COUNTY BOUNDARIES

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10512, 6 April 1927, Page 5

COUNTY BOUNDARIES

RATEPAYERS DESIRE CHANGE FROM EKETAHUNA TO PAHIATUA PETITION BEFORE COMMISSION. From 10.30 a.m. to 6-45 p.m. yesterday, in the local Borough Council Chambers, a Commission of inquiry sat to hear a petition by the settlers concerned to have their propel ties transferred from . the Eketahuna County to the Pahiatua County. Ihe latter body supported tne petitioners, and the Eketahuna County raised obleCAfter the full facts had been placed before them, the Commission adji >ini)di, to resume at a> later date, consider the evidence, and forward their recommendation to His Eixceilency, the Governor-General. The Commission comprised: Mr 11. W. C. Mackintosh, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Wellington (chair-man) ; Mr P. Fowler, District Valuer, Masterton; and Mr W. I. Armstrong, chairman of the Masterton County Council, station holder, residing at Mangaru, Masterton. Mr G. H. Smith appeared for the petitioners and the Pahiatua County Council. Mr H. R. Biss, of Masterton, represented the Eketahuna Comity Council. The text of the petition was that the boundary between the Eketahuna County and the Pahiatua County be altered -so as to include in the' Pahiatua County and exclude from the Eketahuna County all the land which is particularly described in a schedule as the property of the following: Peter Tulloch, Tulloch and Cavanagh, F. E. Tyler and Philip Davies. David L. Bourke, M. G. Bailey, M. Galvin. R. B. Godfrey, Harnua Dairy Co.. Ltd., A. Gadsby, R Dougherty, C. Udy, A. and j. J. Dougherty, Lloyd and Piper, A. E. Tuckwell, S. J. Tuek--wei], W. J. Ryan, M. C. Ryan, B. M. Smith, A.' Hobbs, D. Ross, J: P Hansen. Neil Small and A. V. Udy. COMMUNITY OF INTEREST. Mr Smith said that the history of file appointment of counties showed That there were only 63 counties constituted m the first place but now there were 129 and the boundaries were being constantly altered in consequence of tiie change of conditions where those counties were situated. For instance Woodville County had recently taken a slice out of the Phliiatua County and Dannevirke had taken a slice out of V» oodville. No attempt had E.-n made to arrange uniformity in the size of counties tin ijugliout New Zealand. Weber was l.iC smallest county with 78 ratepayers and Walternate the largest with 5.045. One of the main principles had been to endeavour to arrange each county so as to contain ratepayers with a community of interest!—that had been the only principle taken into consideration when fixing the boundaries. THE RATES COMPARED. Comparing the two comities, Pahiatua and Eketahuna, Pahiatua had an area of 301 square miles and compris--ed 871 ratepayers. The total unimproved value of the land was £1,531,282. Eketahuna had an area of 276 square miles, and comprised 565 ratepayers. The total unimproved value' of the land was £1,053,044. The petition affected an area <jif about 7) square miles in which were were about 30 ratepayers, a. very small proportion, and of which the rateable unimproved value was £53,683 The general annua! rate collected by the Eketahuna County Council from the area affected by the petition at 3§d in the pound amounted to about £754 18s 4d, at 3Jd in the pound to about £782 17s 6d, at 3|d in the pound to about £BIO 16s Bd. The Pahiatua County Council’s rate upon adjoining lands was at 231-312 d in the pound. A similar rate from the area affected by the petition would produce about £469 11s 7d. The general rate in Eketahuna then was considerably higher than that of the Pahiatua County hut it was not on that pjround that the petitioners asked for the change. If the rates were even higher in the Pahiatua County they would still desire the change on account of their community of interest lying with Pahiatua. This was not a ease where the majority were in favour of the proposal, every single one in the area was keen for the change, and that should he the main consideration. The locality was on tl le Main Road, between Pahiatua and Eketahuna, in actual distance the locality was a little nearer Eketahuna than Pahiatua. The land was on both sides of the road with outlets at Hamua. PAHIATUA THE CENTRE.

