Public Opinion

Northland Age, Volume 28, Issue 27, 21 March 1928, Page 4

Public Opinion

KE DRAINAGE (To the ,d:tor) Sir, —in reply to a letter from “Cockatoo” appear,ng in youi last issue. I hope my attitude has not been misunderstood. My letteis were not written with a view to upnolding the action of the Government and my criticism was directed not against the farmer but against the Editor of the Age. My n-irae was brought lirectly into the matter by the Ag*\ A number of wild misstatements and insinuations were published by the Age which 1 knew were without foundation in tact, and I could not let such go unchallenged. To repeat some of them It was stated that *he striking ot the rate was so muen '‘scheming fpr. political fame” that “the Arbitrators were not .ppoititediu ac--1:01 dance with the Act” that “tinclassification is not in order” *hai “the subsidy is .1 myth and does not exit,.” and taat for political reasons the decision of the arbitrators was not followed but was jockeyed and monkeyeu with, and generally that there was political corruption. Behind all these wild statements and insinuations there seemed to be a display of political feeling, They dir! not reg true as being for the good of ti e district, and b<ring wrong : r fact they could not ben- fir the cause of the farmer. And s ( challenged them, and 1 challenge them again.

To deal with the various points raised by Cockatoo. I. There hao been no jockeying and no monkeying. The land was classified, the County was revalued, and the striking of the rate followed in due course. I can assure Cockatoo that the provisions of the Act were followed and tk’t the rate i- Lgaiiv struck. Whether or not the district should be asked to pay the 1 ate’is quite another quesrion.

2. lhe Mbi'TjTors deck ed that Class B iaod should oear cne tourth of the rule of Class A Their decision has been carried out; although at first sight it might seem otherwise. Even the ‘ Age” thought otherwise, though whether from “sweet simplicity or cussed ignorance” I know not. And vet.-surely not sweet «H iHc-

ity. ihe Rate to b-: ccniectea on Class A and Class B is 5-28 d in each case The-is alter Tlow-

ing tor Government s -biddies. Without the subsidies the rate would be 6.6 don Class B and 2c .qd on Ciass A. Class B rate is therefore one fourth of Class A rate, exactly as decided by the Arbitrators.

By the way I suggested to you Sir, that.you v,ork out this sum, ind that if you obtained the same answer you should withdraw your imputations ot corruption. I do not know it ypu worked out the sum but I do know that you dodged the issue in a long footnote to my last letter. Will you lepeat that the decision of the Arbitrators has been jockeyed and monkeyed with and nas not i>e~n followed —ana prove it. Or will you now withdraw such statement. Though I expect you will dodge again.

3- I agree with Cockatoo *hr t in many cases the unimproved value is out of proportion to the capif. 1 value, and that trie value placed on the improvements is low. I am quite m sympathy with Cockaio., over this. A farmer does not seern to get full value ir credit for his improvements.

4 I do not believe nor have I stated that the valuation and rating is reasonable, in some cases it is in others net, There are many anomalies which should be removed. No thank you, Cockatoo, no mere farms for rue. I do not need to purchase Class A or Class 3 lane, as I already have a considerable holding of both. Land Agents and Cockatoos please note. I would like to suggest that the farmer* concentrate on two points in particular. Ihe reduction of the Capital cost of the Drainage Scheme to £IOO,OOO, as already adverted the member the

di'-.tri t and a further tlastiiffca> rif. r the Drainage Area. If the "d -s* i<"<uL.i were reviewed each prop, iy inspected, and esc'--own- given the opportunity of 1-h; gI; s -.M-e before the Arbitrators, then Tam sure urnt the cans, of a great deal of the present oiacontent would be removed. M y I also suggest that you sir, assist in this direction, and leavi g out political animus for at lest the present, so work for the good of the district. I almost shud er at my temerity ii fear and remblmg of your fathom fear:- >me footnotes. In conclusion. I would like to meet Cockatoo and discuss the who! ■ matter with him—yes without tee. Yours etc. J B Reynolds [M: Reynolds’ letter is nothing if no- amusing. Our readers will notice that he is becoming an ade tat alliteration. He mends his_ !■ -tier to be a reply f o “Cockatoo' who recently wrote us on the , subject.of the “Drainage Rate,” I but he occupies a great deal of , space in reiterating what he took ■;o much space testate on a for- : met occasion. Let him state when '.he so-ca.lled subsidy was voted, and let him produce a Government printed document showing hat it was voted by Parliament. For Mr Reynolds’ benefit 1 let u say tbs landowners hers i have not b- me any portion of the cost of the Drainage scheme , and how they could : 1 hr n be subsidised I’s problem tor Mr Reynolds to I solve. In each of os correspon- ! dent’s letters published recently i he convey ed the inference that ‘ the m(es to be levied were reas- ! onable. He now gets on to the I other side of the fence. His rec- ! ommendarion that farmers cmI centrste upon a reduction of the j capital cost m £IOOOOO is as abI surd as it is unwise. We say 1 that this being a national wo > j the capital cost should be borne by the state, leaving the settlers i to maintain Rr all time the drainage works after completion. T.iat will provide them with a sufficient burden If die member for f he distr.ct advocated a cost to the settleis of £IOO,OOO, it shows he knows nothing about the yeilding ability of the land. We are fighting tor tn<* fai-ners and not lor the aggrandisement of ny politician. In this we dif- ! ter from Mr Reynolds verv eonj sid i b!y. The farmers require wrung further from the Arbij it aior 3, the y want a Royal Comrnhsion of independent practical ] ire to dispose of tnis question. | Mr Reynolas accuses us of political animus. Let him prove this by showing wherein we h? e made this a party po ideal issue. This is only on a p r with many other veiled sugge ion that have been c since -ve lad occasion to take the membei for the district to task for a moot impudent and brazen act. ilth as nothing to do with the j dr: mage question. We are work- | ir.g for the good of (he district in fighting the battle of the farmers agrinst injustice. Mr Reynolds evidently considers that to do so is ' political animus.” He. ought to know. It depends upon the point of view. His point cf view is the point of view ot the membr tor the district. Ours is the poiitof view of the ratepayers and the taxpayers. They count. —Editor Agvj.