THE KAIPARA RAILWAY.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 4164, 17 December 1870, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE KAIPARA RAILWAY.

To the Editor of the Daut Southe&k Cross, Sib,-- Your correspondent Mr. Booker gives as his .reason for writing the letter which appeared in the Cross that I have insinuated "that those who take a different view of the matter from myself are the victims of unreasonable prejudice."' After this premise one would expect that Mr. Booker was about to endeavour to show that himself and other supporters of the HelensvUle line had good and sound reasons for " the faith that is in them ;" but f have looked in vain for a single argument in contravention of my statements. Imiendos, insinuations, and assertions are however plentiful, and, as some of these seem to require some notice from me, I crave a little of your space for a few remarks. I have already published in your columns an account of the manoeuvre whioh prevented me from having the opportunity of advocating the Mahurangi and Port Albert Railway before a general meeting of the Paparoa and Matakohe settlers, and left me no option but to bring the subject before such meetings as could be got together at very short notice. I never did allege, however, that we had a meeting of twenty settlers at Matakohe : that number related to the meeting at Paparoa, but by a blunder of the printer's it appeared io refer to Matakohe. Mr. Booker asks — "Is Mr, Utting aware that afterthought directed to some few palpable facts led several of his supposed supporters at Paparoa to decide against his, and in favour of the original scheme ?" I reply that I am not aware whatwere the "palpable facts" that produced such wonderful results; and I again challenge Mr. Booker to state them in print, and also the "matter-of-fact suggestions against the proposed change" made by him at the opposition meeting. But I heartily endorse Mr. Booker's opinion "that it is a great mistake to place two lines in competition now," the great superiority of the Mahurangi line being now almost universally recognised. As to the other possible schemes he hints at, it will I think be time enough for me to notice them when they are seriously proposed. Mr. Booker next makes some remarks about my figures, which may be taken at what they are worth. He has not attempted to show that any of my figures are erroneous, but he says, " One might verify Mr. Utting's calculations by consulting a good map," and then very naively asks, "But what will come of that?" He should have added, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still," as it is pretty evident that he has verified them, As to the " topographical details " which Mr. Booker suggests I should have given, I would ask him what topographical details he would wish for more than I have given. I should like him to give us the topographical details which have induced himself and others to prefer the Helens ville line, as lam convinced that if he does so they will, "if anything can, strengthen my position." He might, for instance, tell us what is the population of the district passed through by the Helensville line within three miles on each side of the line ; and also the number of acres under cultivation within the same space. Let him do this, and then, if he can, advocate that line upon its merits only ! Mr. Booker says that "many, who petitioned for the tramway at first, did so after due consideration of apparent advantages between a good opening to the East Coast via Mahurangi and an improved road vi& Helensville, and are not prepared rashly to stultify themselves." Now this statement appears tome to be not only ungrammatical,but disingenuous. Mr. Beoker must be aware that, at the time the petition for the tramway was signed, there was no project in existence for obtaining "a good opening to the East Coast via Mahurangi," unless the Government road from Port Albert, which has since been opened, could be so called. But I think very few of the aaid petitioners would now " stultify themselves " by asserting that this either had then, or has now, any connection with the railway question. The whole of the Port Albert settlers joined in that petition, but they now feel that "the success of the district " can be promoted to a far greater extent by the Mahurangi line of railway, Now, if those who are opposing that line choose to believe that the success of the ( Kaipara settlements generally can be better promoted by the settlers having to pay high rates of freight and fares, and to incur great loss of time,in travelling by the HelensviUe line, than by having to pay about half the freight and saving half the time in travelling by the other, all I can say is that they are welcome to their opinions, but they have no right to prevent others from enjoying the advantages of which they refuse to avail themselves. For, even if the Mahurangi line would serve ' the northern settlements only as well as it could be served by the other line, ought not j the interests of the Oruawharo, and of the new and extensive district which would be opened by the Mahurangi and Port Albert railway, to be allowed to turn the scale in its favour ? In reply to Mr. Booker's last ; (Question, I Bay that I, and those who think with me, not only can but do "promote the Mahurangi scheme on its own basis," and on , that alone. In return I ask him, Bo the supporters of the Helensville line advocate its adoption on its intrinsic merits ? Admitting, for the sake of argument, that they do so, is it not evident that we oannot have both lines, and that, therefore, r a choice must be made between them ? The merits of each line must be fairly weighed; This has not i been done by our opponents; and I would ask Mr. Booker if it is not a " palpable fact " that a great majority of thos» who support the Helensville line do so hot from a convictaon of its superiority, but partly because -they were" frightened' by the groundless terrors of, a sea voyage, and partly because they' feared that, by disturbing what they supposed to be a settled arrangement, they would get no railway at all. Now it turns q'utthab no such arrangement had been coududed,,and that the 1 whole matter is in the hands of the, Provincial Council. The effect df the fi division" caused by the Matakohe ttWting zo*y ' be to bring about the very result they feared. I say, then, in conclu■sion, let them .reconsider the matter, *nd, putting aside .prejudice, private interests, and p*rjty> influence, judge each line only by its merits. • There will then, T doubt not, where now-ijL division," and the construction of the best line will be assured. Ul^inpng^omjMr/tßooke^ the., fulfilment of ■$8 promise,— l am &c. Fred.J. Utting.

■ ■KendaD,^ author of i^%^r|;e^|lu^^^miiusted^foK; r trial for Mriity: , *-Medi(»ui twtimonv has beep giyeat fe^^a|H^ait^;jt^eem? that lie^t^ aisi?oy;efy of ;a similar