The whole of the petitioning ratepayers used the Borough of Pahiatn.i for every form oif business and pleasure. There were 18 to. 20 cars in that locality and they were brought to Pahiatua for repairs, etc. The owners got their licenses at Paliiatua. When these cars were used they nearly always came in to Pehiatua, travelling on 8J miles of Pahiatua County roads. On that ground the Pahiatua County Council considered it a fair thing for these ratepayers to be included in the Pahiatua County, ns so rarely do they use the Eketahuna roads. If the alteration in boundaries was made Pal.iatua would have to maintain another 2 1-10 miles of Main road so tl at the County was not naming anything in the matter of finance. But

the ratepayers had been unanimous a.nd so the'Pahiatua County fathered the petition. BLACK BRIDGE TROUBLE.

There was almost hostility existing between these ratepayers and the Eketahuna, County, as some years ago what was known a.s the Black Bridge was washed away, separating these ratepayers from the Hukanui station. Nothing the ratepayers could do could get the Eketahuna County to do anything to have it re-erected. The bridge was down for four years. When the Hamua Dairy Co. by resolution requested the County to do something, Councillors at a meeting gave it a poor reception. According to press reports one councillor said the Dairy Co. could “Go to h—l.” Another used the remark “Let them get their heads read.” Mr Smith emphasised again that the community ot interest for the petitioners lay with Pahiatua. Even when they paid their rates to Eketahuna ail the cheques were written on Pahiatua and exchange had to be paid. The petitioners also maintained that they weri more heavily rated than they should be, the rates and valuations being higher Than any other part of ttm county, yet very few roa's and bridges had to be maintained m their particular area A mm l lower rate they contended would in 111 1 all iheir requirements. However, not much importance was attached to tliis matter. The main point was that 30 people were asking for the change and the Pahiatua County was in agreement that the change was fair.

“ALL COME TO PAHIATUA.” The first witness for the petitioners was Peter Tulloch, who said he was a land agent, residing at Pahiatua, and owning a property of 178 acres in the area in question. Their eommunitv ot interest, he said, was all with Pahiatua. They all banked there and practically did all the rest ot their business there. Thirteen of the petitioners belonged to the Pahiatua Racing Clu/b. Mr Biss: “Their rates can’t he too had then.” Mr Smith: “That’s how they make their money to pay the rates.” (Laughter.) \ Continuing, Mr Tulloch said that several of the petitioners were also members of the Pahiatua A. and P. Association. They came to Pahiatua to the theatre, the piotures, and the garages. When the Black Bridge fell the petitioners were for four years cut off from the railway and it had been most inconvenient. Appeals to the Eketahuna County proved of no avail.

Mi Biss: “Do any Pahiatua tradesmen deliver in this merger area?” Witness: “Gunn, the baker.” Mr Biss: “What Eketahuna tradesmen deliver there?” Witness: “I don’t know. I am not living there.” ’PHONE CONNECTION INCONVENIENT. ilr B iss : “What telephone ' exchange are they connected with?” Witness: “Eketahuna.” He added that this was a great inconvenience as each time they rang Pahiatua It meant a, bureau fee. In reply to further questions, the witness said the petitioners were served by the Hukanui Station, which was in the Eketahuna County. The factories, Hamua and Hukanui, that they supplied, were in the Eketahuna County. The small stores were obtained from, these factories. When the Black Bridge was down the cheese from the Hamua factory had to go to Die Newman or Eketahuna stations. Mr Biss: “Over Eketahuna roads.”

Mr Tulloch agreed that if it could he shown that by this transfer of properties the petitioners would find they had to pay higher rates in the Pahiatua County than they had in Eketahuna he would not have been so keen for the change. He agreed also that there was a store at Hamua where goods were obtained; there was a baker there too and a butcher at Hukanui who served parts of both the Eketahuna and Pahiatua Counties. Replying to Mr Smith, -witness said that if the change was brought about a few of the petitioners would still use half a mile of the Eketahuna County road to get to the Hukanui factory. A BREEZY WITNESS. Philip Davies was the next witness. “I’m a Welshman,” he added after giving his name. He said he had been dairy-farming at Hamua for the past 12 years and his property was in the area in dispute. All the petitioners, he declared, banked in Pahiatua. The Hamua Daily Co., of which he was chairman, did likewise. No one banked at Eketahuna and any sensible man knew- that where his banking account was there his business lay. He did not know of any petitioner who went to Eketahuna to do business. Mr Smith: “Are their cars brought to Pahiatua for repairs?” Witness: “Yes.” Mr Smith: “Is yours?” Witness: “No. You see, I bought the “Goddam” thing at Eketahuna and if anything goes W'rong I expect him to fix it up. (Laughter). But last year the extent of my business in Eketahuna was £3 with Herbert and I haven’t paid him yet.” (Laughter). NO COMPARISON. Mr Smith : “Out of every hundred times you go out how often do you go to Pahiatua and how often to EketahunaP Half and half?

