CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXV, Issue 171, 30 July 1901, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

MOTUEKA V. NELSON HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT, To the Editor of " The Evening Mail/' Sir, - Having read Mr Eugene O'Conor's open letter to the Nelson Harbour Board, your editorial thereon, Mr Everett's defence of Mr O 'Conor, also his opinion of your own method and style in writing as well as your footnote to his letter, it is with great diffidence, apprehension and a certain amount of nervousness that I venture to comment on your " strange ways " in dealing with the harbour question. That the " Mail " wants Mr Reynold's No. 2 scheme, costing £sO,OOO, carried out every one kno ws. That Motueka should be a feudal vassal of Nelson is also its opinion expressed many times in many words. Now, Sir, with Mr Everett, I agree that Mr O'Conor has a perfect right to write and speak on the question if he chooses. Tne fact that he was not a candidate for the Board matters little; and that Mr Everett is a rejected candidate does not discount his opinions in any way. I suppose the I opinion of a " rejected " candidate for the city, and who is now a member of the Board, is considered of some value by the members of that body, for I noticed that his strongly expressed opinions on the Motueka wharf appropriation had the hearty endorsement of at least one city member, who, I have reason to believe, stands high in the estimation of the Editor of the " Mail/' You impute that Mr Mr Everett, because he is Town Clerk of Motueka, and with a desire to assist his employers, the Borough Council, in carrying out their vendetta (as you please to term their opposition to the feudal idea), takes up the position he does in defending Mr O'Conor. To my mind you are entirely wrong in this, for there is no vendetta ; but I will admit a certain amount of soreness prevails among many on this side owing to the appropriation of one of their assets by the Harbour Board, and which, if we are to believe those who are responsible, was in a sense the result of an accident. That while this is admitted by the M.'sH.ri., the Harbour board tenaciously hangs on to it, and the " Mail " backs them up and says that Motueka ships to other ports, and that Nelson is the loser thereby, etc. The ratepayers here hope to get justice by constitutional means, and are not actuated by spite or revenge, — both motives, I understand, are necessary to a first-class vendetta. Under ordinary circumstances it is safe to say that 30 per cent of the people would not record their votes either for or against tbe harbour loan. But now, owing to the publicity given to the question by the action of the member for the district who has since that time admitted his error and and been forgiven, and the action of the Harbour Board, who, after hearing that admission, persist in doing wrong to a large number of people, the attention of I some of our amateur engineers was directed to Mr heynolds' proposals, and, after careful consideration by the Amalgamated Society cf blind Bay Engineers, was heartily and unanimously condemned " as bein agin natur," and the community having the greatest confidence in the opiaion thus expressed, having known then* advisers from childhood, and not having the advantage of a personal acquaintance with either the Harbour Board Engineer or the editor of the " Mail " have decided to poll en masse agin the loan in order tbat the people of Nelson may be protected against themselves and their own vagaries. The fact that incidentally they have been robbed of their own wharf and harbour has noihing to do with it. There is no bitterness of feeling whatever, but rather a feeling of sorrow for our neighbours in Nelson that they are being misled by a section of the community who are leading them to destruction. Bather than that they should be reduced to penury and live to regret tbeir grave mistake as so many otber places have done which have ventured on similar undertakings under the advice of expert engineers |who havo staked their reputations on the success of similar jobs, 1 have no doubt but that Motueka would allow the city to retain her^vvharf and harbour, but that the people here also know that the great majority in Nelson would vote that Motueka be allowed to keep its own property in the same neighbourly spirit always shown by us to Nelsou. Since writing above I have read Mr Pattib's letter, and the footnote in which you again attack the Motueka " Council Clerk;' Mr Everett has not been asked by any member of the Coun» cil at any time to ' say or do anything on tlieir behalf other than perform the duties of his office, for which he is not too well paid, so that your so-called " exposure " is thus considerably discounted. As to Mr OVonor's "conspiracy," you are right out of ib. Mr O'Conor has sold out and left the district some time, and no one believes that he has any designs as you impute. Neither has he been 4 asked to agitate on behalf of Motueka and district by thy Council or any member of it. However he has seen fit (unsolicited) to write on the subject of harbour improvements, and no one has a belter right, for you will find in an illustrated pamphlet, a copy of which was presented me by the Secretary of the Westport Harbour Board, the following statement: — " I here can be no doubt that Parliament acted wisely in providing for the creation and maintenance of the Westport Harbour Board, and it is only fair to remember that one of the most strenuous advocates of the course followed was Mr Eugene 0\ onor, then member for Buller." It would appear from your arguments that members, of the Harbour i Board, from the fact bit their being such, must necessarily be endowed with concentrated essence of wisdom to a degree I hitherto unpossessed by any corporate body.— l am, etc, W. J. MOFF A IT. Motueka, July 26, 1901. [It is needless to answer. the statements and contradictions of our correspondent, as the replies attached as footnotes to the other letters still hold good. Our correspondent^ not only fails lo show that there is no connection between the Motueka wharf question and the sudden attack on the Boulder Bank channel scheme, but he unconsciously confirms the convjetion that the two mat* tiers are intimately associated and apparently of common origin. The position remains unaltered in the suit Motueka Borough Council's Wharf v. the Province of Nelson.— Ed. N..E.M. |