CORRESPONDENCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1238, 24 November 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

; ■"-./ '; ; ; To THE EDITOR, " . Sin,—The promoters of County nmalgamation, though iwith a very bad grace, have practically admitted that thdcounty electors should be. treated.somewhat differently to rabbits, by convening meetings for the purpose of consulting them ar to the advisability of amalgamation; and as those meetings will .shortly., take, place, I shall be glad if yon will give me space for a few remarks on the recent meeting at Carterton, There are only two speeches that may be taken, perhaps, as characteristic of " amalgamators"—that of the Chairman (MrD. McGregor) and Mr Coleman Phillips,—and it is a ourious coincidence that both these gentlemen made a great exhibition of the iron hand. The Chairman was particularly emphatic in declaring that it was only by! courtesy that ho would permit any discussionastotbe' advisability of amalgamation,' the meeting being called merely to give effect to the decision of theolectors' representatives. Mr Phillips ably seconded the Chairman by his emleavor.to burke the discussion of the! main question, It is just a matter of calculation to answer the problem :-If the.elec? tors are treated thin by their embryo rulers', -contemptuously iguored—how will they bo treated when these rulers aro in power.?' Blotted out altogether, I imagine I Something after this style probably: Proposed by Or McGregor-"The County,is the people's!" Seconded by Cr Phillips, and carried «em con. Proposed by Cr Phillips, seconded by Cr McGregor, and earned unanimously—" We are the people I" Now, Sir, I think it very bad taste on tho part of the Chairman to endeavor to intimidate the Carterton meeting in the way he did with respect to their carrying a vote antagonistic to amalgamation. Mr Phillips seoondedhim there, toe. The Chairman is reported, further on, to have said that if a section of the community said it was impossible to carry the amalgamation, he dissented from that, the plain inference of .which statement is that it would take quite the wholo community to equal' tho weight of tho Chairman. The arguments used by Mr McGregor in support of amalgamation very properly occupy ,but a small space in his speech, as their value (if any) tends in favor of the opposition. Ho stated that there was a conflictijm of interests through so many local bodies doing the same work, but as thero are only two County ■ Councils, his argument must havo been levelled at Road Boards; yet he proceeds to say that Road Boards are to do tho practical work. His argument there infers that Counties don't do any practical work, hence they might be abolished without loss. He also stated that County East had no roads, and County Wf st only one, I suppose that was intended to clinch the preceding argument I It, however, was calculated to mislead people materially, as Mr McGregor is perfectly aware that County East has done a large amount of work to both roads and bridges, and so has the West County. One fact, although alluded to, was not allowed any weight by the Chairman, and yet it will probably deter some of the West County electors from signing a petition for amalgamation, oven though it may not sufficiently explain the desire of East County electors to amalgamate, That fact is the £SOOO loan of County East, which must be distributed over County West if the matrimonial performance is carried out. And then follows the in3vitablo rate for interest and sinking fund, which at present is not provided for, probably, as Mr H. Bunny might suggest, through want of funds,

