Mr White at Sydenham.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5024, 10 June 1884, Page 3

Mr White at Sydenham.

TO TIIE ETOTOR OF THE STAR. Sir, — I have been waiting for some time, thinking some of the electors of the model Borough would ere this have pointed out some of the inconsistencies and false statements made by Mr White on May 14, when addressing the people of Sydenhain. Quoting from your paper, Mr White said that, "He would like to apologise for not calling a meeting at. the end of the session of 1882. He had been subjected to an operation which had not been as successful as it might have been, and he had been consequently unable to meet them." How | far thi3 statement is true, will be seen from the fact that Mr White was so far

recovered from the operation to which ho refers, that he was able to attend to his public duties between five and six weeks before the meeting of Parliament. From the records of the Sydenham Borough Council, I find that Mr "White attended the sittings of the Council on May 7, 14, and 21. Also on Juno 4, as well as the Works Committee meetings on May 21 and June 4. Mr White also attended meetings of the Drainage Board on May 7 and 9, Parliament having met on Thursday, June 14, 1883. It seems plain that if ho could attend to his public dutio3 hero, he could have addressed his constituents before Parliament oict. Another point to be considered is the question of the Borough reserves. Mr White informed his audience that "Mr Eolleston had done all he could to prevent Sydenham from getting the 345 acres, and but for his influence the Borough would have lost the reserve." The credit of getting the reserve fairly belongs to the Hon. E. C. J. Stevens, who lias done his utmost for the Borough for years past, nad Mr White done his duty, the reserve question might have been settled long ago. On March 12, 1880, at one of the Council meetings, a letter was read from the Eakaia and Ashburton Porks Eailway Company, with reference to the taking of some land from this reserve. The consideration of the letter was defei'red, and in the meantime Councillor White was to see the Commissioner of Crown Lands relative to the boundaries of the same. I find that Councillor White never saw the Commissioner with respect to it, nor did he ever report on the matter, although notice of it appears on the order book of March 25, April 3, 7, 14, and 23 ; also on June 4 and 23, 18S0. Mr White attended all these meetings, and as chairman must have read the various notices. The public can judge how little he cared for the settlement of the reserve. Eventually the Town Clerk was authorised to go and see Mr Marshman, which he did, and reported to the Council on Sept. 24, 1880. On August 29, 1881, the Council received a telegram from Mr Eolleston stating that the Crown Grant of the reserve would be issued on condition that seven acres, were to be sold to the Eakaia and Ashburton Forks Eailway Company : so that the Council was distinctly promised, that so soon as the seven acres had been handed over to the Company the Crown Grant would bo issued. The Council, whether rightly or wrongly, raised various objections to the Company getting the land on the terms proposed by them. Consequently on Nov. 18, 1881, the Council was informed for the first time that the 345 acre block did not belong to the Council. Councillor Charters when in Wellington waited upon Ministers, and was informed that the 345 acre block was assured, and that a further grant of land would be favourably considered by Ministers on application by the Council. Both these statements are corroborated in Mr Fisher's letter to the Council, dated August 23, 1878. It was also understood by the Hons E. Eichardson, E. C. J. Stevens, and Mr Fisher that there was not the slightest doubt that the 345 acre block was promised by Ministers, together with the 835 acres which had been gazetted. Had Mr White carried out his instructions of March 12, 1880, and waited upon the Commissioner, the flaw in the proceedings would in all probability have been discovered long before, and the point determined before Parliament met. Instead of that Mr White never went to interview the Commissioner at all ; the Council waited until September following, and then appointed the Town Clerk to do the work which its slow member ought to have done. With regard to the footbridge over the railway, in line with Madi-as street : Mr White says " that the Council had offered to pay some of the cost, and he felt annoyed that they had done so without consulting him. He had been snubbed by the Council." The facts are that the Government thought that property owners in the vicinity would be largely benefited, and asked them to contribute .£4OO towards the erection of the bridge. Accordingly Messrs Lang down and Crowley canvassed the district for subscriptions, with the result that promises to the amount of .£2lB 18s were secured. Mr Langdown handed the subscription list to the Council on June 5, 18S2, and proposed a resolution, which was carried unanimously, " That the same be forwarded to the Government, and to ask them to accept this amount, and proceed with the erection of the bridge." I may sAy that all the correspondence had up to thia time been between the Council and the Government, and the subscription list, with the resolution, was an answer to their last commiuiication. Nor did the Borough Council know that Mr White had been interviewing the Minister on the subject. Instead of Mr White being snubbed by the Council, he has had all the attention paid to him that possiblly could be done to a representative. But he publicly accuses them of beingguilty of doing some grave wrong against him. This reminds me of the story of the viper that would bite the hand of the person who offered it food. Apologising for taking xip so much of your valuable space, — lam, &c, SOUTH BELT. Sydeuham, June 7, 1884.