CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1075, 18 May 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

\_We do not, hold ourselves responsible for opinions expressed bp our correspondents.] TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Permit me to say a few words re toll gales. I quite agree with Mr. Gannon that they are a relic of the past, and further, a great imposition, on persons who happen to live in the vicinity of a toll gate. There ie a great deal to be said on this question, and many arguments may be used against the imposition of such a tax, but I have not sufficient time at my disposal to-night to go fully into the matter. Suffice it to say that it is only 4 years since that I and others holding similar opinions to those expressed by Mr. Gannon, succeeded in getting the toll gates in Hawke's Bay abolished. The tax is a must iniquitous one, and I trust the ratepayers of this district will set their faces against it.— I am, &c., W. K. McLean.

Sir, —I understand that ut the last meeting of the Cook County Council, that body unanimously resolved to give such support as lay in its power to having the Bill drafted by the East. Coast Association for dealing with Native land* in this district passed into law. Without wishing to appear at all factious in the matter I would really like to know if the Councillors of the County or the Borough have yet seen the Bill that the former so unhesitatingly volunteer to support? Or have the public who are to be so vitally effected by the proposed law been made at all aware of the provisions of the Bi 1 drafted by the East Coast. Association ? We all know perfectly well that they have nut. Therefore, before any joint action is taken in the matter the public and their representatives have a right to demand that they be informed of the nature of the Bill drafted before tiie names cf the local bodies are used in support of it, We are also made aware through the medium of the local prints that Mr W. K. Chambers is to represent the East Coast Association in Wellington during the sitting of Parliament. Very good, and who, Sir, does the East Coast Association represent? Simply themselves, a few, a chosen few ! ! ! The Association entered upon a great work with intentions of the most exalted character, and it will be a sad mistake if it’s efforts are not crowned with success. But surely if the Association represents the views of the people of the district, and desires that those views shall have legal force given to them, is it. not imperative that all hole and corner proceedings should be studiously guarded against ? Last year, y ur readers will recollect, there was much agitation going on in regard to the question of sub-dividing lands, and at a public meeting held ai Makaraka, a Committee consisting of Mr Brassey, solicitor, Major Westrap, Mr Gannon, Mr Andrew Graham, and one or two other gentlemen, was appointed. Shortly afterwards a draft of a Bill prepared by the Committee to facilitate the partition of lands in Poverty Bay was published in the local papers, thereby affording the public generally an opportunity of judging of the merits or demerits of the measure contemplated. A similar proceeding on the pari, of the Association seems very desirable. I feel assured that by doing so the Association would strengthen rather than weaken their hands. Parliament will meet to-morruw, and w atever is to be done should be dune promptly.— 1 am, &c. Q.E.i).