TAKAPUNA'S APPROVAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 66, 19 March 1931, Page 3

TAKAPUNA'S APPROVAL.

WITH FEW RESERVATIONS. LEGAL OPINION ON LEGISLATION. With reservations for minor alterations, tlie Takapuna Borough Council last evening approved the draft of the hill under which the Auckland Harbour Bridge Company is to be authorised to undertake the construction of the proposed trans-harbour bridge. A report upon the legal aspect of each clause of the bill was submitted by Mr. E. W. Inder, borough solicitor. Mr. L. H. Titchener considered that as the boroughs of Birkenhead, Takapuna and Devonport would be affected as much as Northcote, it was equitable that these three bodies should have representation upon the directorate. Mr. Inder replied that it was natural that if the council desired the bridge, it should prefer to obtain it without responsibility. The clauses referred to relieved the council of liability. The clauses were approved. Clauses 19 to 32 give to the company the power to enact by-laws for the control of the bridge. Mr. Inder said that clause 32 provided that all fines, inflicted should be paid to the company's tolls account. He considered it undesirable that a body constituted for private gain should have the power to pay dividends from a fund which included the proceeds of civil fines. The clause was passed by the council. The opinion that the power to distrain on goods of any person refusing to pay tolls, as given by clause 39, was too drastic, was expressed by the solicitor. The succeeding clause enabled the company to sue in such a case, and Mr. Inder considered this to Le an ample safeguard. The council decided that this matter should bo the subject of a conference between the solicitors for the company and the borough. Exception was also taken to the clause which places the responsibility for any breach of the charter by the company upon the particular official concerned. It was considered desirable that the company should be held responsible. No Time Limit For Completion. Attention was drawn to there being no time limit imposed for the completion of the bridge. The bill sets out that a start with construction must be made within two years of the granting of the charter, and the Minister of Public Works may extend the period for a further three months. Mr. Inder was of opinion that a limit for completion was just as necessary as a limit for commencement. This clause was the subject of considerable debate, but finally it was approved as drafted.

In reply to a question, Mr. C. H. M. Wills, deputy-chairman of the company, said that it was the intention, provided that the terms of the financial arrangement with those who were to find the money for construction permitted it, to reduce the maximum tolls as set out in the schedule. That was in furtherance of the recognised principle that all the benefits of any public utility should not be reserved wholly for the enjoyment of posterity. Everything depended upon whether or not the company would secure a long-term basis for the money involved in the construction of the bridge. Other suggested alterations were the deletion of the word "reasonable" in the clause which required the bridge to be open for traffic at "all reasonable hours." Members thought that nothing short of a twenty-four hour bridge should be tolerated, also that any amendments that might become necessary should be made by an amending bill, and not by Order-in-Council. On the motion of the Mayor, Mr. <T. W. Williamson, the council resolved to give general support to the bill, and set up a sub-committee of three to confer with the company's solicitors regarding the reservations made hy the council.