The Merging Question.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 34, 26 October 1894, Page 2

The Merging Question.

At the meeting of the County Council on Friday last, when the special business of considering the merging question came up, there were present: Councillors Forsyth (chairman), McLean, Stevenson, Winks, Hemming* way, Quin, and Scott. The following was read Awatuna, 10th Oct., 1894. * To the Chairman and Councillors Hawera County Council, Hawera. Gentlemen, —At a public meeting held at Awatuna on the 27th September ult., a committee was appointed to canvass Waimate west of the Palmer Road, anent the petition*to merge now before the Council. The committee circulated a petition, as per enclosed, praying the Council to strike off the names of certain ratepayers (from the petition to merge now before the Council), which ratepayers signed to merge under misapprehension. , •

Several of the canvassers hove not yet forwarded their returns, but there was a sufficient number to hand duly attested to reduce the number of ratepayers desiring to merge to less than the majority required by law. . ■ The committee would point out that out of the 880 names on the said petition to merge, twenty-six of them at least were not on the roll at the time when their signatures were purported to have been obtained, to say nothing of the changes during the many months that elapsed between signing and presenting. Some have

alfo signed individually for a firm where only one name should appear. No. of names. Petition to merge as presented... 380 No#, to be deducted—1. Those signature s secured by misapprehension, as per petition In rewith ... 71 2. The signatures of nonratepayers 26 Balance left on old petition... 283 No. of ratepayers on the roll ... 650 The petition should therefore show at least ... ... 276 Actual No. of hona Jidc names left on the old petition ... 233 Deficiency 48 It strikes the committee as peculiar (to say the least) that the declarations unbrace the term “ county electors ” instead of “ ratepayers,” but many of the names do not appear on either tbe rate roll or the electoral roll. In conclusion, the committee would ask the Council not to grant tie prayer of the petitioners for the following reasons: 1. That almost a year has elapsed between the signing of the petition and its presentation., 2. That it does not express the true wishes of ratepayers. 3. That it does not bear the requisite number of bona fide ratepayers’ signatures. 4. That it is illegal.—l am, &c., A. Pkoudlock, Chairman of Committee. The Chairman said that if this petition was giv< n effect to, it would reduce the number of signatures to the other below statutory limits. The 26 referred to, he understood, were ratepayers in the Manaia Town District. Cr Hemmingway said that he had nothing to do with the canvassing in the first instance, but he understood tbe canvasser was instructed to canvass the Manaia township, and he always understood that opposition had come from that quarter. As for misleading statements in the petition, he knew of none. This agitation against merging had been carried on by two .or three individuals. It had exnanted from Opanake in the first instance, and had been carried on by a couple of members of the Road Board and an old schoolmaster. He was accused of misrepresentation, but at least he thought the Council should have been told in what the misrepresentation consisted. He courted tbe fullest investigation, for he denied it, and denied that he had ever admitted it. At one meeting he had been asked whether >the revenue of one riding could be spent in another, and he said he thought that each riding would have its own revenue. After he went home and looked at the Act, he found that the revenue of one riding had to

be spent within its borders, but that .. the Council, could borrow from one riding for another, but had to repay, and that rather strengthened his position,, because while the Act showed that each riding had its rights, the Council could, in case of disaster, arrange matters temporarily. That was the whole of the misrepresentation as far as he was aware. When ast dement of this sort was made against a councillor, some proof should be given and the petitioners should have been there to substantiate their statements. He explained that when the fir-t • meeting was held at Awatuna, so far from doing any canvassing, he said to them: “ Your interests lie more towards Opunake than Hawera ; so take plenty of lime to consider what you wUI do ”; but many preferred to sign the petition at once. He would like the Council, if it considered it necessary, to get the chairman of that meeting down here to clear him against the charges made against him. He was quite prepared to stand by the result. The whole thing appeared to have beeii concocted in ordbr to upset the petition. There appeared to be an idea that, the petition for merging was obsolete because the signatures were obtained several months ago, and that sentiment had changed. It was possible that sentiment had changed, but why ? Had the circumstances changed ? Had Anything occurred which would justify a change ? There was almost unanimity throughout the district that there should be but one body, and the objections which had been urged had been met in order to secure this. The first objection was that the riding ought to be subdivided. That has been agreed to by the Council. The n« xt was that there should be an approximate balance-sheet showing the position after the new ridings were made. That was agreed to. Then the third point was as to the district road expenditure, and that had been met fairly, because he put the matter

to the Council, and facts and experiences went against the idea that ther# would be any unfairness to the district roads. It was* now said that the petition or the procedure was illegal. Of course it might be, and if it wsß it must fall through; but so far the legal opinion which had been given was not based upon the facts. Under the «ircumstances, he saw no reason why the Council should not allow the merging petition to take its course and psoceed to make the special order. Cr McLean thought that at the least the gentlemen who bad sent in this new petition should have given their reasons for saying there was misrepresentation, and should have appointed some person to meet the Council to explain matters. Then the Council might have known what it was doing. At present it did not. This new petition might have been signed on false representations. Personally, he did not care to vote with two Waimate members absent. He wanted to do really what the Waimate people wanted. Perhaps the matter could be adjourned. Or Bcott said he considered it nonsense for the people who signed the petition in favor of merging to complain of misrepresentation. He had

