CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11954, 1 May 1902, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

mount eden road board election. I

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l have read Mr. Geo. M. Johnston's letter in this morning's paper in reply to the Board's letter in yesterday's issue. As the writer invites information as to the portions of the letter the Board denies, and as the facts of the case arc within my own personal knowledge, I hasten to give effect to his invitation. In the first place I know of no such request as stated by Mr. Johnston on the part of the candidates who intend contesting the forthcoming election against the retiring members of the Board lor the facilities he mentions. A request; was made by the Ratepayers' Association some two or three months ago to a similar effect, and the association were immediately informed by the Board that equal facilities would be accorded them as were given to other ratepayers. J. emphatically state that facilities for inspection of the ratebook by bona-fide ratepayers have never been denied by the Board, notwithstanding Mr. Johnston ? insinuations to the contrary. Now Mr. Johnston states that at the election 12 months ago these facilities wer>e absolutely denied, and proceeds to explain the position relative to the preparation of the ratepayers' roll. In the course of his remarks he says that the Board, after considerable persuasion, permitted the ratebook to be inspected and copied during such time as it was not required by the clerk, confining the timo to the candidates who were opposing the Board to the hours between nine and eleven in the forenoon. These statements, sir, I have no hesitation in saying, are absolutely contrary to fact. The Board never refused such facilities and required no persuasion to fix the hours of inspection of the ratebook by ratepayer as required by law, and so far from confining the hours for the opposing candidates they gave specific instructions to the clerk to allow them or their representative to inspect and copy such ratebook at all times during the day, a privilege which was duly taken advantage of by them, but with how much appreciation can easily be judged from the tenor of Mr. Johnston's letter. The privileges accorded as above stated were taken "advantage of by myself and other members of the Board, and the particulars were extracted by us from the ratebook. The particulars so extracted were printed by me at my own expense and the printed copies were used by the Mount Eden Ratepayers' Committee. This copy was found to be incorrect, and had the same errors as in the copy extracted by the other candidates. The errors were few in number, being confined, in the most part, to alterations of the names on the roll from "husband" to "wife' and vice versa. These alterations were detected by me a, day or two before the election, and I altered the copy accordingly. The ratepayers' roll as compiled by the returning officer was then on view at the office of the Board. Having corrected my copy my typiste struck off two copies for use on the polling day and these were not finished until the previous evening. I allowed my opponents and their friends at the Mount Boskill booth to inspect and take particulars from this roll, and ray actions, I thought, were appreciated by them. It is this substratum of truth underlying one of Mr. Johnston's statements, viz., the type-written copy of the roll used by the Mount Eden Ratepayers' Committee on the polling day, that has evidently called forth the letters of Messrs. Daldy and Young Warren, appearing in this morning's issue. A perusal of these letters will show clearly, the hand guiding the construction of the same. T am quite at a less to account for Mr. Dnldy's reply, as only yesterday morning at the Road Board office he stated in my presence, in reply to Mr. Webley's remarks, who was then complaining of Mr. Johnston's letter as a reflection upon him, that he was not responsible, for what Mr. Johnston might say, and that ho did not agree with him. Mr. Daldy was then engaged in talcing extracts from the ratebook. I feel positive that Mr. Young Warren, for whom I have the greatest respect, would not have signed the letter to which his signature is appended hud he been personally acquainted with the facts of the case. Mr. Johnston in his letter states that he did not impugn the conduct of the returning officer. This I leave to those best qualified to judge; but I can say this much, that the returning officer considers his conduct has been so impugned. 1 venture to say that, Mr. Johnston's letter would have come in better part from him had he written it at the time of the last elections and nor waited until 12 months. just on the eve of another election, before doing so. ft has evidently been written by him with a view of influencing the forthcoming elections, and such being the case, will, I know, be accepted by the ratepayers as an " electioneering dodge." Mr. Johnston is not taken seriously in the district, as tin! ratepayers still remember that within a few hours he became (a certain office having been allotted to him in the meantime in the Ratepayers' Association) a convert from an ardent supporter of the Board to an opponent. Such persons. whoso views can be so readily changed and made adaptable to particular circumstances, are generally taken by the public at their proper worth, and this, no doubt, will account for Mr. Johnston being placed by the ratepayers at the last election at the bottom of the poll. I do not intend, sir, to trouble you with any further communications on the above subject, but if Mr. Johnston or his friends have anything further to say I invite them to ventilate their grievances at the ratepayers' annual meeting on Friday evening next.—l am, etc., Ot.ivkr Nicholson*.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —in reference to Mr. ■ ('.. M. Johnston's letter on the above subject in Monday's HERALD, as secretary to the committee that worked in the interests of the successful candidates la.st year, I beg to state that the charges made by Mr. Johnston are entirely untrue, which he could have easily found out by inquiry, before rushing with such gross statements into print. It is a fact that the official roll used at the elections was different to that previously on view at the office, it, being a new one, anil up to date: but the alteration at the last moment was as confusing to us a.s to our opponents, our committee roll, which was used throughout the election, having beeu compiled in the same manner as Mr. Johnston's. His assertion, that the successful candidates used, copies of the official roll, as used at the election, when canvassing, and also on the day of the election, is entirely false. 1 am more surprised to see that Messrs. Oaldy and Warren lend themselves to Mr. Johnston, when it is so easy for them to find out by inquiry tin the charges are untrue, and therefore come under the heading of mud-throwing.—.l tun, etc., E. Yates. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Having received a circular from the Mount Eden Electoral Committee re the Mount Eden election, which takes place on Saturday next, 1 would, with your permission, like to make some remarks upon the same. 1. The electors of the district are told " that no difference of opinion exists with regard to the administration of the Board as at present constituted." That statement is far from truth, and is intended to mislead the public. If the committee really believe such to be the case, why issue this circular? But that a very strong feeling to the contrary does exist, is evident by the opposition to the present Board by the ratepayers of the western side of the district, who have practically been without representation on the Board for'the last two years. We trust, therefore, the electors will see the justice of our claim lor representatives, and return Messrs. Walters and Daldy, which would still leave a majority on the Board of Mount Eden members. 2. We are told that the present Board has carried out several important works with great 'success. One would like to be informed where to find them. Certainly, they ore not in the Mount Roskill side of the district. True, wo were promised a good deal, but, alas, the fulfilment is to be in the future and the distance. 3. Then, as. to the tramway question. By their own statement we arc in a worse position than we were 12 months ago, and the Board has to swallow the bitter pill that the Tramways Company does not intend to include Mount Eden Road in its present scheme. Had they accepted the company's offer in the first place, no doubt they would have had them in time: but, instead of taking advantage of the offer, they belittled the company, , doubting its bona-fides (which, I suppose, they are amply satisfied with now), with the result, that the question is hung up, because of the dog-in-the-manger policy pursued by the present Board. 4. " Are the whole of the ratepayers of the district prepared to be taxed for the extension of the tram to Mount Roskill Road only?" I would like to ask who paid for the widening of the Mount Roskill bridge? Not the ratepayers of the Mount Eden side of the district, the Mount B-oskill, who were taxed within a certain radius with a special rate, and, no doubt, wotdd bo prepared to do the same again if necessary. But why try to mislead the public? The company, I believe, are prepared to make the necessary alterations to bring their trams into the district, but for argument sake, should they refuse to do so, the rates that would be raised from the company, and the raving in the wear and tear of keeping the road in repair, would go a long way toawrds paying interest on the amount required to put the road in order. 5. We are told that the present policy of

