COUNTY COMMISSION.

Bush Advocate, Volume XXI, Issue 143, 16 December 1908, Page 4

COUNTY COMMISSION.

-Tho commission, under the presi- (■ dency of Mr W. .&. Short, appointed to adjust tho accounts between the Waipawa, Waipukurau and Dannevirke Counties, resumed its sittings at Waipawa yesterday, when there were present Cr Jull , (representing Waipawa County), Ors Cowper and Ericksenj: and . Mr Lloyd (Dannevirke), Cr ; W. C. Smith and Mr Lee (Waipukurau), Mr O'Brien (Waipawa Borough Council).* : . Messrs Murray,. Baker/ and Elliott, county . clerks, were also in attendance; ■ • . . ' :. In < opening the • proceedings Mr Short, saifl that: when they adjourned on the. last occasion, it was for the purpose of getting three things (1) a statement of the contracts. Jet by the Waipawa County during the ' past four years; (2) evidence to. prove Mr' Smith's contention that contracts had been wrongly let for the purpose of securing division, and -rebiitting evidence by Cr Jull; and (3) evidence that some credit was due to the Dannevirke County on account of interest on bank overdraft. He called upon Mr Smith to resume. Mr Smith said he proposed to lead evidence to show (1) that the outstanding liabilities had not been incurred for the benefit of the Waipukurau County ;. except contracts 93-----115, amounting to £785 8s 4d; and (2) that special- bridge 'contracts had been let after tho Waipukurau County Bill had been passed, and that they had been let for the sole purpose of inducing the Dannevirke end of the County to agree to division, and were not ordinary contracts , that would have been let had division not been contemplated; and (3) that Waipukurau had no interest in these contracts. He called • Martin Murray, clerk to the Wai- . paw a County, who deposed that the lists 'produced :• were the contracts which were let by the Waipawa County Council from the years 1904-5 to 1907-8. ; Contract 373 for. £177 15s was a liability on 31st March last, but it had since been paid by the Dannevirke County. >' ' Mr Smith contended N that as the contract was let three years ago, it should not appear as a liability, now. Mr Murray contended that the contractor was behind his contract time, and tho amount had .therefor not been paid earlier. The Council had not imposed a penalty '-in this case. The total contracts outstanding ;on 31st ' March, 1905-6-7 included contracts under the land: fund. The contracts for those three years -averaged £3518 8s per year^ while for the last year the amount was £8897 19s Bd. He produced the minute book showing the letting of contracts 118 and the other eight contracts objected to ~by Mr Smith. For contract 118, he explained, no tender was received, and the chairman was authorised to get the work done at the overseer's estimate. Contracts 120-133 .were accepted by the chairman before the Council met, and his action was en- - dorsed •by ..the /council on 30th March, 1908. Contract 133 was only advertised in the Waipawa Mail once. Mr Smith contended that this contract was advertised less than one day, and Avas. rushed through to get it into the, division. Mr Murray, continuing, said the nine contracts above referred to were accepted by the contractors on 31st March, li>v,o. He did not remember ever before having a meeting,- on. 30th March. The reason the Council met on that day this year was to pay the men. The meeting might have been held on that day had divi- • sion not been on the tapis. The Waipawa bridge was half in the Waipawa borough and half in the county, and was of some value to the borough. The . contract to repair the britlge amounting to £1225 9s 5d had not been commenced,, except that some of the timber was brought on to the ground. The borough's proportion of the contract would amount to £14 ss. Waipukurau County would have to pay £145.. Mr Smith contended that this adjustment was unfair, as the bridge was of more value to Waipawa borough than to Waipukurau County. To Mr Jull: The total of the contracts let "and objected to by Mr I Smith was £382 7s lOd. The proj cedure adopted on this occasion was ! quite usual. Tenders had been called for contract 118 several times. The work Avas necessary to enable the Blackburn settlers to get out during i the Avinter. The work on the Hamp- { den Road was. necessary because of the timber traffic^ . Timber tax to the amount of £12 had been received for this Road, and the Council was bound to spend that money on the road from which it was derived. The same thing applied to tho Waifeopiro Road. Had Beamish's oontract ijreen finished, it Avould have been paid for, and the payment would probably, have formed part of tho o'ver--1 draft. Mr Jull: To Avliich Mr Smith does not object. Cross-examination continued : There Avas nothing abnormal about the expenditure under general account for the year 1908. All the contracts approved on 30th March, 1908, Avere Tecominended by the overseer on 30th September, 1907. The Waipawa Borough Bill Avas passed on 23rd November, 1907, and the contract for the bridge was let on tho 6th November. The bridge was "known to be in a precarious condition, and had been, advertised as unsafe for heavy traffic. 'What Avas proposed to be done to the bridge would not make a neAV bridge of it, but Avould only strengthen it. . The Commissioner thought they Avere hardly going the right way about apportioning the liability on this bridge. It ought to be apportioned on the basis of the traffic going over it, rather than on a valuation basis, but Mr Jull contended , that* such an alteration in the basis Avould lead to very great complications. He suggested another commission at Avhich all the local bodies concerned could be cited. To this tlie Commissioner agreed. To Mr Smith : "When the estimates , were submitted on September 30th, i 1907, there Avere works proposed for Waipukurau riding to the value of £137 14s Bd. There Avere none of the contracts let on 30th March, 1908, in the Waipukurau County. ■: To Mr Jull : One of the Waipukurau recommendations made on 30th

