HARBOR MATTERS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 152, 18 June 1908, Page 2

HARBOR MATTERS.

Mr. E. Maxwell writes to the U-i----wera ytur:—l see in various papers that Mr Marx ia reported when waiting upon tlie Jlun. the Minister for Marine re the Harbor Bill to have stated that "the ratepayers of South Taranaki would not consent to foot the bill for the interest payable," and also to have said "that he way convinced that people were unain,'|i mously of the opinion that they should' not be included in the proposed rating area." Jf Mr. Marx is reported correctly he has been guilty, to say the least, of most misleading statements. He speaks of the ratepayers in South Xaranaki, and the facts are exactly the opposite of what he states. The ratepayers are not asked to foot the bill for interest. Under the Hill the Board will to compelled to find the interest and the liability of the ratepayers in youth Taranaki wilt lie reduced lroiu %d to ftd. Sow, as to the second part. So far as \ve iiave an indication by meetings held, as to the ratepayers' opinion, they are not only not unanimously oppose! but, if anything, the other way. Mr McLean and myself held meetings in Ma. eh m the district referred to. Many 0 f tho meetings were well attended, some were not. And, if I remember rightly, live out of seven were by substantial majorities m favor of the Bill. At one of the others, Mangatoki, the voting was seveneiglit, one of a inujoritv against. At Kaponga there were thirty-nine in' favor and one against. At Mr. Marx's meetings, not nearly so well attended as the others, the voting it is true, by nuuib.-r of meetings was against the Bill. But at JMtham, the chief centre, both Mr. McLean's and Mr. Marx's meetings were in favor of the Bill. At Kaponga, whilst there were forty at my meeting, thirty, nine in favor, there were only twenty at Mr. Marx's, and the voting was 7 to 5. in the face of the fact that takum- ah meetings together there was a clear and substantial majority in favor of the Bill, whilst taking Mr. Marx's iiioetin-s alone they were poorly attended and were not unanimous no r nearly so, iiwmist the Bill, u is unfortunate that Mr. Marx, if correctly reported, should have 'made statements so clearly contrary 1,, fact, and instead of doiii" his ease any g ot ,d j s certainly doing the opposite, lls n R , ijinisti..,- on ]j Clll „ in . formed of the correct position wilf undoubtedly resent oeing misled.