Egmont Election.

Patea Mail, 18 November 1881, Page 3

Egmont Election.

MAJOR ATKINSON AT KAKARAMEA. (FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.) On Wednesday evening the Major addressed electors in the Kakaramea Town Hall. There was a very good attendance; Mr H. Williamson in the chair. The address was in the main a repetition of that already published. While referring to the so-called Bryce desertion there were one or two. interruptions by a son of St Crispin evidently bent on enjoying himself, and who pressed the Major very Lard on the advisability of relieving us of the beer duty. QUESTIONS. G. Pearce : Do yon think that the train will run through toManutahi in 6 months ? Major: Can’t promise that it will, but will do utmost. F. M. Chapman: Some time ago a petition was sent in to Qoverment to open up the south road, would he support it? Major ; The scheme has been abandoned. G. Pearce : Would you be in favor of selling deferred payment lands by ballot ? Major : The ballot system in Otago had been tried and found bad. G. Pearce : Don’t you think that if a qualified person valued the sections and put a fair upset price on them that it would be a good thing ? Major : I am not in favor of it, and will not pledge myself to agree to any .modification.

Mr Hinder Is there any map showing parishes? Had seen the Crown Lands Guide but could not find the parishes.

Major : Was not aware of any such map, but would see into it. G. Pearce : With regard to the present railway fence. What is your opinion on that subject ? Major : If the fence is not sufficient, and I do not think it is, the Government will put up a belter. Mr Coutfs ; Is there any chance of the Property tax being reduced. Major ; It is impossible to saj', but Government desire to reduce it. Mr Coutts : Has it come to your knowledge the difference in the altitude of the sea route and the inland through Whenuakura block ? Major : I have been informed there is little difference. A question was put with regard to provincialism. Major : The respective merits of Road Boards and County Councils were simply matters of liking and disliking for particular districts. Mr West: Is Government likely to resume the purchase of Native lands ? Major thought Government would consider the question. In answer to a question put by Mr G. Pearce on the subject of railway compensation, the Major thought that the valuer should be sent up, as soon as the line was surveyed, to settle all claims. Mr Aitcbison : I should like to know if the Government have any thoughts about opening up the back country ? Major : The Government have opened up great tracts of back country, and survej’s will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. For my own part 1 shall do the utmost to get the country opened up. Mr G. Pearce : How about the Hukutere bridge ? Major : There is no chance of that. A voice : Say boss I What about Hiroki ? What are you going to do with him ? Major ; The law will deal with him. Voice : How about those Maori women that have have been taken ? Major: We’re trying to find their husbands. (Roars of laughter,) Same voice ; O! there’s crowds of single men about here. Mr West thought that the Major had trimmed a little with regard to Roman Catholic endowments, and hoped that Catholic electors would see through the little dodges. Major repudiated the idea, and stated that he had rather be without the votes of those who thought he had done so. Mr Aitchison begged to move a vote of thanks and confidence in Major Atkinson. Seconded by Mr Burke. As an amendment Mr West proposed a vote of thanks only. Seconded by Mr Mehaffy. Amendment lost by a large majority. Resolution of thanks and confidence carried. WOODVILLE. Major Atkinson addressed a large meeting in the school-house on Tuesday, and received a vote of confidence, about 18 voting for it and 2 against. Mr Hutchison and the Major met at Woodville, and some attempt was made at mutual explanation, the one candidate promising to justify what he had said against the other. It is a question of figures chiefly, and more may be expected. [letter to the editor.] MAJOR ATKINSON’S REPLY. Mr Hutchison is as unfortunate in his criticism of my speech as he was in the sweeping and groundless charges he made against me in his address and first series of speeches. These charges I have already proved untrue in every particular. I will now deal with his criticisms. Mr Hutchison says :—“ Major Atkinson is reported to have stated that the Egmont District bad got more than its share of public expenditure, inasmuch as £106,000 had been spent in the district for roads and - bridges as against £46,000 in * the Taranaki district,’ meaning by that, as I assume, the rest of the Provincial district, represented, as the Major indicated, by two members, if not by three including himself. These figures are misleading. By a return printed and laid before both Houses last session, the amount expended in the Provincial district of Taranaki out of loan, from the commencement of the Public Works scheme till the 31st March last, was shown to be £604,006 12s lid—not including lighthouses or contingent defence. If the £106,000 alleged to have been spent in the Egmont district be deducted, there will be a balance against the rest of

