COWS TO STAY

Opunake Times, 20 February 1948, Page 3

COWS TO STAY

. petition not favoured LIVELY DISCUSSION For the second time in three months' the Borough Council ' dealt with the issue-, of Borough Cows and again after a lively discussion, in which personalities and some “washing of dirty T.n*en” (the election) were indulged in hv Councillors, the- voting went 4 to 3 against a poll, with the difference that this time the motion included the phrase “that no action be taken this term. The discussion was brought about by the presentation of a petition, signed by 57 ratepayers, requesting the Council to conduct a poll on whether cows should be allowed to roam on the nnfenced reserves of the Borough. It was sponsored by the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Cr. W. Gunson maintained that residents decided the issue at- the election and as representatives of the people the Council had g’ven the question fair consideration and decided it was not in the best’ interests of the town. Jaycee accepted the challenge at the recent elections, which clearly indicated the decision of electors and any sporting organisation would have been satisfied. 57 out of 280 odd ratepayers wasa poor minority, he added, and he accused Cr. Hume of misrepresentation in obtaining the signatures. Cr. A. Hume refuted the charges but stated that he understood ■ the cows had been responsible for damaging tE© trees planted on parts of the sea cliff. “Far from being sporting yours is _ a dogmatic attitude. We are discussing a sum .involving £l2O a year and five minutes ago we decided on a poll'involving about £1,500 yearly. All we’re asking for is a" poll of ratepayers,” he added. Cr. Gunson and Hume clashed over “Jaycee” and references to councillors’ stated opinions on cows at the public meeting prior to the elections were recalled. Cr. Gunson said Cr. Smith , did not speak against cows then, but later acused Cr. Clement of “somersaulting,” “Your are the one who somersaulted,” he added, Cr. Clement engaged Cr. Smith, allowing Cr. Clouston to step into the breach. Cr. Clouston maintained that the Council was put into office by electors who knew the views of Councillors on the subject. The petition was not a true indication of the feelings of ratepayers. Cr. Hume asked why (Jie petition for a rating poll (52 signatures) was acknowledged. Cr. Gunson: That was governed by an act of Parliament. The petition .before this meeting was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the Council, he added. Cr. Clement said that 57 signatures out of 280 was absurd. I could get 57 in favour of the cows in a day or two,” he added.

An amusing inference (although voiced in all sincerity at the time) that Councillors gained their polling figures almost entirely on this issue was ridiculed hv Cr. Barraclough, who quoted his own case.. Cr. Gun son : Tliere wasn’t much alternative. Cr. Gunson then moved the motion as stated, earlier and Cr. Clement seconded. Cr. Smith was at last able to sneak to the charge of “somersaulting” stating that he had remarked that he favoured the removal of the cows but had added that it might take a year or two. No. 24 on the Agenda paper was then dealt with.