September was, increased from 200 yards to 600 yards. Some recommendations in other parts of the county were decreased. Mr Smith coiitetided that two of the contracts mentioned in the total of £137 14s 8d were not in the Waipukurau County. Mr Smith said tho points ho desired to "mate Were that these contracts had been rushed oii to get then* 'into the division account^, and that' *^ey would never have been'let'ifjfoe question of division had: hot: .arisen? "-'■ The ' Commissioner remarked r that Mr Smith; had not ' proved that^the contracts. ;had been' improperly/let. Mr Smith replied that. he ; was' not seeking to show that they had b&ien improperly let, but that thoyiiad been let for the purpose of iiiduciiig the Dannevirke end ' ! to 'agree' to sion. In this connection' he would call • •• -- •• "■■ ; Thomas Lindsay Buick; who deposed that he was chairmanr'of a ■meetirig of ratepayers at Danrievirke on August 16th, li>u/.' * AtethatL-meet-ing a letter AA'as read from Mr Jutl, agreeing to certain proposals wil&. regard to county bridges. 'Thei letter was correctly reproduced in the- Advocate of 17th August. Ho thought the letter had a material influence upon Cr CoAvper's mind, and went a long way towards getting him to agree to division. "The feeling at the Danrievirke end was that if x division took place before these bridges were repaired the Bush Would be left at a disadvantage, and the people wanted an equitable arrangement determined upon before they would agree to the division. The general opinion was that Mr lull's letter provided that equitable arrangement. There Avas no proposal in Mr Jull's letter affectingic-Wai-pukurau, but" there was no 'desire, to deprive Waipukurau of any work to which it was justly entitled. The resolution as published in the Advocate was the resolution passed at the meeting. '••■:..■■ To Mr Jull: He remembered the proposal made in the Legislative Council to alter the date of the coming into operation of the Waipukarau County Bill. Had that proposal been given effect to it would ha-rie enabled Waipukurau, in -his opinion', to escape some of its just liabilitiesl F. G. CoAvper, chairman of the Danneviirke County Council, deposed that. he was present at "a meeting" of the Dannevirke. and jVjfan'gatoro jnding ratepayers* .held kt>. "Danhevirko on 16th Augustf aittd th^re he ~tea.d a letter ffbm^Mr -Jixtt^ seeing out' what. he waa prepared/ ;ta agree to m regard to the bridges' in the oouiifcy. The resolution as published in: tb© Advocate was the resolution passed at the meeting. Mr JullVleiter influenced him considerably in f afro* of division. If the bridge proposals had not been agreed to he Avoold have most strenuously opposed all' the County Bills, and would have- done his best by petition and otherwise to have them thrown but.'; He considered the whole county should opou tribute towards the cost 6f the bridges, at his end, which were totteri, seeing that they, had ibeeni contributing towards the Wai^iilcurau bridge. •" Mr Smith pointed out that the' Waipukurau bridge was not in the'Waipukurau County. \ ■' I - v ■ :: ■- Crbss-examinati^n■ contanned l^ proposal to raise a loan over tbe whole county to defray the cost of repairing the bridges was afterwards abandoned, and a higher rate was struck over the whole county. He thought that fair/as Waipukurau as a unit of" the whole county should be prepared to pay its fair share of! .the county work. He did not remember saying that Waipukurau Riding had a credit balance of £4000. He always thought that this credit balance, was something of a "bogey." He thought a. resolution was d&xriect against division at Norsewood. He did not know what happened at Makotuku, but at Dannevirke the resolution in favour of division was carried. . To Mr Lloyd : He had been a councillor for about nine years. He *ras aware for a long time past that the Manawatu bridge would require 1 renewing. The first he heard of flic division proposals was while he. was in the Dunedin Hospital. Had they been mooted before then he would certainly have heard of it. He knew; that in one year the general expenditure of the county was". considerably reduced on account of shortness of funds. That might make this year's expenditure appear larger m'propoTtion. He was not aware that -ithe Waipukurau Riding had ever been denied any legitimate and necessary expenditure. They had always^gof what they wanted. To Mr Jull: He did not think the Woodville division involved an adjustment of riding accounts.- -He favoured a rato over the whole oouniy instead of a loan as being cheaper. One of the principal opponents of division was Mr C. CV Smith) of Makotuku. He remembered Mr C. O. Smith stating at Dannevirke that if certain bridges were put in order he would not- oppose division. He fayoured opposing the Waipukurau Bill if the Waipawa . Bill Was to be opposed, and that was the general feeling. To Mr Smith : He . dfd not know whether the loag.' proposal . was dropped because ["the, Waipukuraa people would vote against it.. |4r CC. Smith had a perfect' right :: so. oppose division if he tliotigtt fit to .do ! so. He thought tlie council refused I to take over the Hatuma Main Road because the Government had not metalled it. The Council ultimate- : ly did take it over. , James O'Neill,* chairman of the Waipukurau County Council, deposed that the contracts leVfey "the Waipawa County were" of no benefit to the Waipukurau County. They were all let after the Waipukurau County Bill had been passed. The Waipukurau Road Board promoted the Waipukurau County Bill. There was no petition against the Bill, and it ' was agreed to unanimously by the; ratepayers. It was paid for privately. He therefore objected to paying a share of the cost of the Waipawa-. and Dannovirka County Bills. Tier© were works . in the Waipukurau i Coun+.y which could have been done by the late Waipawa County with benefit to the district. There was only' one coxinty road in the Waipukurau district; that was the mam road. He understood that the late county had refused to" take over a Waipukurau road. The Waipawa