Witness: “Oh, half and half me grandmother! Ninety-nine times out of a hundred I go to Pahiatua. Mr Smith: “Your telephone is connected with Eketahuna?”

“Yes.” Mr Smith: “Which town would you rather be connected with? — “Oh, Pahiatua.” Witness went on to explain that the black bridge was down for two or three years. At the end of that time lie called a meeting of ratepayers, who resolved to approach the Eketahuna County to do something in the matter but all they got were some uncomplimentary remarks passed by the councillors. Mr Smith: “Are all the rates paid by you people put on your Witness: “No. I think the rates are excessive.” THE LIQUOR QUESTION. Mr Smith “If the rates w r ere the same in both Counties would you still want the change?”—“Yes.” Air Eiss suggested that the fact that Eketahuna was a no-license area had a lot to do with it, but witness did not agree that this was so. Air Biss asked if it w-as not true that the business-men of Eketahuna wanted to get the district out of the Alasterton electorate because it was a no-license area. AIOTORS CRIPPLING EKETAHUNA. Witness said it was not the liquor question, but the motor traffic that was crippling Eketahuna. To All- Biss witness admitted that most of the petitioners got the bulk of their manures and goods from the Hamua factory store. Herbert and Co., of Eketahuna, also delivered in the area once a week. NATURAL BUSINESS CENTRE. AI. Guy Bailey said lie had been dairy-farming within the area for the past 13 years. He looked on Pahiatua as his natural business centre and the other petitioners did the same. For this reason they earnestly desired the change. All- Biss asked if it was true that both butchers who served this area lived in the south. Witness: “Yes. They've got to come north to get a living.” (Laughter). All- Biss: “You object to your rates ?” Witness: “Of course 1 do. every man does.” He added that lie was two miles nearer to Eketahuna than to Pahiatua yet he always came to the latter town. If the rates were the same in both counties he would still desire the change. SLIPPING BACK. Addressing the commission, AliDailey said he understood that the unimproved and capital value of Eketahuna town had decreased 50 per cent since 1904. “We can't hold it up,” he said, “and it’s no use trying,” Continuing, witness said the liquor question had nothing to do with the petitioners always going to Pahiatua. His wife, for instance, was not far from being a prohibitionist yet she had not gone to Eketahuna more than six times in the last 13 years. Witness pointed out that his doctor was in Pahiatua, his lodge was there. He w-as a member of the Pahiatua A. and P. Association and of the Racing Club. A BOTTLE OF WHAT?

It had been said, and lie agreed, that one could get anything in Eketahuna that was obtainable in Pahiatua —but at a price. “The only difference is you can get a bottle for 12s 6d in Pahiatua and you’ve got to pay £1 down there,” he ended amidst laughter. Ah- Bi ss: “How long has the banking account of the Hamua Dairy Co. been at Pahiatua?” — “Always.” IMPORTANCE TO RATEPAYERS. Alfred Valentine Udy, farmer of Hukanui, said that in the first place a meeting of the ratepayers concerned had been called at his house and he had then been asked to take round the petition. The matter was regarded as an important one by the petitioners. For over 30 years, witness said, he had done his business at the Pahiatua, end and as far as he knew the others did the same. For business or pleasure, they always went that way. In 1914, Air Udy 'Said, the rates on his property amounted to £44, now they were over £IOO. If the rates had been the same in both counties he would still have desired the change of boundaries. To Air Biss, witness admitted that the western riding of the Eketahuna County, of which this merger area was a part, used to be very much in debt, but had now pulled up and was practically square. Special rates, too, were paid out of the general rate, and since 1914 the land had been re-valued. TWO GRAVEL PITS. Air Biss asked witness if he was aware that there were two gravel pits in the area supplying that area and other parts of the western and eastern riding of the Eketahuna County that would be lost to Eketahuna. 4The Pahiatua County would lie taking the sole source of gravel and Eketahuna objected as they had bad to toe the line with Pahiatua. before through carting metal over tlic Pali Valley road.

