Evening Post. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1902.

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 121, 18 November 1902, Page 4

Evening Post. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1902.

GREATER WELLINGTON. o The petition in favour of unconditional amalgamation with the city, which was the outcome of the meeting held on the 6th inst., has evidently created,perturbation in the minds of those Melrose obstructionists who have persistently opposed the scheme of union. A counterpetition, bearing, however, but few signatures, wos also presented at the last meeting of the Borough Council. A meeting against amalgamation has been convened for to-night at Brooklyn, and there are signs that strong efforts are to be made to prevent the carrying out of the draft agreement made with the City Council. The Borough Council was fortunate enough, from 'its point of view, to discover certain informalities in the petition for a poll, and this has enabled it to postpone for a fortnight consideration of the matter. Seeing that a majority of this Council is bent on wrecking the scheme of union, and also that attempts are being made to organise opposition to the proposal it will be well for the supporters of amalgamation to marshal their forces and, if possible, take steps to have their views laid before the burgesses. They have fought pluckily for a. cause which they believed to be right, and but for the covert hostility of the municipal authorities they would long ago have won the battle. They have no reason to be disheartened, for, in spite of official and legal delays, they have, we believe, the main body of the Melrose residents behind them. The poll taken at the beginning of last July, now more than four months ago, revealed the fact that only some 220 ratepayers out of 1400 were ready to vote against the scheme of union embodied in the draft agreement. That- the decision then given was not carried out is due solely to the obstructive tactics of the majority in the Borough Council. Ever since the poll was taken these extraordinary representatives have devised all manner of objections to postpone obedience to the mandate of their constituents. They have insisted upon reopening negotiations which were closad by the original agreement and the poll taken upon it. First, it was the clause prohibiting the undertaking of new works pending the settlement of the question of union to which they took exception, now it is a minor question of a trifling liability for city loans. In short, the policy of the Coiincil seems to ' be directed towards throwing every obstacle available in the way of the proposal, and the apparent hopelessness of any agreement being found which would not afford it opportunity for employing these methods has at last prompted the determination of a large section of the^ burgesses to force the Council's hand by compelling it to take a poll under the new Act, whether there be a preliminary agreement or not. We would earnestly ask the burgesses of Melrose not to allow mere parochialism or the specious arguments of the few to mislead them. A question such as this should be considered in its larger aspect. The advantages of amalgamation are obvious. Independently of the city, Melrose cannot provide economically for a complete tramway service, for proper drainage, or for an adequate water supply. If amalgamation is effected residents of the borough will have these conveniences in a short time and at a. reasonable cost — in the case of tramways, probably without any additional cost from the very first. The opponents of union do not dare to oppose it directly and frankly. They realise that such a position would be xmtenable. They confine themselves to thwarting every proposal for carrying it out and endeavour to kill such a proposal by burdening it with impossible conditions. Since the Council seems resolved to prevent amalgamation by agreement the supporters of the movement have no alternative but by employing their powers under the law to compel a poll for union without conditions. For our own part, we do not think an agreement is essential, and we are confident the burgesses of Melrose could trust the united City Council to look after their interests, but if union is effected without an agreement it will be the fault of those Councillors who have haggled ' and disputed over a reasonable arrangement made between the two Councils and sanctioned by the ratepayers of the borough. We trust that the advocates of union will continue their efforts, and not rest content until they have succeeded in procuring obedience to the verdict of the poll taken in July last.