Correspondence.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 3063, 24 November 1888, Page 2

Correspondence.

Road Difficulties in North Wai•t rarapa, r. : . [to the editor.] : Sih,—Undsr tlio above heading, in yout issue of the 20th inst., you roport what purports to be a speech made by Mr W. Beetham, in iiis official capacity as Chairman at the

sitting of the Maslerton Road Board Having given , Mr Beethaln ample time to correbt or retract any possible inaccuracies of your report, I bave a right, to assume that it is given in his own words. So long as Mr Beetham limited himself to insinuations, I,have not felt called upon to defend myself, being quite content to let" the world judge us by. onr actions; Mr Beetham gives rein to his irnagiu. ation by inventing facte in support of calumny for the deliberate purpose of damaging mo in the eyes of tho public anil probably to servo ulterior, purposes equally reprehensible, it is time for me to pull him up. Mr Beetham commences his speech by directing special attention to tho .Uriti Eoad, and leads off' by staling that " Uriti" "was used iis a shipping place" long before Messrs Meredith purchased the property, and a road was laid off to it, but no record \m kept by the Government, as the: road was not'takeiv undor speoitl warrant," Now this is a prooise, clear statement, susceptiblo of no ambiguity. The members of the Mastorton Road Board and the public were .told , that " Uriti" was used as a shipping placo long before tho Messrs Meredith purchased-rnexl that a road was laid off to it—by which it is clearly demonstrated that at tho early date indicated the importance of " Uriti" as it shipping place had so strongly impressed the Government that a road had been laid off lo it. Mr Beetham then: invites' the Road' Board and the public to believe that notwithstanding such exceptionally favorable treatment at the hands of tho Government, that nevertheless " no. record of tho survey was kept." Mr Beetham • evidently had 6ome misgivirg as to the capacity .'of his hearers and readers to swallow such a choking dose of improbability at one gulp. So as to give : them time to recover from its ..debilitating effects, lie treats them to his version of an interview with Mr Bunny, aud a'little laudation of Beetham's iiberality re tho "Forniehurst" Soad, and then again returns to tho charge, and concludes his address by 'reiterating his previous statement in a slightly, varied form, thus" But in a case like *•' Uriti," " it is'not a new road, It r was a " shipping place long before it was " purchased by the present ' owners, "and the road laid off to it should •' have been legalised." Now, to all' this, barefaced statement of Mr Beetham's, I give a flat contradiction. I don't mean that Mr.Beetham lias made a /mistake, or committed an error—l. mean that the whole and' every part of tho statements are absolutely without foundation; and I challenge him to refute me; and, until he does, ho lies under an unenviable .imputation—to Bay nothing of the evident animus, that could incite him to so flagrant' a. breach, of all that is honorable both in his official capacity and as a gentleman—and by which he will be judged by all right-minded men. It will bo noted that Mr Beetham carefully abstains from mentioning: the namo of the surveyor who laid off the road; the Government officer by whoso authority tho survey was tmule; the start point; locality;. or even indicate its dirootion, or whereabouts, or the approximate dato of survoy; the persons who instigated it; or were to benefit by it; and' I look forward with some curiosity to 'tho information which Mr Beetham is callod upon to supply on these points, The sum, substance and intention of Mr Beotham's address to the public in his authoritative position as Chairman of tho Masterton Road Board, may be briofly summed up thus Tha- many jours beforol purchased the land surrounding"Uriti,"thatitwasashipping'! place, that in the public interests a road was laid off to it, that through negloct on the part of the Government I havo becii pormittcd lo appropriate the road, and in consequence that the settlors, requiring lo use tho ■'Uriti" shipping place, havo'been and aro embarrassed and hindered to their detriment, by a selfish and arbitary display of power at my hands, This is a heavy and serious indictment, and if Mr Beotham substantiates itj I deservo no mercy. If, on the other hand, I show that there is not one tittlo of foundation for any ouo single couut of the many charges involved in Mr, Beetham's accusation, then I put it to the publie whether or no Mr Beetham is entitled to that confidence which his position should inspire. To make matters quite clear, I must preface my statement by correcting an inaccuracy of Mr Beetbam'B in deaign'a-. ting mo and my sons the Messrs Meredith; I havo nevor had a joint interest in proprietorship of any land. " Uriti" was unknown as a shipping place prior to my purchase of it.. No road was ever laid off to it prior to that stated to have been laid off by Mr King in 1879. From tho time " Uriti" was first used to |a shipping place to this day no impediment has been mads by mo, but on the contrary every facility has been afforded, t Thus the lato Messrs. George and John Moore were the first settlers who required to uso "Uriti," and did use it without let or hindrance, but as there was no right of road, at their request I gave them a fourteen years lease of light of way at a nominal rental, over my laud at the shipping piece, Later on I disposed of that portion' of my pfoporty known as " Waiorongo" to my late son Edwin, and tho late Messrs Moore'disposed of their of their "Waikaraka" estate. .My son Edwin acquiesced in permitting trafllo through his property subject to certain conditions and leased to the Masterton Koad Board the ( right to nse his private' bridge over tho Waioronga < stteamjoonditiorial-on it being kopt in repair, on the understanding.that the Board. should erect a bridge on tho line surveyed. During the Board's :' tenancy of the bridge it was destroyed j' and consequently upin the Board refqsjng to, replace oj pay for it,' and an attempt' having been made by tho , settlers 10. force;a yty jjptigh hiii

farm yard and boundary fence, -.my, ■ sou would- not permit traffic-other ; • ..v tlnir. by the line pegged off, iill the ' • Board refunded to him the gost of his. \ biidge.i-'The : resistancß' of< his .<jnst ! ' claim was brief, nnd®froni that day to this no impediment to trallio has ovec been offered, nor have I ever hoard a complaint, from any settler, except from ilr George Moore, and his contention, as far as Ijim aware, is lim- . ited to the question of title ; by eon-. veyaiiceHo tlio owners of jtlui lrthd . through which the roa'd tuns, a , matter I propose to deal' with in a future letter/ In the meantime, • under' gross prcvacation, I chnllango Mr Beetham to controvert ni y asser-* !■ tions, which I sum. up thus(l) lowned Uriti; before it Was required or : known as a shipping place.' (2)-NiT road was laid off to it prior® that by Mr King referred to. Bf That ' uninterrupted facilities-access have' always been afforded to'tlie public and those having occasion to use it, (4) That the whole of Mr Beetham's >' statements referring to " Uriti" artf foulslandor upon myself and sons, : founded on fiction and prompted by A unworthy, motives'.' . . • lam, &g,, Edwin Meredith. • " ... iandaff, 2itli November, 1888,