The Oxford Observer. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY APRIL 3rd 1897 THE OXFORD NOTE BOOK

Oxford Observer, Volume VIII, Issue VIII, 3 April 1897, Page 2

The Oxford Observer. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. SATURDAY APRIL 3rd 1897 THE OXFORD NOTE BOOK

BY PENNIB. The residents of Oxford cannot be said to be alive to their own interests, if the attendance at the Public meeting called by the Water Supply Board, to consider the Bush conservation &c. be taken as a criterion. If benefits have to be secured for a people or a district, those least affected by" those benefits do the greater share of the work in securing them, while the people look on and criticise. Perhaps, personally, the conservation or otherwise of the Oxford bush would affect the members of the Board least of all, yet those members devote their time and energies to what they conceive to be in the interests of the district, and their constituents will not so much as attend a meeting to consider an advantageous proposal ; for if the lands in question were secured, as desired, there is no doubt that the ratepayers would be benefited. According to the report of the meeting, the opponents of the proposal were not ratepayers in the water race district. It is scarcely likely they would be. The residents along the hills between the Western Boundary of the Water supply district and View Hill, have everything to lose and nothing to gain. According to the proposal, the Board does not desire the bush country forreVeinue but for I conservation purposes. In order that the rates may be lowered, or at anyrate \ they may not be raised, it is desired j that certain pastoral lands, the annual rental of which is about £200 be acquired. It is becoming self-evident

' that the asserted cheapness of the Cooper's Creek water supply scheme has broken down. Originally to cost £1,700, it was soon found that £500 more was needed. This was raised, and an additional £300 has been attained from the Government. Notwithstanding this the Board wished Government to make them a grant of lands worth £500 a year. It seems like borrowing money from the Gov ernment and asking Government to pay the interest. If the Board were to ask for the pastoral lands only, the bushmen would, I believe, offer no objection, and as to conservation of the forest, the Government, through the Land Board could attend to that. Already the Land Board has decided to grant no more grazing leases at present. This is in the right direction. Those bushmen engaged in putting up firewood, and splitting stakes, posts and rails, merit as much consideration as the saw-millers, and should have their rights "present and prospective," secured to them.

It is usual for a Chairman of a public meeting to rule that unless all amendments to a motion are moved before any motion is put to the meeting, they cannot be accepted? The correct ruling seems to be this : a motion is proposed and perhaps an amendment. The amendment is put to tbe meeting, and the votes for and against are counted. If this amendment is carried, the motion is lost, and the amendment becomes the substantive motion, to which an amendment may be moved, and so on. It may often happen that there are voters who oppose both motion and amendment ; but as Chairmen frequently act, have no opportunity of stating their views by vote. In Oxford at anyrate, the Chairman says, "all who are in flavour of the amendment," and "all who are in favour of the motion" 1 , but never "those against the amendment or against the motion.' Thus the voters are thwarted. Ido not impugn the impartiality of any, believing that those who preside, act conscientiously, though probably mistakenly.