THE PROPOSED BOROUGH OF TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1134, 14 August 1883, Page 2

THE PROPOSED BOROUGH OF TEMUKA.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir. —l have to beg leave to reply te your article of tbe 9th on the above question, as I consider yon have hardly pm the matter in its true light, or rather my nt'itndd in connection therewith. I desire, however, to express my satisfaction with the f ir and temperate nature ot your language, and duly appreciate you> kindness in letting mo off mildly this time, a natural impulse to the contrary notwithstanding. It appears that the main charges brought against me are That L am sotting rays'-If up nearly singlehanded in opposition to the whole of the townspeople ; that I am endeavouring to unjustly saddle the proposed B trough with a share of the cod of maintaining the Temuka bridge ; that I have no right to point out that non-ratepayers have largely or mainly signed the petition ;and, generally, that I am going out of my wayin interfering in the matter at all. T<> my mind you have overlooked the fact that the Hoad Board is in duty bound to watch the interests of the ratepayers generally, and therefore to let the thing quietly pass without an endeavour to have the boundaries fairly adjusted would b altogether wrong. As a Road Board mem iter this is the whole extent of im opposition. I certainly pointed out that possibly the petition was irregular, provided that the word householders implied only ratepayers. Ah regards the proposed .boundary, 1 maintain tint the position o the line 1 objected to is most unfair. F<> the pa pose no doubt of getting clear of responsibility to a share of the cost of keeping up the bridge, the line, after Allowing fie river downwaid, is taken along the Wadohi road to near the Volunteer Hull, thence across the corner at the back of the Postoffiee to the main road, then along it nearly to the bridge, when it again I ranches off. The line is taken along the to vn side of the roads, with : .l e idea of throwing the sole charge of iheir maintaiuanca on the Road Board. By tinproposed arrangement the heart of the town is close to the houn hirv at thipoint. You appear to hold that it would he an injusfoo if the dorough were to be hdd responsible for a share of keeping up the Temuka bridge. I must say that I view it somewhat differeu'ly. I ihink it is unfair to expect, that thecountry ratepayers must bear the whole cost of a thing the keep : ng of which is of more importance to the town than to the country generally. I am taken severely to task by you for, as you say, setting myself up against the whole of the lownspoop'e wlnmi it is alleg'd with one or two escepthns all s gne I the petition Wed, all i can sa i i r'p'y to this is that if such ii t'm case Tem ika doss not contain t: e r«qa ite population, vi7 t , 250 residents. The pet I t on msigned hy about 130 persons, several of whom are not even householders. What

about the balance ? Am I not justified in assuming either that the required number do not exist, or that a good tinny of the 120 are opponents As to your contention fuat lions holders and not necessarily ’■•■depayers are meant, I do not wish to lispute that po : nf, although 1 i'd■ ■kit is open to qu si ion. I m<y remark, how, over, the.' it ap-.,ears to me almost entir i ratepayer’s question. A non-ratepayer may safe'y go in for it when it can only iffect his neighbor's, but not his own, ■ ocket. you seem to lay some st r es« on 'he feet that I was only weakly supported ix my action. Mr Qu : nn is at tho same time considerably lauded for the part lie took. I nny say that I frequently find >. myself holding different opinions from others, and I freely admit that in this case 1 may be wrong and Mr Quinn right. At all events I have no doubt he had what appeared good and sufficient reasons for not wi-hing to alter the arrangements. In nny case 1 know he a'ways do“ 8 what L intend trying to do, viz., what appears to bo right, without fearing even to stand alone As to my priva'e opinions about the matter, I do not wish, nei'her do I think it can be shown that I have used m • position, to offer any opposition on other than public grounds. At the same time 1 do dot deny tlrt my feeling is decidedly against the proposal, as I think it will prove a misfortune to the bulk of the people living around the town, composed as they are largely of working men, with gardens a'tached to their cottages—a sort of population that, so far as my observation goesj where boroughs are established always endeavor to settle down outside the boundaries. There are a fevr, chains of main strert that might possibly j derive some benefit, but I am afraid that it will be obtained at the expense of the larger proportion who cannot by any possibility derive any benefit. To those who hold that creating a few billets is good, and thereby as they say keeping the money in the place, it no doubt also recumnds itself, but I hardly funk this feeling is shared in to anv large extent. Temuka at present is essentially a rural village, and if ever it is to become a trading centre of any consequence it must achieve this result by first becoming a manufacturing one. I regret very much that my opinions on thin matter lead me to d'ffer from yourself, ais w 11 'S a great many of the townspeople from whom I have receive I many assurances of trust and c mti fence, but I feel that if I were to hide my convictions from fear of bringing down on myself the consequences ol your displeasure or the withdrawal by th in of fiiMirn support and confidence, I should fht r 1 y ce f e to be of any use in a public otp city.—l a.a. etc,, Joh.v Talbot, , Tetnuka, August 13 h, 1833.

[Circumstances ba'e prevent?d ns from making a fe*w remuks on Mr Talbot's let’er We shall do so in our next.—Th« Editor.]