THE MUNICIPALITY QUESTION.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 109, 14 February 1872, Page 3

THE MUNICIPALITY QUESTION.

To the Editor of Till: THAMES GU.UIDI.VN Sin, —Mr M. J. Perston closes a rambling sort of ti, letter in your columns of this day, by expressing the hope that his remarks “ may lead to thoughts on the subject,” and that when he goes round with the “ petition to-morrow people may not say they arc quite ignorant of the question.”

Docs Mr Perston think that those who do not agree with him “ are quite ignorant of the question ?” If so, 1 leave him to his conceit; and as I do not propose to waste your space in following him throughout, I will merely remark that those who have differed from him in this matter, merely upon a question of boundaries, arc quite as capable of thinking upon the subject and forming a deliberate opinion as himself. To the ratepayers of Parawai I think it may be worth while to point out sonic of the fallacies and mistakes contained in Mr Perston’s letter. lie says :—“ Take Parawai—happy people beyond the Ilape Creek —ye say ve need no municipality, and yet try to get one by a side wind by getting the Superintendent to bring the Municipal Police Force Act into force within your district.” Now, what on earth has the Act lie refers to to do with the establishment of a municipality for Parawai? It is clear that Mr Perston knows nothing of the Act, the title of which everyone must admit is a misnomer, for there is no such body as a Municipal Police, Force. The Auckland Municipal Police Act merely provides for the summary punishment of certain classes of offences, of which the police must take cognizance; and in townships and districts where the Act is brought into operation, it gives certain powers to local authorities. But, so long as Parawai lias been a highway district, it has always been under the operation of that Act, and, in saying that, the Parawai people have availed themselves of it to get a municipality “by a side wind.” Mr Perston really cannot mean anything other than to try and throw dust in the eyes of the ratepayers. Mr Perston’s statement that the waterworks arcyieldingan inconieof notlessthan A 1,000 per annum is, I believe, absolutely untrue. I have some means of ascertaining the fact, and I may state that a net income of -C2OO per annum is nearer the mar!;, if all cost of expenditure he taken into account.

f iMr Perston is of opinion that the drainage of Shorthand and Gralianistowu, can only be advantageously undertaken by a Municipality. Here I agree with him, and say, by all means, let these townships have tiicir Municipality ; but at {he same time 1 must admire his simplicity in supposing that the inhabitants of the suburban district of Parawai arc to be led by him into increased taxation in order to pay for township drainage and other like objects. In conclusion, I would ask the ratepayers of Parawai to lie content for (lie present with what they have, and not to be led away by plausible statements by Mr Perston or any other person.— J am. &c.. A Mfmijfk of tiik Parawai Boarf.