COUNTY BOUNDARIES

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 10513, 7 April 1927, Page 2

COUNTY BOUNDARIES

PETITION OF SETTLERS COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. The following is a continuation of the inquiry into the transfer of properties from the Eketahuna to the Pahiatua County, heard by sj Commission at the local Borough Council Chambers on Tuesday. The whole of an extended report could not bo included in yesterday’s issue. ABOUT SQUARE. Frank Cowl am, clerk to the Eketahuna County since 1911, testified that the western riding was nearly square now and the rate would be reduced to 3d or under this year. The rates had been higher in the western riding than in ally other on account ol its being allowed to get in debit. The County had spent £3OO in the merger area in erecting a cottage and acquiring the pit in factory road. “THE PLUM.” Mr Cowlam said the proposed merger area was the most valuable in the county. Mr Biss: “The plum, and Pahiatua wants to pick it while it’s ripe.” To Mr Smith witness admitted that the Eketahuna. County was taking one-sixth of the revenue of the riding from the petitioners and only maintaining for them l-9th of the roads in the riding. OYER-ROADED RIDING. Nathaniel Malcolm, Eketahuna County engineer for the past eight years, said that the western riding was well over-roaded. As far as tlie merger area was concerned the roads were in good order and £I2OO would rebuild four very small bridges that required attention. “AN UNJUST STEP.” John Blacklock Carruthers, farmer at Tlamua, and chairman of the Eketahuna County Council, said he had been a member of the Council for 17 years and chairman for fifteen. He felt that the ratepayers in the merger area had been well-treated by the Council. If this highly valued portion of the riding was allowed to go over to Pahiatua he considered it would be unjust as it represented a sixth of the value while only covering a ninth of the roads. Tf the proposed merger was acceded to, it would eventually inevitably impose an impost on the others. Furthermore the County would lose its undisturbed access to the two gravel pits in this area which supplied the whole cf the riding. AN EXPLANATION. Mr Carruthers admitted that the Black Bridge had been down for three years, but many factors had caused this. There was no bridge rate then and the money had to be raised, by special loan following a poll or petition. The County however, could get no unanimity among the settlers there. Some contended tho bridge should he re-built others did not mind if it was . not. if it entailed an extra fate. Eventually the bridge rate came into force, the dispute over the site was decided, and xhe County erected the bridge on the old site. Answering Mr Biss, witness said that taken all through the County had spent more money on the merger area than these ratepayers had contributed. MR BISS SUMS UP. In an eloquent address, lasting over an hour, Mr Biss summed up the case for the Eketahuna County. He said he found that the petition really resolved itself into certain persons asking for the amalgamation of their lands with a. neighbouring county This struck at the very root of vhat was being agitated throughout New Zealand at the present time, the amalgamation of whole counties whereby overhead charges won Id be cut down. That was what the Commission had to seriously consider—whether the petition was not contrary to those principles. The Counties of the Wairarapa were amongst the smallest in New Zealand, particularly Eketahuna, Pahiatua, Weber, Akitio, etc., and it was a disturbing thing if the smallest were to he robbed of their most valuable portions. It struck fundamentally at the root of the principle of County amalgamation now being advocated throughout the Dominion. Every man, said counsel, objects to his rates, and if he can get into a County where the rates are small lie will do so. If the rates in the Pahiatua, County had been 3d and in Eketahuna 2£d there would have been no Commission sitting that day. Undoubtedly the petitioners had got value for their money. It had been good finance in making capital payments out of revenue as the County had done, by means of striking a high general rate. Now, if a lean time came along the rate could bo dropped accordingly. That was sound finance. But the rate collected had not been unduly high, it was impossible to compare one county with another. With regard to the different areas in a riding there had to be a pooling of resources. It had amounted to this though : Petitioners who had paid say £IOO in rates had expected to see the full value of that on the roads before their properties, even regardless of what special charges were to come out of that first. As the figures produced hy the Eketahuna County clerk showed, the merger area was the “plum” of the riding insofar as it comprised a thirteenth of the area, one ninth of the roads, but a sixth of the value. If this area was now going to he allowed to change over, flint general rate would he lost to Eketahuna and the riding would be put out of its stride. Five-sixths of the value of the riding would then have to bear the cost of eight-ninths, of the roads. It had been said it was not fair to use the Pahiatua roads and not pay for it. Mr Biss confessed this was excellent, in theory only. There had to he a dividing line somewhere, and now because a few south of the line travelled north they wanted to change the

