WITHDRAW DEMANDED.

Thames Star, Volume LIX, Issue 16656, 28 November 1925, Page 5

WITHDRAW DEMANDED.

DRAINAGE BOARDS DISAGREE. HAURAKI AND HORAHIA. PROOF WANTED FOR STATEMENT The overtures made by the Horahia Drainage Board to the Hauraki Drainage Board on the subject of amalgamation, were definitely turned down yesterday, when the Hauraki Board decided in effect to have nothing more to do with the Horahia Board, until the latter had completed its £13,000 drainage scheme, now under consideration.

The features of the debate on the subject were a demand to withdraw a statement that the Hauraki Board’s attitude was tantamount to saying: “Drain your land any way you like, but don’t come to the Waihou River through the Hauraki Board’s area,” and also that the Hauraki Board had refused to meet the Horahia Board in eonfei ence.

At its last meeting, the Horahia Board passed the following resoutions:

“That this Board considers it would be in the best interests of the district to amalgamate with the Hauraki Drainage Board.” “That the Hauraki Board be written to and asked to favour amalgamation, on a basis to be settled ’by a commission. / Heated Discussion. The following letter was read from Mr W. E. G. Willy, clerk to the Horahia Board: — “I have been directed to inform you that my Board is of the opinion that the best interests of the district as a whole be better served from a drainage point of view, if the Horahia and Hauraki districts were administered as one. united drainage district. “With this end in view, I am instructed to write j r ou and ask if your Board will join the Horahia Board, in a petition to the Governor-General, asking him to declare the Horahia and Hauraki drainage districts to be one, united district. I shall be glad to receive your early reply.” : The chairman (Mr G. Gray): That is contrary to the newspaper version if the meetmg. Mr Heappy: I think the Board should be asked to withdraw the remans about “Don’t come through bur area.” Mr-Baker (warmly): I think so, too, and I'll move to that effect. Mi Heappy: It’s absolutely contrary to i.LCt. •Yt this point copies of the Star and Gazette were produced, both containing identically similar reports of the Horahia Board’s meeting. Mr Green pointed out that the Hauraki Board had never refused a conference as stated by one of the members of the Horahia Board, at a previous meeting. Members generally took very strong exception to this charge, saying tha the Hauraki Board had invited a conference and could produce correspondence to prove it. Mr Baker moved “That the Horahia Board be asked to withdraw the statements referred to as reported in the press, which were untrue, and a misconstruction of statements imade and 'etters written by the Hauraki Boat’d to the Horahia Board.” This was seconded and carried unanimously. Newspapers Agree. Mr McMillan said he would like to refer to the propaganda going about' with the object of cheapening the Hauraki Board. He had favoured amalgamation from the start, and was the cnly member of the Board to take up that attitude. Mr J. C. Miller had said tne Hauraki Board’s settlers did not

,gree with a statement by the Board that its area was fully drained. “I will challenge Mr Miller to prove that the settlers in the area under my control are no. as well served in the matter of drainage as any settlers on the Plains.’

Y voice: Make it any settlers in this Board’s area.

Mr McMillan: Certainly.

Continuing, Mr McMillan went on to explain that the Government, in the first place, had laid down the drab age scheme to obviate the necessity of water from the Horahia distri:

coming through {he Hauraki Board s district. -

The statements made by the members of the Horahia Board were- calculated to “cheapen” the Hauraki Board, in the eyes of settlers, and “it’s time it was stopped. I’m going to move that the Hauraki Board will not consider amalgamation until the Horahia Board has fully completed its proposed drainage scheme.” The chairman, agreed with the last speaker, and seconded the motion. Mr Heaphy: They want to dominate the whole position. That’s the thing in a nutshell.

A further perusal of both newspaper reports of the Horahia Board’s meeting drew the opinion that the Horahia clerk’s letter did not interpret the wish of the Board as reported in both newspapers.

After further discussion, in - which members gave free expression to their aggrieved feelings, Mr McMillan’s motion was carried unanimously.