THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2080, 3 September 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1875.

We canr.ot but think the Highway Boards arc unreasonable injiheir demands regarding the management of the water works and the distribution of the revenue therefrom. The interview between the Borough Covncil and a committee of the Highway Boards warrants us in coming to this conclusion. It-is conceded by the Counc'l that the Boards are entitled to a voice in the managemr-nt, the conditions laid down by the Provinci?! Government-. when handing over the "works specifying this. But what voice—what representation at the ■ board r of management shall the' Boards have, seems to bo the question. If this were decided—and we must give the' Borough Council credit, for trying to meei,*the Boards Committee in this matter —M re do not apprehend that tliere would be any difficulty in allocating the surplus revenue from the water supply, to a share of which the Boards are entitled as the water works were constructed, out of goldfields revenue. The basis-of distribution agreed upon is a pro rata* allotment on the rates. In this we think tbe Highway Districts are treated liberally. The principle source pf revenup from*the water-supply is within the Borough,- and it would have been ■strictly just to .have taken the revenue raised in- each Highway District as tae basis of v allotment. The sum likely to accrue to. tlio said districts under the latter arrangement would be considerably, less than- under, the condit.ons agreed to. .However the whole matter appears to have been referred back to the Boards, who are to put their requests or demands in writing. If t'aey do noti'open their moutlis^too' wide, we have no doubt they will get all they can fairly claim, for we think the Borough Council have in this matter acted with a desire to do equal justice to the Borough and the Highway Districts. ,

To most of our readers the letter of Mr J. M. Perrter published in to-day's issue naeds explanation. This letter is only the sequel to an incident which happened about a fortnight" ago. The Auckland Evening Star published a telegram with Mr Perrier's name attached, and further commented upon the message in irvidious terms. Of that proceeding Mr Perrier's letter is an explanation, and if the facts be as stated by Mr Perrier, we have no hesitation in saying that some one in the Auckland Star Office has been guilty of a mean and contemptible action, alike disgraceful to the perpetrator and to journalism ; and we are bound to credit Mr Perrier's statement until it is shown to be incorrect.