PROPOSED INGLEWOOD COUNTY.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16505, 5 August 1919, Page 6

PROPOSED INGLEWOOD COUNTY.

ATTITUDE OF TARANAKI COUNCIL ACTIVE OPPOSITION REJECTED. At a meeting of the Taranaki County Council on Monday a motion by the chairman, seconded by Councillor C. Andrews, “That steps be taken to oppose the constitution of the Inglewood Country,” was lost. The mover, the seconder, and Councillor Vickers voted in favour and those against were: Councillors J. Andrews, Morton. “Wooldridge, and Simpson. Councillors Capper and Laurence expressed no view. In moving Lis resolution the chairman (Mr, J. S. Connott) said ho was still convinced that the formation of tho Inglewood County would bo a step in the wrong direction and not in the interests of the ratepayers of 'Taranaki or tho proposed new county. He was further of opinion that the finding of tho counuission was not in accordance with the evidence given before it. Ho thought the commission bad paid too much attention to what had been said as to the treatment meted out to the Mon district by the 'Taranaki County, and he also referred to what he considered the unfair action of the Inglewood County advocates in taking the commissioner around tho distinct. Councillor J, Andrews was of opinion that the matter should be allowed to take its course. He did not think it much use opposing the county. Councillor Morton said he, was opposed to the chairman's motion, not because he was in favour of the. Inglewood County, but because he thought the county was bound to accept the finding of the commission. He was quite satisfied it was a wrong finding, and not in accord with evidence, but that had no bearing on the matter, as the understanding had been, when the matter was before the Local Bills Committee and the Minister undertook to .set up a commission to hear all the evidence. that the finding would lie accepted by both parties. “Whether the methods adopted by the promoters of the county were unfair or not, the Council should accept the position as it was, and not further oppose the county. Ho was .satisfied it was a mistake, and of course, the Minister and the Local Bills Committee, might yet not adopt the finding of the commission. Councillor Wooldridge said he did not know by what methods the Inglewood people- had secured the signatures, but he believed a petition in favour of the county had been signed by about 90 per cent, of the ratepayers. He thought that should carry more weight than oven tho commission’s report, and on that point he was against tho chairman’s motion.

Councillor Simpson said that if the •Council was successful in blocking the new County Bill this year ho was quite sure the question would come up again, bpcan.so tile people there were determined to get. n separate county. .He thought also in view of the ratepayers’ opinion in the area concerned, they should let the district work out its own destinv.

Councillor Vickers said ho thought if it had been understood that the finding of the, commission was to bo -accepted by all parties, they should not go any further in the matter. Ho was, however, opposed to the constitution ol small counties, and to tho whittling away of the areas of the present Taranaki County. He thought it would he more and more recognised that as the harbour at Moturoa developed all roads would lead to New Plymouth, and the Taranaki County would bo obliged to carry more and more heavy traffic- from all the other counties to the port, in spite of what might he said about community of interest with other districts.

Councillor C. Andrews supported the chairman and said everything should be done to place the true position before the Local Bills Committee. He was convinced that the step was a huge mistake. . » Councillor Capper thought it woftld have been better if some outside gentlemen had been appointed commissioners. When the first proposal for a- separate county had been made lie had been one of its' heartiest supporters, but in the present case, being a member of the County Cmjpcil, he did not cave to take any part. He thought, the Counties’ Conference should be given an opportunity of discussing the position and of expressing an opinion as to whether largo or small counties were in the best interests of the Dominion. Councillor Laurence said he adhered to the position he had taken up throughout the proceedings, and remained neutral on the question. The chairman repeated that his opinion was that it was contrary to the interests of the surrounding local bodies that there should bo another county. It would be a great deal better if there wore fewer counties in Taranaki. He had no personal feelings against anyone in the Moa district, hut was following out what he believed was bis duty as chairman of the county. Before the vote was taken Councillor Vickers made a personal explanation of his position, he not having been a member of the Council at the time the proceedings took place. Ho would, however, vote in the direction in which his convictions carried him. It was subsequently understood that a cenoval remit on the question should hc°submittcd to the Counties’ Conference.