PALMERSTON’S LOST DEVIATION.

Shannon News, 3 May 1929, Page 2

PALMERSTON’S LOST DEVIATION.

NO ONE WANTS TO PROTEST. GOVERNMENT’S DECISION ACCEPTED. The leaders of public opinion in Palmerston have found the Governments’ case for the stoppage of the railway deviation unanswerable and a small group of objectors are meeting with po encouragement in their efforts to organise a protest. The two papers take opposite views and the general public seem to have accepted the decision a 3 something irrevocable. The Palmerston Chamber a# Commerce, at a special meeting on Wednesday, decided to take no official par: in any public meeting to protest against the stopping of work at the railway deviation, pending the receipt of certain information to be sought from the government. The Times this morning describes the attempt to rally ,the objectors in the following terms: “Like a raven croaking on a withered branch,” our evening contemporary continues to pour its mournful cry into the ears of an unresponsive world. Its plight is really desperate. First there was the secret meeting of, citizens called on Saturday to organise a huge demonstration against the stoppage of the deviation work. But the meeting failed to agree, and nothing was done. Then somebody sent an S.O.S. to the Chamber of Commerce which was called together at a moment’s notice. This action brought new hope to the Standard, which in anticipation of “something being done” became editorially eloquent in its early edition yesterday with the obvious intention in influencing the decision of the meeting. Again, however, its. hopes were dashed, for the council of that important body after a full discussion of the position point blank refused to allow itself to be used by village politicians to stir up party strife. Its resolution says as plainly as possible that nothing will be done until a full investigation is made of the facts and figures by the. president of the Chamber and the member for the district. When will that be? It will be noticed that an attempt is being made to saddle the Mayor with responsibility for failure to launch a political broadside at the United Party. Why the Mayor? Mr Graham is not a politician. Where is our Parliamentary watchdog? Mr Nash, has preserved an eloquent and monumental silence on this matter. Is he or is he not in favour of the stoppage of the deviation work? Surely the public is entitled to know the mind of its Parliamentary representative on this matter. Why has the Standard failed to call Mr Nash to task for his neglect to echo its cry.

The truth of the matter of' course is that opinion is -hopelessly divided on the question. A large and responsible body of business men in the Square do not object to the present site of the railway station even if they do regret the unfortunate waste of money. Another equally large and responsible body favoured the deviation site but sees in the cost an insurmountable obstacle. Surely in this state of division and uncertainty the only wise course is, as we have already advocated, to concentrate on a demand for better facilities at the existing station and a building in keeping with the dignity of this growing city.