TOLLS IN AMURI.

Press, Volume XLVII, Issue 7524, 14 April 1890, Page 3

TOLLS IN AMURI.

TO THB EDITOR OX* TEDS PR-SB. Sir, —In a general way It is a waste of time arguing with a man unless he in the main thinks the same as yoa, for A man convinced against his will la of tbe same opinion still. So, in replying to the points raised by " Canterbury Stockowner," it is not with any idea of convincing him of the legality and justice of levying tolls on certain large runholders for the use of the Amuri bridges, but to place the true state of affairs before tiie public The Lower Waiau bridge has for the past five years been a source of gradually increasing expenditure. For the financial year which terminated on the 31st ult. nearly __-00 was spent in renewing decayed umber. The previous year the cost was £150. And we have the pleasant prospect of knowing that within three or four years it will cost us probably £2000 or £3000 to renew a large portion of the heavy timber. The Upper Waiau Bridge. Well, Til admit that we have not as yet expended any large sum in connection with this bridge, it's a pleasure to come, but come it wilL In saying this I do not wish in any way to reflect on my esteemed friends, the Messrs Anderson; for I believe the bridge to be an exceptionally good one, both in design, workmanship and material. More's the pity, the other two wretched structures hadn't been like it. We should then never have excited the ire of poor "Canterbury Stockowner.' With regard to " C.S.s " contention that because the Coraniissioner, or for aught we know, the Minister of Public Works (for be it known the report was reviewed by the latter), decided that Amuri had no claim against Kaikoura. Awatere and Wairau, that, therefore, we are stretching the law by le vying tolls on their stock, I say that we are well within the law. if we had got a contribution and then levied tolls, that would have been stretching the law. The foregoing local bodies declared through their representatives at the enquiry that our bridges were of no benefit to them. If this be not true, then they deceived the Commission, and richly deserve their fate. If it be true, then our tolls don't affect them. Certainly we were grievously disappointed at the decision, but we don't blame the Minister of Public Works or the Commissioner. On the evidence the decision could not be otherwise, so we have set to work to remedy matters. "C. 5.," in his rage, evidently thinks we are like the conceited Frenchman who said if he had been consulted at the creation he could have suggested several improvements. I can assure the public that our scheme of paying tolls is conceived in the fairest spirit. I would also remind them that it will only be paid by a few large runholders, so that so far as Amuri is concerned the toll question is not of any public interest. I will also repeat what £ mentioned in my previous letter, that to pay for the Hurunui bridge it has been necessary to levy and collect a rate of one penny in the pound on the value of all real property in the County, which is an exceedingly heavy toll, but which "C.S." wilfully ignores in his diatribes against the Amuri. I may add that any outsiders may commute their tolls by paying three farthing!, in the pound on the value of Jiheir property. They can then enjoy all the privileges of residents in Amuri. "U.S." would have the public believe that we are acting illegally in the matter of tolls. If he would but look up the Acts relating to these matters he would find that we are acting quite legally, and besides this, Mr Joynt has advised us all through the affair. " Canterbury Stockowner " may be some great legal luminary, but until he discloses his identity we shall continue to pin our faith to Mr Joynt.

Probably "C.S.'s" contention is strengthened by concealing his identity, but one cannot help wondering why this quixotic gentleman should come cavorting through the" County tilting at our toll-houses, £Sy the way, 1 still think I am correct in my surmise who "Canterbury Stockownier" is. If so, it is true lie is not at present a Kaikoura stockowner, having recently parted with his interest therein to some very near relatives, in consideration of "natural love and affection." ",C. S." says that if he were a Kaikoura scockowner he would defy Uβ to collect tolls ua his stock. Notwichstanding his bluster, I am,sure he would do a lot of thinking before he attempted anything of the kind. "C. S." has favored us with a lot of gratuitous advice, which he would have us believe is disinterested; but all the same the "good gentlemen" of the County Council are quite satisfied with Mr Joynt as adviser. However, as some slight return for his good intentions., perhaps he would permit mc to give him some sound advice. Being evidently an irascible old gentleman, I would advise him to refrain from again rushing into print on the toll question until he has regained his normal mental equilibrium.—Yours, &c, : A. W. Rutherford.