THE Poverty Bay Independent. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, September 29, 1885.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 55, 29 September 1885, Page 2

THE Poverty Bay Independent. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, September 29, 1885.

If further arguments were needed to prove the urgent necessity which undoubtedly exists for subdividing the County they might easily be deducted from the fact that at the last meeting of the Council that august body, in the plenitude of its wisdom, and in the knowledge of its strength, actually—like a drowning man clutching at a straw —passed a motion to the effect that “ the proposal to divide the County is premature ” on account of the ridings having “no interests in common.” To fully understand the absurdity of this act of supererogation it must be remembered that the Council is constituted of six members, representing the three Southern Ridings, whilst the three petitioning Northern Ridings are only represented by three members, one of whom was absent, consequently there was no possibility of vetoing the motion, and nothing to prevent them having it all their own way. Of course, after late experiences, which have given a good insight into the motive powers which guide the deliberations of the majority of our county parliament, it was not to be supposed that any sense of propriety or diffidence would have prevented a recourse to such a breach of common decency and fairness. At the same time we cannot but express some surprise at the action of a member who, well knowing that already a very large majority of his riding, and amongst them most of the large and influential ratepayers, had declared in favor of the division by signing the petition, and in spite of his public obligations and their avowed desire, presumes to take up a dictatorial position diametrically opposed to the wishes, interests, and welfare of those whom he is supposed to represent. When a member finds that he cannot retain his seat with honor to himself or benefit to his constituency, th to is obviously but one honorable course open to him—that pointed out by Councillor Gannon. We were the first to call attention to the great injustice and wrong under which the Coast settlers were laboring, and we have hitherto strongly supported and advocated the movement for subdivision, not solely as a means whereby to obtain relief from existing evils, but also in a strong determination to use every endeavor to snap that chain by which an arrogant and selfish combination seek to cloy and fetter the march of progress and development. A new Northern County means new vitality, with a corresponding extension of aims and interests, in the only direction in which we can in the future possibly hope to rely upon for the staple products of the soil, and as one of the main arteries whereby to feed our town and harbor. It is the only means whereby «-e can intimately link ourselves with that fine tract of splendid fertile country which stretches away northward, and which, under the fostering care of an energetic Council devoted to its interests, and with large fiscal powers, must undoubtedly make rapid strides in the direction of settlement and productiveness. Viewed in their true light the opponents of this movement are the opponents of right and progress, and afford another instance of that interested selfishness, the effect of which is so painfully apparent in every part of these young colonies, but in no place so much as in Poverty Bay. But although the course of development may be for a while checked and retarded for such unworthy purposes, yet in the end jt only gathers greater impetus, and already Tologa and Waiapu have signed the petition to a man, whilst the Waimata will doubtless be more than completed this week. The only effect which the promulgation of the counter petition can have is to prove to the majority of the Waimata settlers that in the person of their present member they I are thoroughly misrepresented.

The result of the interview which took place between the Committee of the I Borough Council and the County Council on Thursday last for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of the two local bodies in urging the Government to define the tidal boundaries of the Waiapoa River with a view of finally disposing of the vexed gravel dispute, cannot fail to prove most eminently satisfactory to a large majority of the public, as tending to show that, in spite of the scurrilous vituperation and obloquy which has been hurled at them by corrupt Harpagons and schemers on the one hand, and the obstructive elements of crass density, blended with servile pandering, on the other, we have in our public bodies a few men of sufficient moral calibre and integrity of principle to espouse the public cause, even when betrayed by justice herself. Although it is scarcely necessary to individualise, yet we feel constrained to acknowledge that the action taken by His Worship the Mayor, both in this matter and also with respect to the momentuous question of separation, proves that he is eminently worthy of that high respect which at all times attaches to a liberal minded and public spirited man, but more especially when it adds to the prestige and lustre of our highest civic potentate. The commendable action taken by His Worship must tend largely to counteract that dangerous undercurrentwhich has of late shown a marked tendency towards sapping the very foundations of justice. A more glaring instance of the dangers to which we are subjected to under the present regime of “ the powers that be ” cannot possibly be found than this attempt to debar the public from the’rights and privileges of the use and control of one of the largest rivers in this island. Although the application to Government cannot but result in the public favor, yet in the event of any miscarriage in that direction, there will not be want, ing those who will make further strenuous efforts in the public’s behalf.