PUBLIC MEETING AT OKAIN’S BAY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 4531, 21 August 1875, Page 3

PUBLIC MEETING AT OKAIN’S BAY.

A public meeting of the inhabitants of Oksin’s Bay, for the purpose of affording (be local Road Board an “ opportunity of giving an explanation of the reason of their conduct with regard to lifting the tramway belonging to Mr Thacker,: ana alio to vindicate their action from the charge of malice, which' had' been so freely circulated by interested persons,” was held in the schoolroom, Okain’i Bay, on Wednesday evening, August 18. There was a full attendance, including all the members of the Boad Board. The chair was taken by Mr Moore, Chairman of the Okain’s. Bay Boad Board, who stated that he had called the meeting for the above purpose, (hat the Board might have an opportunity of clearing itself from any charge of ill-feeling which had been reported to exist. He would ask the Clerk of the Board to relate the circumstances which hod led to the action taken, and the Board were there to defend their conduct to the fullest extent.

Mr Bishop, in explanation, stated that as the object of the meeting was twofold, he would first afford the explanation the Board wished to make, and afterwards show that the whole action was perfectly pure from any admixture of spite or ill-feeling. They* were all aware that Mr Thacker had placed a portion of his tramway, in the Talley, upon the public road, which, they might not know, was laid down without any sanction of the Board, but the Board had not offered any resistance to. the same. A short time ago Mr Thaoker had occasion to bring logs from the opposite side of the road, and for. the purpose laid down a branch line without asking permission, across the main road and approach to Sefton’s first bridge. Still the Board did not complain until after the flood had carried away the bridge. He took complete charge of the road, by placing logging, skids &0,, across the only available place for fording the river and monopolised the whole of the benched portion of the road. The Government in’ their visit to Okain’s Bay on July 31 last severely censured the Board for permitting such a dangerous obstruction to exist upon the main road of the District, and also for allowing the same road to be made use of for logging purposes, and intimated ! that they would feel themselves justified in withholding the special vote for this road if the damage was not stopped, and the obstruction removed immediately. Two days afterwards three members of the Board inspected the place and were compelled to admit that the censure was justly deserved. As the place was in a very dangerous state, and tiie road damaged very much worse than they were aware of, they resolved to remove the whole affair next day, and cause an easier and better ford to be made. .The next day some men were set to work to clear the road, but as soon as they had finished, Mr Thaoker, by the aid of his men, replaced the whole concern, and proceeded to use the tramway as before, and also brought down the road three more logs, by the help of sixteen bullocks. The duy following, early, tho men were instructed to remove it again, but were dared by Mr Thacker personally,and amember of the Board was assaulted in attempting to do it himself. The Board then sought the protection of the Resident Magistrate’s Court to enforce the 74th clause of the Roads Ordinance, 1872, and the result was that the Bench defended Mr Thaoker in three of the cases out of the four, by dismissing the two charges of the breach of the Ordinance by replacing the tramway upon the public road, in defiance of the Board; and after' the Board had re-moved-the same, and the breach of the 136th clause of the same Ordinance in obstructing a member of the Board in the execution of his duty. Now the Board had been charged with having acted from spiteful motives in their action, and the most fruitless and futile attempts had been made in the Bay and elsewhere to create a hostile feeling toward the Board by the use of this popular claptrap. But the fact was very easy to prove that not only had Mr Thacker held the most unfriendly feelings toward the Board for a long time past, but that he had abased the Board, in the most unjustifiable manner, both personally and otherwise, and bad treated every communication received from the Board with the greatest contempt. (Mr Bishop here read several letters from the Board addressed to Mr Thacker, conveying complaints against abuse of the provisions of the Ordinance by logging, See., which hadnever been acknowledged or attended to.) He concluded by stating that during the whole time he had been' connected with the Board, he could affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the Board had never on any occasion taken any action which might be detrimental to Mr Thacker’s interests; but bad assured Mr Thaoker that the Board had no desire to do anything which might prevent him from working his Mill to the best advantage, and that to raise such a charge as spiteful action, was most unjust and ungrateful to the Board who had ever consulted his welfare.

Mr Wright, Member of the Board; Said he denied any spite having been shown towards Mr Thaoker by tbe Board. He had attended the- meetings very regularly. He could not remember any instance in which any obstruction had been offered) to Mr Thaoker in carrying on his business. He felt the Board wore to blame for having shown so much leniency in the matter. Mr Raddings felt the explanation afforded by the Board was but a poor excuse for having neglected to do their duty, and might he characterised as a refined way of lying. Tho Board had confessed' that Mr Thaoker had continually set aside the law, and in many ways committed offences which ought to have been stopped immediately, and yet, while they were aware of these things, they took, no steps to put a stop to them. Instead of writing _ letters, month after, month, they ought to have taken action and summoned for the first offence within three days, and then they would not have found themselves placed in the position they were in now. If the Board was afraid to do their duty, and preferred to seek Mr Thacker’s friendship and hospitality, they wore unfit to hold their office, and ongkt to resign and allow others to do it for them. The Magistrate, by fining in one ease, had really proved that Ur Thaoker was wrong; but if they were dissatisfied with the decisions given, they should write to Wellington, and seek for redress from the Government. He would move the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr Soften, and carried without dissent:—“ That the Road Board shall consider it to be their duty to summon, without any previous notice, Mr Thaoker or any other person who may obstruct the public road.” Mr Haley thought ife would be better to have no Road Board, but a policeman instead.

Mr O’Connor considered the main Yalley. road a disgrace to the Boad Board. Mr Bishop explained that in one place Mr Thaoker had placed his tramway within 10ft of the opposite side of the road, and that the Board bad not interfered with it because they did not wish it to. bo thought they had any ill-feeling toward Mr Thaoker, as to throw it back further would involve a deep cutting, while they bad restrained from taking any action against Mr Thaoker for polluting the stream, although complaints had been mode against it, both by letter aud interview. He felt, therefore, that the charge of spita was most unfair and unwarranted.

Mr J. Moore moved, aud Mr Haley seconded— 1 “ That this meeting is of opinion, that tbe explanation given by the Road Board ia very satisfactory.. That the Board has given every facility to Mr Thacker to cony on bis business to the best advantage; and that they were fully jnstifisd in the notion taken.” Carried unanimously. Mr Raddings desired to move a farther resolution, which was ultimately allowed by the Chairman. Proposed; by Mr Raddings, seconded by Mr R. Gilbert—“ That while the Board was fully justified in the action taken by them, they are deserving of censure for having allowed Mif Thacker to proceed so far before taking action.” Carried unanimously. A vote of thanks was passed to the Ohairmon, who acknowledged thesame, and remarked that he felt the vote of censure wm fully deserved by the Board; but lor himself, he could only say, that he had endeavoured to be lenient, and not to obstruct Mr Thaoker in bis work. Mr Wright felt that a vote of thanks wm due to Mr Beddings for having reproved the Board for their neglect of duty.