Mr Phillips evidently possesses a doitblo portion of ths spirit of egotism at one timo exhibited by a former County representative from tho Lower Valley. He certainly, however, must be a direct descendant of guileless Nathaniel, as he ingeniously held up the most objectionable points of his policy (!)to the public gaze. It is quite time Mr Phillips learned that there is a spirit of democracy oxisting, and that it has tho good sense to object to any whole souled individual's arbitrary dictum. The attempt to bring Mr Phillips' petition with his Ridings and hia boundaries and his representatives was even laughed at by the people he so bunglingly attempted to conciliate. No wonder-as he naively admitted-he quarrels with his neighbors about his drainage, and his fencing, aud his dogs. Mr Phillips had two main arguments-first, that he would make Carterton tho County town; second, that he would make tho Southern stronger that tho Northern representation, Mr Phillips appealed ad mwricordhm. to tho phantom of local jealousy he conjured up. but the appeal was in vain. Unfortunately the meeting had the good sense Mr Phillips lacked, although he drew so dreadful a piotura of the removal of the County offices to Waihenjra and Masterton. With reference to hi 3 slander upon Masterton in connection with the late Horticultural Show at Carterton, the absence of truth in this statement takes out any sting from his utterances, but it was ungrateful after Masterton had listened to one of Mr Phillips' loctures. Mr Phillips did bring forward two arguments in favor of amalgamation, though-first, that we want local instead of central legislation, and should be able to legislate on rabbits, fencing, and sheep earmarks, but .possibly he was joking or wished to argue .that hia general quarrelsomeness required special legislative powers. He certainly could not mean that .uniting the Counties would give legislative powers! The idea that one Couuty would have greater power with the Government than two is contrary to fact. Let Mr Phillips drop-hia pocket County and consider this new version of an old proverb-" In the multitude of "Councillors" there is wisdom." His other argument was that the Wairarapa was split into two parts, one having the area and the other the population, and ho grieved deeply at tho loss of the provincial system of government. Surely Mr Phillips must have been advocating a North and Sonth County and forgotten altogether his united County, Hia lament for provincialism sounds queer after his attack upon central Sjvernment When we had provincial we id not have dual government but triple, and we don't want to amalgamate Counties until we get back to the provincial boundaries, and revive that very expensive system from the dead,

Mr Bunny seemed to think that petty, paltry local views would not exist in a large County, and he remarked upon County East having no funds, and'discharging hands. The first is an assertion, and assertion is not proof; uniting the Counties will not unite local views, although it may give some an undue advantage, and it is morally certain that if County East wa3 lately in a bad way uniting it with the West County—which was not any better off for general revenuewould not have made the eastern portion one penny richer. They might, perhaps, have been allowed to help spend the money in works in the western half—not more. I hope the majority of electors will sign a couuter petition if this unwise attempt at amalgamation is persisted in. I must explain to Mr Phillips that I havo not confined my remarks to his speech as reported in the Daily, although there is no difference in the sense of his apoech in either paper, so he need not raise a third desperate appeal to Mr W, H. Bcetham to save him. I am, &0., A Cotott Elector.

, f .'HIGHWAY BOARD JUSTICE. /■'.;,; ■■:■'■ —' .:.'-•'-.J ;•■ TO THE EDITOR, M,- 1 regret Mr Moore, in his letter .which appeared in your issue of the 15th msfc, did not state more clearly the facts of the grievance of No. 4 Ward; for his letter has'failed to receive that notice which the subject deserves, There are three points I consider deserve* notice in this matter. 1. The petition presented by No. I Ward to the Ituterton- . Highway Board. 2. The defence of No. 5 Ward, with the claims of settlers upon'their rates. 8. The manner in which our petition has'becn dealt with, I shall take these matters separately. : .i.The petition-was not the outcry of a few discontented settlers, neither was it "the wailjof ono living in the wilderness" j but it;,wauhe uhited; action of the whole. Ward.;. As a proof of. this, it bears -tho TtW e ? er yi< B6ttler resi< % iin the Vt ard. _ Our gnevance waa great, our jcompUintß were just,) and our demands ,mnnuniUa. We had; within the but

