Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 958, 6 July 1881, Page 2

A public meeting was held in the Masonic Hall, on Saturday night last, to consider the homestead question, in relation to settlement of land inPoverty Bay. There was a fair attendance, but, beyond passing a resolution or two, very little, interest, and less knowledge of the subject was shown. The following are the resolutions : — That the Waste Lands Board be requested to reconsider their decision re the Waihau block, as it is essential for the permanent establishment of Homestead Settlements that suitable land be provided. That the Waste Lands Board be requested to grant a suitable site in the Waimata block for purposes of settlement under the homestead system. That representations be made to the Government to urge the Waste Lands Board to concede the wishes of the meeting. The third resolution seems to be something like the fifth wheel of a coach. The Waste Lands Board is “ requested ” in the two former resolutions to do something, and then a kind of rider is added by the last, that “ representations ” be' made to the Board to carry that something into effect. The only really effective suggestion was made by Mr. Tucker, which was, in effect that it was useless to be beating the air by moving resolutions that the Board were hardly likely to entertain ; and that it would be better to strike “ at the root of the evil,” and try to obtain by legislative enactment the control of the Waste Land Board in our own hands. Consequently the following resolution was agreed to:-— That the jurisdiction of the Auckland Waste Lands Board is prejudicial to the interests of this district, and that a memorial be prepared and forwarded to the General Assembly now in session, praying that a local Land Board be appointed for Cook County.

A most remarkable occurrence took place in the Cook County Council at its last sitting, owing to the receipt of the following letter from Mr. A. Y. Ross : — Gisborne, July Ist, 1881. Sir,—l charge your Council with wrongfully paying away over eight hundred pounds of public money in paying for the GisborneOrmond Road contract. At the time your Council passed the work it would take from £BOO to £9OO to finish according to plan and specifications. According to specification, allowing for interspaces, it would take 34| cubic yards of metal to a chain, or 31, making allowance for interspaces. By plan measurement it would be a few yards less. But, as the specifications are always taken as correct, there has only half the metal been put on the road, viz., a shade over 17 cubic yards, instead of 34J. It would also take £llO to have finished the drains and formation to plan and specifications.—l have the honor to be, &c., A. Y. Ross. As the Council decided to invite the attendance of Mr Ross at its next meeting, we hope such an investigation will take place so as to saddle the right horse with the weight of the accusation itself. The charge is a most serious one, and cannot be allowed to rest where it is. We have been at some trouble to satisfy ourselves as to the grounds Mr. Ross has for making the statements contained in his letter ; but, in justice to all concerned we refrain from giving publicity to the explanations we have been vouchsafed. But there is one feature in connection with Mr Ross’ conduct that does not. commend itself to public satisfaction, and that is the fact that during the time the alleged departure from the plan and specification took place, Mr Ross was paid by the Council expressly to avoid or correct mistakes or alterations in them. He was employed for six months at 10s a day, receiving in all some £Bl, and did not leave his duty until the road was officially taken over by the Council, under warrant of the Engineer, on the 16th of April 'last. Whether Mr Ross brought Mr Winter’s attention to the loss being sustained by the Council, we cannot say, although we believe he states that he did so. But even so, why did Mr Ross “ nurse his wrath to keep it warm ” for two months, and then accompanying his accusation to the Council with an otherwise coarsely expressed determination to unseat the Engineer at all hazards ? If Mr Ross knew—as he must have known, if his statement be true —that Mr Winter’s .acceptance of the road, from the contractor, was virtually a fraud on the county chest, why did he not immediately communicate with the Council ? Had he, at that time, been so punctilious a guardian of the ratepayers’ money as he wished to make out — and which he ought to have been —he would not have resigned his charge without leaving behind him so tangible a proof of his fidelity to trust. The lapse of so long a time as two months in making the charge, will detract a good deal from Mr Ross’ purity of motive, even if the grounds for making it are proved to be correct.