The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1917. TE AWAMUTU OR TE KUITI?

Waipa Post, Volume XII, Issue 663, 27 July 1917, Page 2

The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1917. TE AWAMUTU OR TE KUITI?

In any discussion upon the itinerary of the Military Service Boards it is necessary to descend from the clouds of theory to the hard tacts of established necessity before complaining that the accepted practice is wrong. Considering this fact—remembering that necessity and - circumstances must be the deciding factors, it is much to be regretted that our contemporary the King Country Chronicle, should have entered a strong protest against a change in the Board’s sittings from To Kuiti to Te'Awamutu. The strongest ground of this protest is “that the extra difference in the distant travelling to reach Te Awamuu is a hardship,” and causes ■ at least two days’ delay in the return of the appellants to their homes in the back districts. Such an argument suits the theory of the protest, whereas the real facts are that there has been no appreciable loss of time in bringing appellants on to Te Awamutu as the railway services have enabled them to leave and return to Te Kuiti' within a few hours. If might fairly be supposed that an appellant from the back district would arrange to reach Te Kuiti the evening previous to the hearing ,of bis appeal; it might also be concluded that he would reserve a dear day to make his journey back lo his farm, and in that case lie suffers no delay by journeying on to Te Awamulii. Our contemporary further contends that “apparently without reason” Te Awamutu was included in and Te Kuiti excluded from

[lie itinerary, but it would have been generous; to concede that the authorities knew their business and that this Board desired? as much as anybody else, to study the convenience of appellants in arranging to hear their appeals. It /-• worthy of mention that tlie change came about almost simultaneously with the reduction of the train services, and a glance at the existing railway timetable shows that whereas both north and south-bound services permit journeys to be made in the early morning To Kuiti appellants can return in the early afternoon whereas the service from Te Kuiti to Te Awamutu could noi be made beiore dusk. The respective return journeys, then, -hate an appreciable bearing on the convenience oi appellants who reside in or near the townships, the position of the backblocker appears to be the same no matter where bis appeal is heard as lie must reserve a clear day to complete bis journey. So- far from being “without reason” wo ieel sure that the Second Auckland Military Service Board lias studied all the ruling conditions in a large district, seeing not the interest of the town ! ut the convenience of the majority of ■ appellants as the bash- upon which its arrangements were made. Criticism of the Board’s action in this respect, though ostensibly in the interests of the appellants, is keenly suggestive of a selfish desire to promote a town’s wjbliare at any cost, and tiie apparent exaggeration of the wastage of time suggests an over anxiety to attain that purpose. For this reason the action taken by our southern friends is deplorable. Their criticism may have been warranted, but it exceeded the bounds of reason when it found its immediate expression in the form of protest. Moreover, it was selfish criticism in that it. saw only the interests ut' the Te Kuiti people and the convenience of those who naturally drift into that town. The broader outlook would have suggested that the appellants in Te Awamutu and its hack districts were entitled to exactly the same measure of consideration and the existing railway timetable shows that there would be more loss of time and greater inconvenience by taking Te Awamutu appellants to Te Kuiti than reversing the order ol tilings as at present. Without the least thought of the welfare of any other section of the community the critics at Te Kuiti see only their own scliish desires; their criticism is destructive instead of being constructive. They demand that “before the authorities decide to again sit in Te Awamutu, the hoard will resume its sittings at Te Kuiti as heretofore.” The view we take, and in this we feel sure opinion in this district is expressed, is that if the demands warrant it and if other conditions permit, the Board will include both, centres in its future itineraries, hut if this course is not possible we leel fully confident that it will he the convenience of the appellants and not the interests of the towns that will enter into the consideration and decide its plans.