the Board re tramways is only a continuation of that laid down by the Board at a time when it consisted, with'one exception, of members whose interests were identified with the Mount Roskill Road, and the circumstances of the district having in no way altered, do not warrant a change of policy.'' But the position and circumstances have changed. The company have refused to make the Mount Eden Road, therefore the Board should adapt themselves to the altered position, and by a broad-minded policy confer a benefit on that part of the district which is so admirably adapted for trams.— I am, etc., J. W. Bkidgmax. Mount Roskill Road. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,ln a letter which appears over the name of Mr. G. M. Johnston in this morning's Herald, some very serious charges are made lespecting the Board's method of preparing the roll at the last election. It seems that the present Board are determined not only to carry out their stupid cog-in-the manger policy of keeping back the Mount Roskill side of the district by not allowing us to havo the electric trams, but refuse eve.i to give fair play to those who may be opposed to them.* That it is high time a change was made in the personnel of the Board no unprejudiced, fair-minded person will question, and on Saturday next (May 3) ratepayers will be given an opportunity of effecting such a change. I would therefore urge upon all ratepayers, especially those residing in the centre of the district, to show by the way in which they record their votes on .Saturday, that they nave had enough of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs, as by so doing they will be benefiting the whole district, they will have the pleasure- of seeing the electric trams running along Mount Roskill within a reasonable time, they will have representatives who will make it their business to see that the affairs of the Board are conducted in a businesslike manner, instead of in the present happy-go-lucky slipshod fashion, and in addition, they will not be kept in the dark, as is the case at present, with regard to questions of vital importance to the district, and upon which ratepayers should have the fullest information.— 1 am, etc., Ceo. C. Cp.eagh. Milton Road, Mount Roskill, April 28, 1902.