the district of nearly £500,000, not to mention the £200,000 now being forestalled by the New Plymouth Harbor Board.” Now, the meaning which will be attached to these words by the generality of readers will certainly be that the total expenditure in the Taranaki provincial district upon roads and bridges was £604,000, out of which Egmont only got £106,000. If this was not the meaning intended to be suggested or conveyed, why was the expenditure on roads and bridges only, in Egmont, compared with the total expenditure in the provincial district of Taranaki ? In order that we may see the absurdity of Mr Hutchison’s mode of stating the case, let us apply his method to the expenditure upon roads and bridges in Taranaki, instead of to the expenditure made in Egmont. The Parliamentary return shows a total of £604,000 spent in the provincial district of Taranaki. If therefore the £46,000 expended outside the Egmont electorate be deducted from this amount, we find there is left £558,000 as a balance chargeable against the rest of the provincial district—that is, against the Egmont electorate. But Mr Hutchison has proved that nearly £500,000 has been spent in the provincial district of Taranaki outside Egmont, and by the application of his own method I have shewn that £558,000 has been spent in Egmont. The total expenditure therefore in the provincial district of Taranaki has been, according to Mr Hutchison’s logic, nearly £1,058,000; but the Parliamentary return shews an expenditure of only £604,000. We must therefore conclude that Mr Hutchison’s figures are misleading and bis comparison worthless. It is to be regretted that when quoting the total of the Parliamentary return Mr Hutchison did not give the items of which it is made up, for then no one could have been misled by the comparison he made between the £604,000 and the £106,000 spent upon roads and bridges in Egmont. The items of the return are— Immigration, £59,662 ; Public Works Department, £6,078 ; Railways, £312,911 ; Roads, £134,908 ; Telegraph extension, £14,948 ; Buildings, £20,385 ; Miscellaneous, £22,183 ; Interest, £7,418 ; Expenses raising loan, £25,511 ; total, £604,004. Of this expenditure Egmont has had its full proportionate share. Now for the alleged fallacy of comparing the expenditure of £106,000 in Egmont with the £46,000 spent in Taranaki. I might ask by the way if the amounts spent in the two districts were not comparable, why did Mr Hutchison compare them against me by implication in his speeches ? But the two amounts are properly comparable, being expenditure for a similar purpose, viz., opening up and settling confiscated land —the whole, or nearly the whole, of this money in each case being spent for that purpose alone. This fact Mr Hutchison should have known, It is . true that the expenditure in Egmont, and in Taranaki too, upon roads and bridges has enabled the Government to sell the land to advantage to settle people upon it, and so far to deal successfully with the native difficulty ; but it was upon these grounds alone—because the expenditure would be advantageous to the colony—that Parliament made the large grants it did. I would ask upon what other grounds could such an expenditure be justified ? With regard to railwaj'S, it is true that up to 1875 no expenditure had been made within the Egmont district. This fact I think I made clear in my address atPatea. I showed that the proposal, had such been made, to expend money for railway purposes within the Egmont electoral district up to that date would have been treated by Parliament as absurd, while at the same time I pointed out that the line was advancing from both ends towards the district at a full average rate. I did not, as Mr Hutchison implies, in any way mislead my hearers when I told them that within the Egmont district up to the present time there had been expended in round numbers £IOO,OOO upon railways, which in proportion to our population would give a total expenditure for the Colony of about £13,000,000, about £10,000,000 only being the actual amount spent to date. It is not therefore true that Egmont has anything to complain of with respect to railway expenditure even wfithin its own borders, to say nothing of the advantages to the district given by the railways at both ends which should certainly be taken into account. With regard to the New Plymouth harbor, when Mr Hutchison has again placed his views upon this subject before the electors, I shall, if necessary, be prepared to deal with them. —I am, &c., H. A. Atkinson.