5

H.-21

the mining industry which is carried on within its boundaries. The small production from the cultivated land in its vicinity could not support a town. Mining is on the wane in the district, and the time may come when it will entirely cease. The inclusion of Matamata within the Harbour Board District, and its consequent liability to rating, will, as already stated, affect the revenue required to be raised from the other portions of the district. The Matamata County is a large and populous district, and if rated on the scale applied to other counties would, on account of its distance from the harbour and the less benefits likely to be derived, provide more than a fair proportion of the revenue required by the Harbour Board. Your Commissioners have therefore fixed the rate to be levied on the County of Matamata and Matamata Town District at the amounts set out in Schedule II —viz., Jd. and in the pound respectively. We forward herewith a plan of the district [not printed] coloured so as to indicate the portions of Matamata and Piako Counties which we think should be excluded from the harbour district. In addition, certain portions of Thames and Ohinemuri Counties (as previously mentioned), not shown on plan, but more particularly described in Schedule I, should be excluded from the harbour district. The Commissioners are scarcely in a position to describe the boundaries of the lands in the Piako and Matamata Counties which should be excluded, but have indicated them on the plan. Accurate descriptions could, we suggest, be obtained from the Chief Surveyor of the district. Some of the counsel engaged in the inquiry drew the attention of your Commissioners to the inequality of the representation of the different districts on the Harbour Board, and to the fact that the Borough of Paeroa and the Morrinsville Town District are not represented at all. On looking into this matter it seems to the Commission, that something really requires to be done. For example, the Boroughs of Te Aroha and Waihi will apparently contribute less than £200 per annum each to the proposed special rate, and each returns a member to the Board, while the Piako County, which will contribute nearly £5,000 per annum, has only one member, and the Borough of Paeroa, which will contribute as much as Te Aroha, has no representation at all. Moreover, the inclusion of the Matamata County and Town District will, of course, entitle the ratepayers of those districts to some representation on the Board. The present constitution of the Board is as under : — Number of Members. Thames County .. .. .. .. .. | Ohinemuri County . . . . .. . . .. [ 2 Hauraki Plains County . . . . .. .. .. j Piako County . . .. .. . . .. .. 1 Te Aroha Borough .. . . . . .. .. 1 Waihi Borough . . . . .. .. .. 1 Thames Borough .. . . .. .. .. 2 Payers of dues . . .. .. .. .. .. 1 Government nominee .. .. .. .. .. 1 Total .. .. .. .. ..9 If the representation of the various districts is worked out in proportion to the amounts to be contributed to the special rate the following figures will be obtained :— Number of Members. Piako County . . .. .. ... .. ..2 Hauraki Plains County . . .. .. .. lj Thames Borough . . .. .. .. if Matamata County .. . . . . .. • • li Thames County .. .. .. .. • • I Ohinemuri County .. . . . . .. \ Waihi Borough .. .. . . .. • • -h, Matamata Town District .. .. .. ■$$ Paeroa Borough .. .. .. .. is Te Aroha Borough . . .. .. .. -fa Morrinsville Town Board .. .. .. • • is

2—H. 21.