HUTT COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1423, 8 June 1899, Page 36

HUTT COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTATION.

JOHNSONVILLE PROTESTS. AN INDIGNANT MEETING. . Between forty and fiity ratepayers ot the Porirua Riding attended the Itecnabite Hall, Johnsonville, on Monday evening to consider the proposal of the Hutt County Council to deprive the riding of one of its members. Mr William Cook, chairman of the Johnsonville Town Board, was voted to the chair. The chairman having explained that the meeting had been called m consequence of a decisioji passed by the Town Board, said it had been decided at the last meeting of the County Council that the Porirua Riding should only have one representative instead of two —for what reason he did not know. Had they been over represented in the past? iNo.) Were thev not entitled to two members ? (Yes.) “ ' , . Mr H. Greer suggested that the chairman of the Town Board should always bo an ex officio member of the Council, but the chairman declined to take a motion to that effect. Mr M. Atkinson asked if Councillor Majendie would tell them how they were going to be benefited by having only one member instead of two. He moved, ‘•That thus meeting protests against -he action of the Hutt County Council in de - priving the district of a member, and asks that the motion be rescinded.'’ Mr Jillett seconded this. Mr F. Greer said Councillor Majendie should not have dared do such a thing without first appealing to the ratepayers. Who put him there? The meeting should pass a vote of censure on Councillor Majendie. If, however, before next meeting Councillor Majendie would withdraw the motion he would make a man of himself, but if he did not, as a public man he could chuck up the sponge.

Councillor Majendie said lie could vindicate the position of the Council, and .prove also that the action taken was in the interests of the riding. The question of the redistribution of the ridings was brought forward by the officers oi the Council, and he had supported it. Mr Atkinson : You proposed it. Councillor Majendie: I merely proposed that the report be adopted. Ho explained that it was decided at last meet-* ing that each riding should be represented by one Councillor, and he had supported the proposal because lie thought it was in the interests of all the rate-, payers. He was distinctly of opinion that it was a right and proper thing to do. There was no earthly reason why they should have any sp- eial say for their riding. Mr H. Greer: We have the biggest ratepayers. Councillor Majendie : No. He then r«ad a statement showing the valuation of the various ridings under the old system, and the proposed valuation under the new boundaries. It was as follows : —Belmont (old valuation), £118,898; this riding it was proposed to wipe out. Epuni (old). £104,806 ; (new), £142,553. Horokiwi. £194,390, £217,928. Makara, £134,751: same amount under new proposal. Mungaroa.. £146,488. £194,703. Porirua. £286'366, £283,831. Jolmsonville, £39.488 ; same amount under new proposal. Wainui -o - mats. £71,194, £81,250. Wliareron, £135,194, £139,178. The proposals had been made on a very fair basis. The readjustment would benefit that particular riding in this way : sometimes it had dual representation and sometimes no representation at all, that was to say, that the representatives differed about two out of every three questions that came before Inc Council. Of course it was nearly impossible to get two men to think alike. It would be a distinct advantage for the riding to be placed on an equal footing with the other ridings. Then there would be no jealousy on the part of other ridings, and the single member would know that the whole responsibility of attending to the wants of the riding would be upon his shoulders. The proposals would meet with the approval of all the ratepayers, and they would bless the day when they had only one member appointed. In reply to Mr Atkinson: Couuculoa Majendie said the railway rate was about £4OO. ... , r Mr Atkinson said Councillor Majendie had not proved why the member should he taken away. Councillor Majendie could not understand the argument- that there should be two skippers in one ship. . Mr F. Greer said Councillor Majendie had given them a kune goose. It was a ruse. He had got some*.lung on his gridiron, and he was determined to carry it out. The tnanks or the ratepayers were due to Councillor Bould for his action in opposing the proposal. If he (the speaker) had dared he would have liked to have taken Councillor Majendie by the scruff of the neck and pitched him out. (Laughter.) Mr Jillett- asked why -he petition bearing sixty signatures he had presented to the Council, and also the petition having thirty signatures against the proposal, presented by Councillor Majendie, were thrown out? Councillor Majendie saia the matter was decided on principle, and that over-ruled any objection. Mr Jillett: Is it a fact- that you only half-crown- ratepayers were on my petition? . _ ,' Councillor Majendie: I had not seen it then. He had said that a lot of shilling ratepayers could be had. Mr Atkinson: Why were those petitions chucked out? Councillor Majendie: They were not chucked out. The question was decided ou principle. Mr Atkinson: I shall stand up lure until I get an answer.. Councillor Majendie: I have answered.

The chairman: I consider it was r.n answer.

Councillor Bould said Councilor Majendie was at the bottom of. Mie whole readjustment scheme. No one else would have taken it up, and it was lie who had suggested the teduction in the representation, which he (Councillor Bould) had opposed. He was not going into the Council to vote for Councillor Majendie, and if the rateayers thought he was they had better not elect him, because he would not do it. Councillor Bould explained at length the reasons why he had voted against Councillor Majendie at various limes. After further discussion, the motion was put arid carried by a (onsideiable majority.