LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 8, Issue 378, 11 February 1864, Page 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

„ Wanganui, January 29, 18G4. Sir, It appeal’s that the friendly natives iu the north are helping themselves to horses or any other property belonging to the rebels, that .they can manage to cany off and sell to the white people. We have evidence to shew that the natives here are endeavouring to make .the most of tilings. They have been persuading Dr. Featherstone that they own blocks of land in the Ngatiruanui country. And a short time hade, a native here wished to Lave it registered that Tataraimaka belonged to him.. The Government appears to encourage those schemers by not using any effectual means to put a stop to their proceedings. If his Honor the Superintendent and those who go along with him continue, as 1 think they have done, to take sides with the natives to our injury, then we must determine to return only men of staunch principle at the next election, who will not prefer favouring the Maoris. The future consequence of believing these Maori lies will be, that after all our expence and loss of life the rebel natives will be able to hold a' great portion of their hind under the cloak of its belonging to friendly Maoris. If the friendly natives succeed iu getting their claims allowed to the lands of rebels,, we. shall then find the intention to make the said land pay the expenees of the war evaded ; and at the end of the war, instead of being able to pay its expenees, we shall have a large defence force without sufficient land to locate them upon, which will throw a very serious additional responsibility upon hs. And on account of friendly natives being allowed to claim the lands of rebels, an enormous debt, which we shall never be able to pay. Whereas, if the rebels’ lands were justly appropriated to the purpose intended by the General Assembly, there would be sufficient to pay all expenees. And the selling to white peoplefof horses and other things tuken by friendly natives from the rebels ought to be carefully looted into, to see whether the money they get for these is not returned to the rebels. The sellers may be merely agents. 1 remain &c. , John Jackson.

Wanganui, January*3o, ISGI. Sir, —-The writer of one of your leading artijcles of the 21st inst., in reviewing the case of the Chairman of the Hoard of Wardens versus Small, nctdles&ly took occasion. t<> open up the

whole of the touchy subject of the new line of road contemplated, by the -first Tunuhacre Board of Wardens versus the River bank reserve at present used ns a road, making statements which conceal the truth. 1 have neither time nor desire to follow- the reviewer here ru>.l there through the whole of the reckless article bearing on this subject. I will not attempt to exonerate the second Board of Wardens of the charge brought against them, a’though it astonishes me. X will not without necessity refute the flippant reason flippantly" given by the reviewer for closing the road sought to be reopened, a 3 by doing so your paper might get the character of a family chronicle, and not'that of an impartial public journal. Will you perm it "me to give you a short rough history of the -intended River bank road, the prevention of which bung established has perpetuated- an irreparable injury on the River-bank settlers ? Allow me to premise that I was a member of the first Tunuhaere Board of Wardens, and the only warden .on the Board from the River bank, and consequently accountable to the rate-payers for the work done in the district. At the first meeting of rate-payers held after the Board’s election a shilling rate was proposed aud carried with four exceptions. Before the rate was proposed, severed gentlemen fully explained to the meeting the situation of the intended road ; in fact, this was well known to every rate-payer beforehand. Previous to this meeting I hail gone over the contemplated newline of road and calculated the expeace nec mary to make it tluvmghout from the suburbanblock to Major Trafford’s property opposite Kaiwhike. Mr. Beetham, surveyor and engineer, was employed by the Board to do so also. ■ •We made our calculations, each without reference to the other, when, on comparing • notes, my estimate was £2O or so over Mr. Beetham’ -. The discrepancy principally occurred in the contemplated side cutting of 14 ft. wide by Kirara. My estimate for that portion of the work was £7 10s. per {chain,- Mr. BeethamV. £4 i(/s. My estimate being the highest, the .shilling rate was proposed in accordance with it so as to leave a margin for any unforeseen

