King Country Chronicle Thursday, September 6, 1923. OTOROHANGA AND THE HOSPITAL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XVIII, Issue 1858, 6 September 1923, Page 4

King Country Chronicle Thursday, September 6, 1923. OTOROHANGA AND THE HOSPITAL.

It would be futile to enter into a lengthy controversy in regard to Mr Closey's letter published in another column, but there are one or two statements therein that we must emphatically refute. That there was a meeting held in Otorohanga to protest against the levy being made for the hospital, we do no deny. That meeting was held on December 3, 1920, but on the true facts being stated by the then chairman of the Waitomo County Council, Mr J. Wall, the opposition was withdrawn, and no further action was taken in this direction until the re-arrangement of the county boundaries was mooted. Then, again, the Otorohanga representatives on the old Waitomo County Council did not raise their voices in protesting against the levy when under discussion at. any meeting. The only conclusion to be arrived at is that these members, as representatives of the ratepayers, agreed that the hospital was for the benefit of the Otorohanga people as well as those in this district. It is in regard to road access between Te Kuiti and Otorohanga, how-

ever, that we cannot follow Mr Closey's argument. To say that the Te Kuiti-Otorohanga Road is useless as it merely connects the two towns seems to be very wide of the insrk. There is a good road between towns, and it is well known that the work of metalling the Te Kumi Road will soon be an accomplished fact, thus providing" an even-grade road to Otorohanga. Mr Closey also states that the railway is a better alternative to the road. We quite agree with this, but as the railway also serves Te Kuiti as well as Hamilton, and the -latter is 30 miles from Otorohanga township, while the former is 12, it will be seen that this is an additional argument in favour of the hospital for those living in and around that township. We would state in concluding this controversy that there was no intention of using abuse towards Mr Closey. That gentleman went to Wellington to protest against the levy. He placed before the two Pax*liamentary Committees the best arguments possible in the matter, but failed to sustain the protest. Those who were responsible for the objection must allow that a decision has been given by a fair and impartial tribunal, and it would be well to accept that iudgment.