Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RE RAILWAY LEAGUE DEPUTATION

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Referring to a letter from Mr. P. Oliphant appearing in yesterday's Herald, I feel bound to state as follows:—While agreeing with Mr. Oliphant in his view respecting the public question of the superiority of the Stratford to the Central Railway Route, and while feeling disappointed at Mr. Seddon's attitude with reference to the subject when he met the deputation from the Railway league last week, I must, as the member of the deputation requested to act as spokesman, dissent from Mr. Oliphant's statement that there was anything offensive in the- Premier's manner. We went to get certain information from Mr. Seddon, which to the best of his ability he gave us with all the needful courtesy as it seemed to me. The fact that the information he gave us with regard to the exploration survey work was not satisfactory is a matter for regret, as is also the fact that apparently Mr. Seddon differs from the Railway League as to the value to Auckland of the proposed Taranaki connection. This I believe to be in great part owing to a wane of familiarty with the details of the question, causing a certain amount of misapprehension in his mind which it should be our duty to try and remove by a re-statement of the facts. This there was no opportunity to do efficiently when the deputation waited upon him. To have got into an altercation with the Premier on that occasion on' the general question would nave been a mistake, aud therefore I retrained from doing so. We cannot expect a Minister without preparation to'have all the ina and outs of every special question of this kind at his fingers ends. Besides, the deputation - did nob have for . its object , the re-openiu l * of the whole case as- to the respective merits of the rival routes, it was neither the time nor place for such a discussion. But other members of the deputation agree with me that there was no offensive snubbing of the deputation whatever.*—l am, etc., Gerald L. Peacocke. April 5. :

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18940406.2.9.4

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9478, 6 April 1894, Page 3

Word Count
350

RE RAILWAY LEAGUE DEPUTATION New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9478, 6 April 1894, Page 3

RE RAILWAY LEAGUE DEPUTATION New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9478, 6 April 1894, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert