SEPARATION FOR KIWITEA.

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 156, 27 August 1881, Page 2

SEPARATION FOR KIWITEA.

Tif.EUangilikei Advocate m its issue of the 23 rd, speaks m bitter tones of the action taken by the Manawatu Highway Board, with reference to the Kiwitea Block. It is worthy of note, that although the article condemns Lhe Board m assorting its utter inability to legislate for the Kiwitea, it most strongly advocates, and argues, that it is quite time a separation of the two districts was effected ; that the K'witea Block is large enough to have its own Road Board, bo that it could claim an independence. Although tho. sapiont scribe so harshly attacks the action of the Manawatu Board, m seeking to induce tho Kiwiteans to establish a Road Board of their own, he goes on to slate that the residents of that district, have for a considerable period entertained a desire to effect a separation, which statement, is a dh'ecfc expression of ideas harmonising with those held by the Manawatu Board. It is then asserted that K-'witea has been shamefully, and habitually neglected by the Board, but no explanation is offered aa to how, or m which way. Now, the Manawatu Highway Board, m the first place have had IHtle funds for expenditure m Kiwitea, and secondly, they ha.ye not for some time past, had the power — m the continued absence from the meetings of the "Warden, for Kiwitea — .to authorise any expenditure. If the good people of Kiwitea, acted m concert,"they would, surely, prevail upon their member to attend meetings, and urge their claims. To our knowledge, the Board has recently authorised the expenditure of money m Kiwitea, for road work, and as usual having failed to " fetch" the Kiwitea member, had to authorise a man to see the ivark carried out, and further, the Board has now funds to be expended on roads m the Block but cannot authorise its expenditure until Mr. Perry, the warden, attends a meeting. The Advocate, as usual, has grasped the wrong end of the -■tick. _ Itve.'y mildly asserts, that the Kiwireans would have " cut the paniter" lon^ s'^ce, only that they have-not had the time to devote to pub! 'a .iffairs. A*tr> tho Board's bein^ da^tory m the coll' c ion of its rates m the Sandon Carnarvon dis-ti-ict, or- No 1 "Ward, we may explain for t'»e edification of Ih> editor m qucsL : on, that the Manawatu Bnard pu- > no!=e 1 y lei:'; I*e ~ates uncoFeeied kuowhig that the ratepayers of that d ; strict were advocating* by petition a separation. The Board knew the seoarafron would take nlace, so did rio^eolleeb tho rates, knowing that if they did, the money would only h?ve to be handed over to the new Board immediately. And even had the rates been demanded^ there is every n"obnVity that payment weald hare been refused, seeing that their district was on t^e eve of a separation. As to Kiwitea, perhaps the writer m the Advocate is not aware, that since May. 1579, up to November 1880, the ' sum of £503 has been expended m th?.tB l ock, by the H'o-hway Board alone, Then it must be boi*ne m mind the Boardhas not received one penny of contribution from the County Couoc'l, as m the case other wards. It would be well if the editor of the Advocate, would, before making such assertions, seek the facts of the case, As to the di«crepaucy m the accounts, so vauntingly Bpoken of, we would only refer the sapient editor to the

Books of the Board, if he is desirous of obtaining information on the matter — which he says the Board has not vouchsafed — and these, we have no doubt, will convince the writer m question, that he has grossly misled the public.