occurrence. And if this shilling rate had been collected and expended in the establishment of the contemplated new line of road for which it was voted, it would have ended our expenditure on roads for twenty years and upward-, where-as-the adoption of the river bank reserve as a line of road is, and will continue to he, mVwitbstanding any ex pence that can be gmu- if, dangerous to life and property, and has entailed an all but ruinous expenco for making amt repairs on the rate-payers. Arid [ doubt very much whether the New Zealand •i-mnnv’ surveyors would accept as a compliment to their- “ common sense,” that they in tended, the reserve on the river bank to he-used as the line of road—thereby to oblige - future settlers Wit*', their loaded teams &c. to stupidly follow the solemn sportive right angle and' as some places more acute turnings and round about wheeling} of the Wanganui—because they laid offhoother, your reviewer strangely forgetting that thosevery men, iu surveying the district, gave infrom five to ten per cent surplus to each section to enable them thereafter, or when they havgtnore leisure, to lay off the roads wanted. In the meantime, the British Government got possession of the country. I don't pretend to say that that arrangement of the New Zealand (Jo; or their surueyors, (I don’t know- which ), stands good at the present day, part 'c.daily where people have built houses, fenced off paddocks, aud made other improvements. Bethis as it may, when-we contemplated the new line of road, there were only two or three applicants for compensation, and only one who persisted in the application. The settlers as body repudiated the idea of com;sensation either for land or fencing ; indeed, so much was this the ease, that a gentleman-not himself entitled: to compensation, bub who loudly’, amlperseveringly advocated it, got himself considerably snubbed for his gratuitous interference. Such is a specimen- of the feeling that existed at the time with regard to compensation, the ratepayers eonsidring the road'of far surpassin g value to them. And further, the;/ were willing t;» pay the individual who did claim compensation* whatever a Board of arbitration might, award ;■ consequently the Board appointed an arbitrator, so did the person claiming compensation, and at this stage of the proceedings occurred the hitch that prevented the Board getting the new line of road established as desired by The great majority of the river bank settlers. ‘ The Road Act was imperative as to the appointment- of arbitrators, but it omitted to mention time-or-place for them to meet* The arbitrator on-be-half of the Board attended at the Rutland' Hotel ; the arbitrator on behalf of the person, claiming compensation did not attend, and there was no clause in t-he then existing Boadi Act to compel his attendance. Consequent onthis technical, and I may add, factious evasion: to prove the claimant’s title to compensation, there commenced a useless ending in angrycorrespondence. The Board and the rate-pay-ers too bernim disgusted, and it ryas said: Let us have the river bank as we can’t have any other, and be rtone with this futile contention. Even after this, a few rate-payers held to the forlorn hope that the new road would still succeed, but it-was ultimately given up altogether. And mind, Sir, the river bank reeel v* was adopted as a road in oppositi n to the great majority of the rate-payers and because of-the abortiv mens of the Road Act and not because the river bank settlers insisted on compensation. The first meeting of rate-payers was called on fourteen days’ notice at the urgent remmst of a number of the rate-payers, with the view to get on with the proposed work, although in accordance with the acta month’s notie? ought to have been given. Those who opposed the rale took advantage of this want of legfity in calling the "meeting to oppose its collection, consequently it could nut be enforced. Notwithstanding this, the majority of rate-payers voluntarily offered to pay the tax ; the Board would not take advantage of the offer, as it could not compel those bo pay who objected. At a subsequent meeting called by the Board a tax of Gd. pur acre was voted by the ratepayers in the most offhanded and gentlemanly raauner, to enable the Board to pay’off the expence it had gone to in procuring ulans and specifications &o. of the intended works. I think I recollect that an individi al at this meeting wes noisy to repudiate the Board's d 'bt, but he could not get a single backer ; happily such pei so is are alway; singular 021 such occasions amongst English in ;n. General!’.'

speaking, this is ( so far as I recollect after the lapse of nearly eight years ) the account of dm memorable endeavour on the part of the first Board of Wardens to establish a mew line of road on the river bank. I am &c. . . -Ex-Warden.. [ The principal difference between our correspondent and ourselves seems to be, that he goes into details which neither our space nor our inclination allowed. As from his own account he can sav, “quorum pars mag-no, ftu, ” we meanwhile accept his account of this interesting and important episode in our local history ascorrect,. Both of us allow that there was opposition to a propos il to make a road by a newline ; we attributed the failure of the proposal to that opposition ; our correspondent ascribes it to the insufficiency of the Boad -Act; v might go a step further back and say that it was owing to the inefficiency of our legislators ; and Ex-warden might cherish the idea jiv-t one moire it, (his mode "tv would immediately dismiss it ), that the real cause was the stupi iity of the electors in not sending clear-tiea-i- d men Ike himself to the Council. It appear; that tin blame, if any, Iks with a more recent Board than that of which our correspond n i was member, and arises from their not havm;'legalised what the settlers had done in imit;in ; a road. This fact was mentioned by the deie.-i----dant in court, and was riot disputed ;..e other side].