.bridge was of no benefit to the Waipukurau ratepayers. . . To Mr Jull: The Waipukurau rato payers weTe not benefited in the least by the Waipawa or Waipukuraii bridges. If the bridges did not exist ■they would not affect their ratepayers detrimentally. He .understood that -tliev- old Waipukuraii Road Board ■built, the, Waipukurau bridge, and tlieyi derived about £40 in rates from ise> .\fuad on the northern side of river -as the district was then constituted. . . Mf J\Ul .sjaid, he would leave it to < the Commissipner to say what-value a : 46dQ0,. bridge w,as to a district. . , 3Jr J.tiH then proceeded to examine ,;Mt P'Neill with a view to Rowing that the meeting called at .Hatuma .to,, discuss the, -Waipukurau .; County. Billwas a, packed meeting,: and designed to prevent any one but Mr W. G. Smith speaking at it. After more evidence had been tak- | •cii, Mr Lee said .that the. Waipukuran Council would ask that a case be stated for the Supreme Court, and he Outlined' the matters for statement. , te* JxtU §aid that, while he did not ' wish to burke full inquiry, he would ■suggest that, the commissioner deal wjththe mattersj and let them abide by., his decision. He did not think thatithe Commissioner would find any difficulty in the matter of the riding -accounts. There would not have been accredit balances in the old county to! divide up,. if the riding accounts had been kept in terms of the law prior to 189Z. . : , . The Commission) at 6 p.m. adjourned till this morning, it being understood that a settlement might be arTiyed at by a conference of the parties. . A brief meeting was held after dinner yesterday evening, but no •settlement Avas reached. The Commission is again sitting todqy'.V _ ■ ■ i(By telegraph.— Special to Advocate.) WAIPAWA, to-day. The ■...- Commission . adjourned at ,6 o'clock last evening to allow of a conference ' between the representatives of., the local bodies with a view to setttetijient. :■' -...'. . ',' %i was .announced this morning on | re^umiijig that a settlement . had Ifeen coineto/; .; r Mr" Lloyd. then made an offer to ; 81 ippiy tno rising . accounts for. WaiTpukurau &ime ISjQI,. and to bo bound by::.ihe .Vesulti if ' the Waipukurau ■Cayjity would w«ive its claim to £591 »Heg«cl to. be ti^e improvenient in the fidjing accoupi, since the Act was pass.^Si g^iwithdra\v.its objection to conwlluTte.'toSie nine road contracts and four bridge contracts specified. '~;.Tliifc#iovH^«.-W. C. Smith declhi<s jani. tin agreement was then come tQ.wi'th. the $id rof the Commissioner, thpii':.Mr .Miiri-ay^ county clerk, furiL&it jrjding accounts for the Waijputurau riding,., made up in accordaiioe with section' l4s and 146 of the Cpuniies Act, 1886, and that Wainukiirfru pay or receive according as Sic; balance worked out, as at 31st " >farbh, 19Q8, and giving Waipukurau :a. credit of £100 to commence with. , .After this was agreed on, and the clerk's remuneration fixed and allo--cated between the three counties interested, - Mrt Smith withdrew .from the .agreement, and asked the. Commissioner to state a case for the .jSupreme Court on the question as to whether the Tiding accounts as kept (adniittedly not as prescribed by law,, but showing a credit balance of some £5000 to Waipukurau) must be taken as correct. . It- was agreed to state a case, and i;n.e Commissioner will take evidence . this afternoon as to the condition of the .bridges, and the necessity for letting the bridge contracts objected to - by the Waipukurau County.