DEPUTATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3937, 29 September 1874, Page 2

DEPUTATION.

A deputation consisting of Mr Thomson, M.H.R., ; Mr Toimie, M.H.R., M.P.O. ; Mr D. Henderson, M.P.O. ; Mr John M'Neil, M.P.C. ; and Messrs David Whytock, John Somerville, Robert Banks, A. 0. Begg, H. P. Hardy, and Captain M'Kenzie, waited on His Honour the Superintendent yesterday as a deputation from settlers of Warepa,, W.aitepeka, Puerua, Ahuriri, and South Clutha districts. The object of the deputation was to get His Honour to bring a memorial of the settlers against the proposed diversion of a railway line before the Colonial. Government. Mr Thomson, who introduced the deputation, stated in detail the request of the setters. The following petition had been agreed to:— . . ... To the Hon.. Edward Richardson, Esqi, Minister of Public Works. The Memorial of Settlers in Warepa, Waitepeka, Paerua, Sonth Clutha, and Ahuriri districts, humbly showtth— ' ; That your memorialists have learned with regret, from a letter addressed to their representative, James W. Thomson, Esq., by William Brunton, Esq., District Ln<rmeer, that he cannot recommend the construction of the Balclutha and Mataum line of railway by \vavof Waitepeka Valley. J J J That, in regard to the objections raised by 3lr Brunton against the Waitepeka route, " that it will be about th ec-quarters f.f a mile longer than the original route as set out," your petitioners are of opinion that this is not a valid-objection, considering-the great advantages that would result to the district in which your petitioners reside and the larjrc revenues that would accrue to the railway by the adoption of this route in the increase of traffic. . . • . .

That your petitioners do not desire to arjrue with Mr Brunton t'".ts various points raised by him, but from fie general knowledge which your petitioners have of the line of the two routes,.they should expect that the earthworks byway of Waitepeka route would cost considerably less &an by the other route, and that the gradients would be easier. Your petitioners, therefore, are unabls to understand why the Waitepeka route will entail extra expense and earthwork to the extent of £13,500, and much steeper gradients That even-granting that the line by .way of Waitepeka would cost more than by the original'route-as set out, which, however, your petitioners are not pre-pa-ed to admit: yet. considering the .traffic by wty of Waiteiwka route would be very much larger than by the Four-mile Creek, the Government would be amply justified in incurring extra expenditure. -That your"petitioners believethat by the route of which the flying survey is made there will be numerous sharp curves, whilst by the way of Waitepeka there will ba few if any curves. , '•.■': That the route as. originally set out passes through, a. district in which'there are very few settlers, the laud beins ce,upied chiefly for pastoral purposes, whilst if the line take? the Waitepeka route it. will catch the traffic not only of the Warepa, Waitepeka, and Puerua districts, but of the districts l>eyond, in the direction of Port Molyneux and Catlin's River. To those districts it proves veryadvantageous, as it brings railway communication six miles nearer to them.

That four district roads meet near the place where it was proposed the station should be erected at Waitepeka, being so centrally situated that the whole traffic of the surrounding districts^ would naturally flow to such station; if once erected.: :

That, unless the line goes by Waitepeka, the greater part of the traffic of those districts will go by sea, as at present, and therefore, because of distance from the railway, will be entirely lost.

That, whilst mnny of your petitioners enjoy the advantages of water carriage, yet, considering the inconveniences connected with this means of conveyance, would much prefer the advantage of railway communication.

That, in regard to a branch line to Port Molyneux, which, Mr Brunton suggests, would "give most of the settlers who would be accounnodited by the diversion all the advantages they require," such a branch line would be of no use whatever to the settlers in Warepa, Waitepeka, and Puerua districts, inasmuch as said branch line would not pass through nor near said districts.

That your petitioners feel convinced that if the Government were acquainted with the two particular routes, and the way in which the route by way of Waitepeka Valley opens up a'means of railway communication, by bringing the railway six miles nearer to a very large population, and to whom it would prove a very great boon, as they would be enabled to go and come to the station with their produce in one day.

Your memorialists trust you will take the precedingpremises into your consideration, and that you will see it to be both for the interests of the-railway and the benefit of your petitioners to cause the line of railway between Balclutha and Mataura to be constructed according to permanent survey already made by way of Waitepeka Valley. And your memorialists will ever pray, &c.

[To the memorial ICO signatures were attached.] After remarks from various members of the deputation,

His Honour said that lie had gone into the matter very fully. He perfectly understood it, nnfc only from what had been stated, but from his own personal knowledge of the district. So far as any influence he could bring to bear was concerned, he should be happy to strongly urge the General Government that the line should go as the memorialists requested, and which way there could be no question was the oaly proper route. He promised to write to the C denial Government, recommending what the memorialists suggested ; and

The deputation thanked His Honour, and withdrew.