no doubt they were quite aware of what they were doing. Cr Winks snid tbe matter bad been hanging on for a very long time, and he did not see why there should be more delay. Of course if it was illegal there would be an tnd to the thing. It was easy to make these charges against a man, but they must bo supported before tbe Council could consider them. It seemed to him that agitators had in this counter petition made charges which were not substantiated. The Chairman said the petition was, in his opinion, unnecessarily rough against Cr Hemmingway, and he did not think it should have been made out in that way. Still, there was the petition, and if it was accepted then the signatures on the merging petition were fewer than they should be. He had been asked by several persons who had signed the original petition what they should do, and he had replied that tbe wish of the Council was to find out what the ratepayers wanted, for if it was shown that there w r as not now the majority in favor of merging he did not suppose the Council would go on with it. Cr Hemmingway considered there ought to be some finality about these petitions. It seemed to be the custom now as soon as one petition was sent in, for persons who had signed it to attach their names to another petition on tbe opposite side. There had been another instance of that in connection whli the land funds to make the bridge on the Eltham Road. A petition once signed should be binding, unless there were reasonable grounds for supposing it did not represent the wishes of the people. If the petition for merging did not go through then there would be a new petition presented at once for constituting a road district on this side of Auroa Read. Meantime, however, there was the expense of two bodies when one could do the work equally well.

The Chairman said the reason given for she change was that when the original petition was signed it was understood that rates accruing in a riding were secured to it by law, but since then it was discovered that that was not secured absolutely, because tbe ridings might borrow from one another, and the law did not compel the borrowing riding to repay. Tbe petitioners wanted to have a rood district so that the rkte was secured to the district in \thlch it was raised.

Cr Quin said that was not a reasonable objection in the light of experience. The Chairman did not say it was; he simply explained that that was the objection. Cr Hemmingwffy quoted the 14Gth section of the Counties Act, which provided that separate accounts should be kept for each riding, and for expenditure of monf'y arising within each riding. The Chairman said that only applied to money left after the whole of the main roads, and bridges over a cer.ain span had been put into good order. Practically there would be nothing left if the main roads and bridges were put in good order. Cr Winks pointed out that the main roads would have to be kept up in any case. If the Road Board had control it would have to do that. It would have a district extending from the luaha to Opunake, and could sjfend its rates wherever it pleased. The Chairman ; Yes, but their objection is that money from Waimatc might be spent in Eltham or Hawera. Cr Quin said the reverse might also happen. Cr McLean said the lute Mr Downey had told him that some members of the Road Board had said plainly that they intended to spend their money on the district roads and would let the county roads go, so that Hawera and Mokoia money would have to be spent on the main roads. He said he could not believe that men would do such an unfair thing, but Mr Downey assured him that such was intended. Councillor Winks said the Council was there as representing tho ratepayers and being unanimously of opinion that merging would be a benefit they were neglecting their duty if they did not carry it out. He moved", That the Road Board of the Waimate road district be merged in the Hawera County Council: such dissolution and merging to take effect on the Gist day of December, 1894. Cr Hemingway seconded. Cr Stevenson said if the Council forced the thing it would only lead to trouble and legal expense, and this would be a mistake.

The Chairman could not support the resolution in the face of the second petition. The resolution seemed to say *• now we have this petition we will show very little respect to your wishes. We will merge if we have the power to merge.” He moved as an amendment, That the petition be received, and its prayer granted. He read the petition, and said it seemed to give very good reasons. Cr Stevenson seconded.

Cr Winks said the position was that a minority were to coerce the majority. The Chairman held that the motion was tantamount to merging when the majority required by law had not been secured.

[Crs Mcßae and Stewart here took their seats.] Cr Hemmingway said they found they could not get sufficient number to defeat merging in a fair and open way, and they had gone about it in an underhand way. The Chairman objected to the expression.

Cr Hemmingway withdrew it and substituted “ a most unusual course.” Cr McLean said that as all the Waimate councillors were present, he now felt at liberty to vote as he chose.

Cr Mcßae said it seemed to him that a number of people would sign anything placed before them. As they could not make up their minds, the Council should take its own course.

He would vote against the amendment.

The amendment was then put. Ayes, 3 —Forsyth, Stewart, Stevenson ; noes 6—Scott, Quin, Winks, Hemmingway, Mcßae, McLean. The chairman moved a further amendment that the making of the order bo held over until next meeting. Before that there would be an election of Waimate councillors, and this would give opportunity for farther expression of opinion. Of course, if it was the wish of the council to go on irrespective of the wishes of the ratepayers, the resolution must be pass* d. Cr Hemmingway pointed out that if the merging was not done within two months of the presentation of the petition it would pass out of the hands of the council.

The Chairman explained that there was power of appeal to the Governor after two months, but that was only in cases where the Council was hostile.

Ci’ Scott opposed the amendment. There had been many delays, it was useless dillydallying any longer. He was anxious to do what the ratepayers wanted, and a majority bad favoured merging for a long time. Cr Stewart pointed out that the petition had been presented a very long time ago, but was withdrawn owing to some informality. The Chairman said the signatures were obtained a long time ago, and on this two objections arose. One was that they were obtained when the road district extended from the Waingongoro to the Taungatara and the other was that since the petition was signed there had been ample opportunity for a gfnuine change of opinion. Cr Stewart thought that under the circumstances another month’s delay was not unreasonable.

Or Hemmingway expressed surprise at the change of front shown by Cr Stewart. The presentation of the petition had been delayed owing to the delay in gazetting the. merging of the Eastern end, for which no one was to blame but the Government officers. When the petition was signed it was known that the eastern end was to be merged. Cr Winks pointed out that at last election Waimate ratepayers returned councillors in favor of merging.

It was replied by the Chairman that the question was not then raised, but when it was raised at tbe previous election five were returned against it. The amendment was negatived on the voices, the only charge being that Cr McLean was for it, and the resolution was put aud carried. —Star.