four years, been deprived' of one-fourth ot ourrevenue, and this had been soized from us m an irregular manner. ■ In 1878 the; Board granted the rates for that yearfrom Mr Buchanan's property in No. 4 Ward to his properties in No. 5 Ward. These rates havo been paid "in a singular manner", ever since to the credit of No. 5 Ward, without first having been placed to theoredit of No. 4 Ward and then granted annually to/No, 6 Ward by the Board. We showed it had been decided by the Board in years past" that all rates raised in a'Ward should,' be expended in that Ward/rand that separate accounts should be kept for each Ward. This oiistom had been matured by years, and had'become an understood rule, Upon these grounds wo complained that No. 5 Ward had receive! our rates in an irregular manner, anifor the last four years without the vote or consent of tho Board. Moreover, this singular departure from old established customs had not bean made known to our_Warden, Mr, Ji Yallance. Having placed these facts plainly before the Board, we begged oar rates should be returned to us. The petitioners appeared twico before the Board, and the Wardens decided that tho matter should be 'left to the decision of a committee. ; The defence set up was that Mr Buchanan had a claim upon his rates, and that the boundaries had been drawn in Wellington, and were unsuitable. With regard to Mr -Buchanan's claim upon his ratei, I submit it is as preposterous as if is absurd; for if Mr Buchanan can claim his:rates .every other ratepayer, can do the same, and the Board is at once deprived of its funds and divested of its power. I maintain no settler has a direct claim upon his rates, but every ratepayer has a claim to the extension of the district road to his property, which the Board should make as soon as'they, are in 6 position to do so. To make this matter more clear, I shall instance the oase of a settler who has.a good road to his property, • He tontinues to pay rates the same as befotc, not for his ■ interest, but for the uublic good, and his rates are the property ef the Board, upon which he ceases to havo a claim so long as his road is iu good' order. ,: ,• /■, >' * With regard to the second portion of'the defeuoe, it is very feeble, as the Board.has no power to alter tho boundaries of Wards,' but should such alterations be nocessary a petition lias to be sont to-the'Governor', whoalouo has power to make the required alterations. Much a petition has not been • made, tnorefpre the Wards musf remain as they are. Moreover, if the Board did allow (in the faoe of its own rules and customs), the rates of No. 4 Ward to be placed direct to tho credit of No. B Ward, it would act unconstitutionally, as it would practically be altoring tho boundaries of tho Wards. '"■ •• •

_ With reference to the treatment our potltion received, I oaimot express myself too ■strongly, Tho committee decided that Ho. 5 Ward had received the rates of No. i Ward in an irregular manner, and without' tho consent of the Warden (Mr J; C. V»U lauce). They also decided that No. 6 Ward should refund £204. The first time this report camo before the Board, tho Chair- ■. man, who was in Wellington, telegraphed to tho Board to postpono tho discussion of tbia matter. His wishes wore regarded ; butMr Meredith,-who had a somewhat similar claim upon the Board, expressed himself in favor of tho award, and statod a precedent had beeu established, and thus; got his claim allowed, The Chairman* several times postponed the adoption of this report, which had already the approval of Mr Meredith and tho three Wardens who sigued it. Tho report of the committee was ultimately brought before tho Board last meeting, and was adopted. In tho facoof this Mr Buchauan immediately moved—"That with reforenca to the sum of £204, that tho Board should replace this money to the credit of No. 5 Ward," It is marvellonb how Mr Buchanan who haaa personal and a pecuniary interest in this award, could have tho bolduesa to ask the ■ Board to undo and revoke its formor resolution. It is greatly to be regretted that the ' Board showed such weakness in this matter, and allowed the work of the committee to bo undone, and its own resolution rovokod. I am, otc., J. C, Feroupson, :

MROLAYSON'SLAMP. TO THE EDITOR. Siu, —At i metting of the Borough Oounoil roportod ia your columns of Wedneaday, I notice Councillor Heron.; was not altogether ploased with my lamp ' post. Id oQorraous size (7 inches.squaro) being ruthor an obstruction than an ornament. Sir, this post was ereotod for divers'reasons, (by the kind'permission of His Worship the Mayor,) Firstly, to illuminate and ornament the "Blook" ; secondly, to guide my customers aoross the stream in front of my shop ,m wet weather; thirdly, I had it put up strong uuough to carry lifo lines to onablo the unwary to pull themselves out of the. filthy quagmiro in front of the post which is always there after tho slightest shower, I thiuk. Sir, tho time has hardly arrived for any tradesman, who wishes to improve his business, and at considerable expenso, by erecting a lamp worthy of the town in ■ which we live, to listen to the dictates of such a lihorul-heai'ted, openhanded philanthropist as this Colonial slowooach, I am, itec, JA3. Clayson,

Poatdcript.—l think you would agroa with ma that a lamp was wanted if you had seen the half-dozen little boys fishing for elicklobau in the stroara I montwn about a fortnight ago.