CORRESPONDENCE. [Our correspondence columns are impartially open to all, but we do not in any way identify ourselves with opinions expressed therein.] EDITORIAL COMMENTS RE TE RORE BRIDGE SITE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1346, 15 February 1881, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE. [Our correspondence columns are impartially open to all, but we do not in any way identify ourselves with opinions expressed therein.] EDITORIAL COMMENTS RE TE RORE BRIDGE SITE.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir, — I have endeavoured hitherto to treat the site question wholly on its merits, and to avoid bringing personal matters into a discussion where they ought to be particularly avoided ; but as there has not been the slightest attempt made by any of your correspondents to grasp the real question — to show any sound and valid reason justifying the large extra expenditure involved by the change of site from the lower to the npper, the general tenor of the remark s being personally abusive towards myself — 1 can only assume there is nothing to be said in favour of the transfer, and that other reasons, unknown to the public, must exist for sucli a wasteful misappropriation of public money. In your issue of the l&t of February, commenting upon my letter published in thfe same paper, you are kind enough to state my letter is " not ingenuous . biings nothing new to the .surface, and is evidently intended to conceal much of what was there before." I shall not stultify myself by attempting the slightest defence against such a charge, having never written a letter in my life, either public or private, to which your remarks could be justly applied. lam quite willing- to leave it to the judgment of my fellow settlers whether I am likely to do so now. Again you tay, I gave you to understand " the majority of settlers have always been favorable to the lower sit°. r l he term settler may be a veiy compiehenslve one to Mr McMinn, &c" A reference to my letter will prove that you are inisrppiesenting" me, as there is not a Avoid about the views of the majority of the settlers. I stated distinctly in both inctancps the majority of the District Board. That is strictly and accurately correct, and always has been so. As for the comprehensiveness of the term settler, I did not Ictve that to conjecture, as I stated distinctly, " a considerable number of spttlers on both sides of the river." There are plenty of settlers who will vouch that this is also itiictly correct, not only in word, but is a fair representation of the belief in the districts concerned. I will also again inform you that the question of site was determined without being submitted to any local body whatever, nor was any ever asked an opinion about it. You agaiu reiterate the assertion that " the expression cf opinion was unanimously in favor of the Te Rore site ;" of course yon are at liberty to assert whatever you like, but nevertheless it is not a fact. I said I thought there were fourteen or fifteen present at the meeting and so far I admit having made a mistake, as there were twenty I believe, but I did not "insinuate" that a least six weie in favour of the lower site. I stated distinctly (leaving out inbinuations, which are not congenial to me) that six of those present at the meeting were against the motion. This is an absolutely fair representation of the result of the meeting-. There has been no change so far as I am aware in the opinions of the settlers, the result being as follows. — Fourteen settlers paving rates last year to the amount of £20 17s 9d were, and I presume are still, in favour of the bridge at the upper site, and neven paying at the samo time £16 Ils6d were opposed to it, and in favour of the lower site. I would a<*k, supposing this to be the state of feeling in the district, is the majority of seven settlers paying annually the large sum of £4 6s 3d of rates to decide a question involving a probable rxpendilnre of £1000 extra of public money, while no attempt whatever is mad© to ascertain the opinion of the settlers is the adjoining Highway District of Mnngapiko who, though they have not paid any of the fii&t cost, will undoubtedly liavo to pay an equal sli.ire of the oost of maintenance ; and yet such is tho inference any one would diaw from the emphasis you place on the vote of this> majority. I did " state at the meeting that the Government had already decided on the upper site, " because J had been informed so, the day before by Mr F. A. Whitaker, and consequently the vote of the meeting was not required^ though I well knew none of the local bodies had ever been consulted on the subject ; not even the Pirongia Board who subscribed £1130 of the cost, beyond the conveisational discussion when examining the two &tte& with Mr Stewart, when he gave his opinion in favor of the lower site. So little did Mr Stewart think of the upper site after having inspected both, that though, I had particularly requested both sites to be surveyed exactly alike, to obtain the utmost impartiality, when Mr Hunter came up, his instructions relatod only to the lower site, and though 1 informed him both were to be done in the same manner, he would not take a section at the upper, and I had to go specially to Auckland to urge it again on Mr Stewart after which Mr Hunter was .sent the second time to take a section at the upper plaoe. I know it seems egotistical in me to mention this but I am compelled to do so by the numerous false statements which have been circulated. All I want is the most thorough ventilation of the whole question, and to let the public know the means that have been adopted to induce the Government to sanction the large additional expenditure for no commeasurate advantage. I distinctly offer to substantiate every statement 1 have made from flrßt to last, not only as true in words but as conveying a correct impression of the actual facts, and I am quite willing to publish all telegrams and letters which have passed with me or from me on the subject, though I do not expect those who have been advocating the upper site will follow suit. As for the conoluding remarks of your article, I will pass them by without further notice; but I do say 1 if your article is imbued with, your idea of " equal and exact justice to all men," it seems to me a hollow mookery of noble words, and reminds me morn of the Yankee judge, who was so almighty upright that he leaned a little to the other side. I have no wishi to prolong this correspondence any further, unless compelled to do so. The site question ig settled, wrongly as I think, but still I am anxious to make the best of it, and to do my utmost to improve the other means of communication throughout the' district, feeling quite confident that the old proverb will yet prove true': Mapiaestveritas, et pracvalcbit. — lam, &c., Edwaed G> MoMnor. Harapepe, February 12, 1881.

The w&ter supplied fcq the residents of Melbourne must fob 'nict drinking, as the following clipped from a late number of the Age will show: — "Another instance of* & centipede coming through theYati Yean water . pipes „ was witnessed on Saturday 'afternoon* in' a cottage in Statiori-street, -North Carltom The irwect was small compared' with the dne reported aVCobnrg, jaot being more than thVee and a half inches in lerigtnl"-'"- r •', J '' J ' ', THE-lLonddy Times says it' is 1 informed that the Pope" ba^ written 1 ' a s , letter^to.ihe" t ArchbiBho^ of iJtiblin, ' sfcreri^ly i!cdndsm'- , in^the method .in'v^irliidh-ttie^^itation^iri Ireland- ,w , f cpnduc^ed,y and temßhkiio^u^rjaccionB t emBhkiio^u^rjaccion8 have Jbe^eti jw^ed^i po make, a^stana^ |JgS«iBt t the . warchial ,andj J *com,mubiflt .'d^otjfinW, wbi^ Ihaiyi&/l>eMi1 haiyi&/l>eMi I