boundary. It would be very unsafe to disturb the existing system that had lasted well over a score of years, giving cause for complaint to no one. It was noticeable that there had been no objection from the Pahiatua County about its roads being used by these settlers. If the merger was allowed foreign loans and rates would have to be collected by the Pahiatua County and this would be a disadvantageous state of affairs. The apportioning of assets and liabilities by the Commission would be an unenviable task too. If the request of these 30 petitioners was granted, where was the Commission going to draw the line? What if the Kopikopiko settlers wanted to transfer too? It opened up huge possibilities. These petitioners, he said, were not instigated by the unselfish, humanitarian principles that they declared. “We are told they bank in Pahiatua. I bank in Wellington; I do that for convenience. But the fact that they have got a manager in Pahiatua who is not so hard on their overdrafts should not be an excuse for Eketaliuna to be penalised. Witnesses had said they got their goods from Pahiatua. but cross-examined they had confessed the bulk of their stores. were procured from the factory and canvassers coining from Eketaliuna. Mr Biss said that if this had been a petition from the Pahiatua County Council to amalgamate with the Eketahuna Council he would

have advised Eketahuna to consider it as a possibility. But if Pahiatua showed pictures five nights a week and Eketahuna only twice was that an argument why the county boundaiies should he changed? If the petitioners had no interests with Eketahuna why had they allowed their telephones to be connected up with Eketahuna and not Pahiatua? With regard to the black bridge, when such a bridge as. that went through the ratepayers concerned had to agree to be specially rated for a new structure. E.ut in this case, they didn’t agree and if bridge loans had not been allowed there would have been no new bridge there yet. In conclusion, Mr Biss impressed upon the commission that the Eketahuna County were trustees for the property and assets of a great number more people of the Eketahuna County, other than the petitioners. The county had a duty to perform to them and the considerations to the majority outweighed the considerations to the ratepayers in the proposed merger area. The jieople who had benefittod most in the western riding were now going to get away and be free of their' liabilities, and the speaker did not see why the rest of the riding should be penalised as a consequence.

MR SMITH PUTS HIS CASE. Addressing the commission, Mr Smith said the evidence that had been put before them was all they had to decide the case on. “What has the amalgamation of counties got to do with this?” he asked. “The commission has got to deal with the laws and the local body position as it is to-day. Pahiatua quite recently had to give a part of its area to Woodville, and Woodville a part to Dannevirke. “It was a practice in operation and the commission was only concerned with the merits and demerits of this particular petition. The petitioners were not asking for the change over just on account of the rates. Their community of interest was with Pahiatua, for they came to Pahiatua for everything at all times, with very few exceptions. That was what created community of interest. The people concerned themselves should be the first to be considered in a case such as this. The only reason Eketahuna wanted these ratepayers was given by Mr Carruthers who said they contributed a larger amount than was spent on their area and the county did not want to lose this revenue. If the Eketahuna county had not been making money out of these, people they would not have to keep them. The Pahiatua County Council did not know, till the petitioners came to them and informed them, that these settlers were using the Pahiatua County roads almost exclusively. They then considered the matter and concurred that it would be a fair thing for the petitioners to be included in the Pahiatua County. The question of the gravel pit in the vicinity of the factory was easily got over as there were other pits available in the locality. The collection of foreign rates was only a simple matter of accountancy. The riding account was square now, not in debt any longer, and all the special loans and special rates came with the settlers to he collected for Eketahuna by the Pahiatua County. What was unfair about it then? On the question of rates an attemut had been made to show that the’ petitioners' only desired the alteration to escape the rates. Well no group of ratepayers as large as the petitioners in any case should be asked to P a y_ a larger rate than they deserved. The railway, factory, and store where the goods were bought were within this area and so would he in the Pahiatua County. All other requirements that could not be purchased there were got from Pahiatua; that was the point. And if some other district asked to have its boundary altered to be included in Pahiatua then surely the commission would sit and listen to the evidence as it applied to that area, and, if not deserving, refuse the petition. Eketahuna had already acquired tjie Alfredton riding from Masterton. “You should consider nothing else but the evidence that applies to this petition,” concluded Mr Smith. “Our object is to help you analyse that evidence and give it its true value. All the petitioners want the change, and want it earnestly. Ihe Paliiatna County Council fathers the petition, nnd asks for it to be granted. The desire of the ratepayers is clearly the main consideration when fixing county boundaries.” Mr H. W‘. C. Mackintosh, chairman (and Commissioner of Crown bands), arid the Commission would adjourn at that stage and resume at a later date to go into the evidence. Their recommendation would then he forwarded to His Excellency the Governor-General.