Air Smith: “Pahiatua lias no intention of blocking your supply of gravel. There would be no difficulties in that direction if the alteration was allowed. PAHIATUA COUNTY OFFICERS.

John Hutton, clerk to the Pahiatua County Council, gave evidence that if the alteration was brought about it would create no inconvenience or difficulty as far as administration was concerned.

Samuel Macrae, road ovenseer for the Pahiatua County, said lie had been over the area and prepared an estimate of the cost to maintain the roads and bridges there. He estimated the annual cost to be £366 17s 3d, without taking in any special rates. The alteration in boundary would prove no inconvenience. Cross-examined by Air Biss on the details of his estimate, he admitted that the area would be taken over in pretty good order. Samuel Bolton, chairman of the Pahiatua County Council, said that in June last the ratepayers had put their petition before the Council and it was unanimously decided to act upon it. A.s these ratepayers used the Pahiatua County roads it was considered they should help pay for them.

John Denis Alathews, member of the Pahiatua County Council for the riding adjoining the merger area, said he did not think the change would cause any inconvenience. It was only natural for the petitioners to make Pahiatua their town. For one thing it was more populous. He considered it a fair thing for the boundaries to be altered. This concluded the evidence for the petitioners. PETITION OPPOSED. Air Biss said the Eketahuna County did not oppose the petition on selfish grounds. The western riding was an over-roaded district. Out of a total of 190 miles of road in the Ctaunty 87J miles were in this riding, nearly half the length. Further, the riding comprised an area of 58,000 acres out of a total of 200,000. The rateable unimproved value of tile merger area was £56,000, compared with £320.000 for the whole western riding. Thus a sixth of the value of the riding was the subject of the petition, and only one ninth of the road mileage, there being but 9J miles of road in the merger area. If this area was taken out it would mean a 50 per cent increase in expenditure for the remaining ratepayers to maintain their roads. In the past the rates had been judiciously spent in this riding. The hospital and charitable aid rate, other special rates, and a proportion of the administration expenses had all been spent out of general rate, which was shown >n detail by -figures prepared by the clerk of the Eketahuna County and exhibited. Air Kiss maintained that the rates had been spent on the area in which collected. Some years ago the western riding had been in debit £I3OO odd but it had since pulled up, and now that the riding account was nearly square the rate would be reduced to 2fd or so, as in the past. At one stage the roads had got so bad in the western riding that the council decided on a comprehensive scheme of repair. Six and a half miles of road in the merger area were specially treated too, and this exploded the argument that the petitioners had not been getting value for their money. “DODGING THE RATES.”

Counsel said lie believed that the incidence of rates was the fact that determined the petitioners. It was solely for the purpose of dodging higher rates that they desired the change. Air Smith: “That means that the Commission must disbelieve the oath of 30 men.” Air Biss continued that because ratepayers had community of interest with Pahiatua it was no reason why they should not remain in the County that had been loyal to them. He doubted, too, if the community or interest, as explained, was as definite as had been claimed. The unfairness was that the ratepayers living beyond the petitioners at WaiWera, Kakariki, and those on the Kopikopiko road had not been asked to join the petition. Yet those ratepayers had allowed the Eketahuna County to use their accrued thirds for expenditure on roads in the merger area which gave access to their districts. Air Smith: “They will still use the roads.”

Air Biss said the Eketahuna County had bought and jiaid for a metal pit in the vicinity of the Hamua factory. He did not wish to he ungenerous to the Pahiatua County but Eketahuna had been refused permission to cart metal over a Pahiatua County road once before and they could be refused again in this case. Air Smith: “Only if they exceeded the heavy traffic regulations as was the case before.” (The remainder of an extended report will appear in to-morrow s issue).