VEXED QUESTION

Southland Times, Issue 19897, 16 June 1926, Page 5

VEXED QUESTION

AMALGAMATION DISPUTE OBJECTIONS TO THE PROJECT INTERESTING EVIDENCE HEARD. The third sitting of the commission which is at present hearing evidence for and against the petition Jo include the outer area of South Invercargill Borough in the Southland County, was held in the Courthouse yesterday. The commission consists of Messrs G. Cruickshank, S.M. (chairman), N. C. Kensington and G. T. Martin. Mr W. A. Stout is appearing for the petitioners, Mr S. M. Macalister for the County Council, and Mr W. G. Tait for the Borough Council. During the morning further evidence on behalf of the County Council’s objections to the petition was heard, while the case for the South Invercargill Borough Council, which is also resisting the project was opened and two witnesses were examined. The chief witness was the Mayor of South Invercargill Borough, who occupied the box for four hours. The commission adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until Friday. About twelve more witnesses are -being called on behalf of the borough. Robert Baird, member for Awarua riding on the Southland County Council, said that he inspected the outer area which it was proposed to include in the county. He did not it a suitable area to be administered by the county as the type of work that would have to be done was not. the kind usually attended to in other parts. To Mr Tait: Witness considered that the outer area of South Invercargill was receiving fair service from the borough for a rate of 24d. The rate in the Waihopai riding was 1 3-Bd, but he thought that if the county took over the area in dispute it could not do the work that was being done at present for less than 2sd. CASE FOR THE BOROUGH. The case for the South Invercargill Borough Council was outlined by Mr W. G. Tait, who mentioned several factors, which, he said, should be carefully weighed by the commissioners. The first was that in the past a great deal of money had been spent in the outer area in directions which the County Council would not even consider. Another strong argument was to be obtained from the population figures of the recent census, which showed that while the Invercargill Borough returns had increased by 13.11 per cent., the figures for South Invercargill were 23.66 per cent. Even if he admitted that this increase took place in the inner area alone, it showed what would happen in the outer area in the near future. No other place in the vicinity of Invercargill had such prospects of swift development as this part of South Invercargill, through which ran two railway lines which even now were carrying a promising amount of suburban traffic. In view of the certainties of the future the area should be left under borough control. In presenting the case for the borough, Mr Tait said he had been instructed not to oppose in any way the amalgamation of any. of the thickly-populated parts of the inner area with the main borough. If residents were desirous of obtaining the benefits of a big borough, which really amounted to luxuries, and were willing to pay for them, nothing should be placed in their way. But the point at issue was that residents of the outer area, which had to be disposed of before such an amalgamation could take place, would have to join the cqunty and would lose benefits which they had enjoyed for so many years. Mr Tait also submitted that the primary object of those in favour of the proposal, the amalgamation with Invercargill, should not be taken into consideration by the commissioners. The chief point was whether or not the amalgamation of the outer area with the county would be entirely just or would mean a backward step. Concluding, Mr Tait made reference to the petition which was the direct cause of the commission being set up. It was signed by 270 people, said Mr Tait, but not by 270 ratepayers. He proposed to call evidence to show that while the petition was being circulated facts were misrepresented, though he would not say wilfully, by the clever men who were taking it round the residents. For example, people were told that if they joined the county their rates would be decreased from 2|d to 1 3-Bd, whereas this had now been shown to be impossible. This was a strong statement to make, Mr Tait added, but he was prepared to substantiate it. The true position was that, the area would become part of a riding 20 miles square, administered from Gorge Road by one man. He proposed to call evidence that would be a complete denial of the statements made by those who were pushing forward the movement. EVIDENCE AGAINST PROPOSAL The first witness called to substantiate the case for the borough was Leonard Webb, for seven years surveyor to the borough. The witness was examined chiefly on the question of drains in the outer area, which it had previously been claimed would not receive attention if the county council took over the area. Witness said that the drains in the borough were in a satisfactory state and were periodically cleaned out. The roads also were in good condition. Evidence was next given by the present Mayor of South Invercargill, William McChesney, who gave a detailed account of the works which the borough carried out annually. He stated that he objected to the proposal to include the outer area in the county because he considered it a retrograde step after 48 years of borough administration. The area now had facilities which it would not have obtained under county control. The policy of successive councils was to provide adequate outfall drainage. In the interests of the land and public health it was absolutely essential that these drains should be maintained in good order. Where required footpaths had been constructed and were being maintained by the council. Neither of these works were recognised by the county. It would be quite impossible to maintain the area in its present condition at the county rate. Questioned regarding the activities of the Amalgamation Committee witness said that if the whole of the inner area were taken into Invercargill the position would be extremely difficult, not to say dangerous. The committee should have made searching inquiries to find out exactly where they stood and where South Invercargill would stand in the event of the movement being successful. Many of the residents who would be not affected by the change were not consulted. A COUNTER. POSITION. Witness then produced a document allegedly signed by 103 ratepayers within a part of the inner ward. This, he said, was circulated a few days ago and only ten refusals to sign the petition were met with. The wording of the petition was against the proposal. The opinion of the ratepayers, not including other persons, who were not approached, was practically unanimous that the time for amalgamation had not yet arrived Witness also produced a sheaf of letters received by the council from ratepayers in the outer area referring to the condition of drains, etc., or asking for improvements. This was a frank admission that drainage was essential. Another letter was received by the council recently from ten Clifton residents asking that the Clifton drain should be cleaned out. An interesting fact was that each of the men who signed this letter also signed the amalgamation petition, while one was actually , a member of the committee. Referring again to the amalgamation petition witness said: “The facts were grossly misrepresented by members of the committee ct meetings as the Press reports will show.” This aroused a strong protest from Mr Stout. “The people were also misled by those who circulated the petition,” continued witness. “I was present at two .meetings addressed by Mr G, Holloway ajad

the people were led to believe that if they joined the county they would receive the benefits which they at present received at a lower rate. Mr Holloway also said that the county would be quite willing to take the outer area into Waihopai riding and that if a majority signed the petition there would be no necessity to set up a commission.” Mr Stout objected to further evidence by witness and the chairman allowed the objection. Cross-examined by Mr Stout, witness said that last year the borough council expended £BO on the work of cleaning out 800 chains of ditches. Questioned in regard to the petition which he produced some time previously, witness said that he did not know what the men who took the document said to the householders to induce them to sign. He did not think it likely that one of them would tell people that they would not get a town supply of water for 14 years, or similar statements. A cross-fire followed between counsel and witness on the subject of statements made at meeting at South Invercargill by witness or other speakers while the amalgamation question was first being thrashed out. Referring to the south-eastern portion of the outer area the chairman remarked that no evidence had so far been given to refute the statement that residents in this part were desirous of joining the county. The commission adjourned at fi-45 jun. 11 a m, ou Friday.