Untitled

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1466, 25 August 1883, Page 2

Our Masterton Contemporary, after his usual manner attempts in his last issue to mislead the County ratepayers as to the result of tho meeting at Tinui, and to throw discredit on its convenors." While it is amusing to notice the utter ignorance our contemporary displays of tho past history of the district, it is at tho same time muoh to be regretted thai he is evidently prepared to " stick at nothing" in his efforts to punish the County East Council. As the meeting at Tinui went'against the "suspenders," the effort is now made to set the rest of the district against Tinui. Our contemporary says:—.

What are tho tactios employed, What sort of representations have been madofto iriduee the Tinui people to vote against suspension)! Well, we have made enquires among some of thoso people, who voted at the Tinui meeting, and as it is well that the sittlers elsewhere should know tho facts. Tho 'J'enui people, we find, have been told that they have been deeply wronged in the past: that under provincial administration the nionoy obtainod from the sale of lands in that part of the dist'riot has been taken away to improve the centres; that in consequence Tinni now suffers from the want of roads; that the settlers in the Mastertou lipad District have plenty of'good roads and consequently don't want either rates or improvements; and that the Couuty Council must be supported inordor that it may be enabled to raise rates in the Mnstsrton distiict for expenditure on the.Tenui roads. Theao are the arguments that have been omployed, and wo do not wonder that with people who are isolated among tracks of mud they should prove irresistible, But we ask the settlers of Upper Plain, Masterton, Upaki, Pahiatua, Whareama, and the liast Coast to tike note of them,

It will be noticed that our contemporary separates the Whareama district from Tinui, evidently under the impression that the district lie is writing about consists ot tho small township of Tinui. He also ignores the fact that the meeting was not a Tinui one, but a " Castlepoint District Meeting." Probably with his limited knowledge of the locality this information would be of no valuo to him, Settlers in the Castlepoint District will take it as a grim joke when they learn that " tboy have been told they have been deeply wronged in the past !" The fact is indisputable. Lands were sold, rates were levied, and taxes collected to the amount of thousands of pounds in the outlying districts and expended on the centres; at any rate the district in which the money was raised saw very little of it, and tho consequence is that not the township of Tinui—but the whole Whareama and Casil"|.nmt district "now suffers from the v/mit of roads" There is no need to" tell" the settlers that! The assertion that Whareama and Tinui settlers have been told that as the settlers in tho Masterton Road District "had good roads and required neither rates nor improvements" and that rates would be raised in the Masterton district to be expended in the Tiuui district is simply bunkum, and a foolish attempt to mis■lead and create bad feeling between different portions of the County. In his eagerness to stir up strife our contemporary makes an admission which will prove fatal to his purpose, He says he "does not wonder that to people isolated in tracks of mud these arguments should proYO irrosiatiblo I" Just so; but to people who have no interest in the county and simply "look after No 1!" the argument has no effect. It requires no further argument to convince the settlers of the Castlepoint Road district, or of any other district where roads are unformed, that if the County can obtain £3 for £l, and will continue their work of substituting good metalled roads for "trackless mud," it would bo madness not to continue the County, and we commend this fact to " the settlers of Upper Plain, Masterton, Opaki, Pahiatua, Whareama, and the East Const;"