Woodville Examiner. (PUBLISHED BI-WEEKLY.) Sine odio; sine projudicio. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1883. THE LOWER FERRY.

Woodville Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 9, 31 October 1883, Page 2

Woodville Examiner. (PUBLISHED 81-WEEKLY.) Sine odio; sine projudicio. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1883. THE LOWER FERRY.

Wa are flcased to note tlufe onr Wui-1-arr.pi c m temporaries have reiterated oir set t’ments n**rardin£ the giving away of the lower Feiry,by the Waiia rapa East County Conned, to Mr Latvkr. There appears co do ht that h whole transact!* n vas what may he fliily termed a “ joh,” and tho Com.oil in question riclily deserve the censnro they are receiving at the hands of the press. When the p int at the low ;r ferry was carri d away hy fliodsom' tin e ago, Mr FalloOx, the lessee of rim Gorge r crry enquired of Cr McGaudle as to whelh v Mr Calver would not be Ratio for the c )st of retcoring the punt and appurtenantes into working order. The r'p'y was, and most emphatically, “ the ferry was given to Mr Carver, by resolution of tho Council’ and that no stipul uions or arraig - ments had leea mentioned as regards expenses in connection with the ferry, consequently tho Conned were liable.” He did not, howave*, mention that tie Waipawa County won’d be callal upon to coutiibu c aqoott of the expenses i currel. This ha; bten done, and the amount ordered to h: ; a : cl, and the probability is, as \V; mentioned before, that such sum of money must lo taken out of the Woodville riding. Why has the Waip >wa Conn :il been led into the rroshes 1 Why was this accnurt ( atsed ? We enquire on Fhelf of M e Woodville people, and tho County generally. Such actions may fairly bo tumui “County maladministration.” Writing on the same question » correspondent to the Wairarapa Stir says ;—“ Ihe job can only te cuaractiaed as a gro s fraud on the ratepayers of this and the WVpawa County. Had it ben perpetrated by tin Government we should have hud Mr Hawkins holding it up to x'oration b fo c Ilia A tjssocation. Wlnt terras are sullli neatly strong to apply to such a C >u::c7.? Ihe act was unlawful vve hav j the consolation of know-, ing, but this is poor comfort when the ratepayers are taxed ti make up the deficiency. I is to bo hoped the Waipawn ratepayers wi’l insist upon a re., fund of the money their Council has paid, as if was an unjust demon I, and could not bo supported in law or equity. Fading this, let di cm r-hp yers petition fo-a special enquiry and let dayIgltint) the transaction. The Wairaiapi E st County Ciuucil having committel this glaring wiong—taken the first step in a downward cDii se—found it easy to per,-etrate another fraud nj on th - ratepayers and the Go • vernment by obtaining from the latter under the Roa is and B. idgon Construction Act with the expressed i itm iou of evading the cost. For this (blunder) the ratepayers of this County are taxed too, and tho rem -dy is a:parenil/ an an up. e<] to th* Audi Offncs, Wellingtoif, T e petitioners for the suspension of the C matiVa Act in Wairarapa should cite these two ins'auces of the county adrninutra tion.”