THE PUBLIC MEETING AT PORTOBELLO AND MR SEATON, M.H.R.

Otago Witness, Issue 1605, 26 August 1882, Page 14

THE PUBLIC MEETING AT PORTOBELLO AND MR SEATON, M.H.R.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Referring to the "meeting of indignant J ratepayers at Portobello" on Wednesday last (an account of which appeared in Friday's Times), and the alarming (?) resolution passed whicl^ your paragraph says " must be _ a ' crusher' for the honourable member for Peninsula." As I happened to be present at the meeting, kindly allow me to boil the matter down a little. In the first place it may be as well to say a few words respecting^ the bill which has been the means of so terribly lacerating the feelings of Portobello ratepayers. The bill then is, I believe, the outcome and | contains the principles of a resolution passed \ 1 at a public meeting held at Broad Bay some j i time ago ; and a petition emanating therefrom 1 was numerously signed by residents along the harbour side and at Portobello. The object of the bill is to place the whole Peninsula Beach road and the properties benefited thereby under the control of the Portobello Road Board. So far, the road from the Portobello Hotel to Anderson's Bay has been maintained by subdivisions of Broad Bay (Portobello Road district) and North-East Harbour (Peninsula Road district), the length of road being about equally divided between them — Portobello subdivision contributing nothing, although it is their only practicable outlet. Should this bill pass the Cpuncil as ft appears to have done the House, the probability is that the road in question would soon become what is termed a main district road, and thus a rate could be levied over the whole district , to support it. Now, Sir, would there be any great injustice in that, seeing that ali are equally interested ? As regards the meeting, which to make sure of an audience, was held at the close of the annual meeting of the Road Board, 15 persons attended, 10 voting for and four against the formidable-looking resolution— thus showing what a tremendous upheaval of indignation there must be in a district possessing at least 260 ratepayers. About Mr Seaton's sinning. It appears that a petition against the bilK-which, by-th,e-way, went the round of the district under the skilful guidance of a paid canvasser from the 1 Board — was sent up to Mr Seaton for presentation to the House, and was there rejected owing to the Standing Orders not having been complied with. Mr Seaton, in returning the petition, neglected to say where the error was— consequently he is not fit to reign over us ; and so thought most of those immortal 10 at the last election when Mr Seaton was returned. — I am, &c, George Gbeen. Broad Bay, August 21st. ' TO THE EDITOR. x » Siß,~Seeing in the Times of the 18th inst. the report of a meeting of ratepayers at Portobello, in which a resolution of censure was passed on Mr Seaton for his action in connection with the boundaries of Portobello Road district, I take the liberty of making a few coniments thereon. I think Mr Seaton ' has been trying to do justice to his constituents as a whole, instead of favouring an insignificant few, who seem to think they have a personal right in him. Mr Seaton's idea, it seems to j me, is that people should be taxed for the roads <they use. Now this few have been using for years a road they were not taxed for, and I believe the prospect of having to maintain this road themselves is the cause of all their selfish agitation. Hoping you will insert the abo\|e, as the report of the meeting of the 16th would lead outsiders to believe that Mr Seaton had lost the confidence of the majority of his constituents in place of the reverse,— l am,' &c, William Leslie.

Harbour Cone, August 21st.