy.: That question of the Hawera-to-Normanby road was so mismanaged by the Chairman, that be first created a bitter feeling up north against what appeared an unreasonable selfishness in refusing to treat that main north road as a County obligation ; and then, having done the mischief, and having thereby started the first petition for separation, he afterwards had the question carried against him by a majority of the Council, who voted £BOO towards that road. Thus he had not the shrewdness to recognise the necessity of doing something towards that main road between two towns; and he had the usual fate of seeing his own bad policy out-voted.

We have shown that the Chairman started the petition in the first instance by his want of tact re the Hawera-to-Normanby road. That petition was then allowed to sleep, the Chairman’s policy being condoned for a time, in the hope of better things. We have shown that when the Waimate Hoad Board question' came up, the Chairman’s policy towards the North caused that sleeping petition to be revived, and to be carried, to a deplorable issue. These.are thy works, O Chairman !

The Union Company have decided that Opunaki bay is not suitable as a calling place for their steamers. Local efforts are being made to guarantee a certain amount of trade, if the Union Company will send steamers. Whatever facilities the bay affords for landing goods should be utilised. Of course the bay is subject to the usual risks of a roadstead, and the cost of imports by that route is comparatively large, as against Patea.