INCHCLUTHA ROADS.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXIX, Issue 84, 6 June 1913, Page 3

INCHCLUTHA ROADS.

COUNTY RETAINS CONTROL. It will be remembered that at a conference in .Milton on May 13 between members of the Bruce County Council and the Inchclutha Eoad, River and Drainage Board resolutions were passed that the county agrees to hand over control of roads and rating in Inchclutha to the board, and that the latter body should pay one-third of the cost of the upkeep of the two bridges leading on to the Island. As six of the councillors were not in favour of this being done it appeared that there would be little chance of the council accepting the recommendations frpm the conference, and such proved to be the case. On the minutes of the conference being read and the resolutions brought up for ratification at the ordinary meeting of the Bruce County Council on Tuesday

Councillor King said he had noticed that Inchclutha Board was asked to pay only one-third of the upkeep of the bridges in Inchclutha, and lie asked if it was not a fact that the residents of the locality used the bridges more than anybody else. » Councillor Boyd said that in offering to pay one-third of the upkeep Inchclutha was undertaking to pay more than what it had been in the past. As it was Inchclutha, being only half of !die Matau riding, was exceeding its responsibilities in offering to pay onethird of the upkeep. Councillor Hitchon said that it appeared to him that one-third was a small share of the cost of the upkeep of the Stirling bridge, seeing that this was the aiain outlet for Inchclutha.

Councillor King moved: "That the Bruce County Council does not feel justified in handing over the control of roads to Inchclutha." His reasons for, this motion were: First, that there would be a continual overlapping in rating if the board was to take over control. That was the state of affairs in the old days when there were numerouaroad boards. Another reason was that it would be a step in the wrong direction for a council to cast off one single road, especially in a small county like Bruce. If the council handed over the control of rates it would simply mean rhat it would be a loser in more ways than one, as the same amount of clerical work would be required and Inchclutha would contribute nothing towards this. His third reason was because there was a wish, he thought, on the part of some of the Inchclutha people to use the road for protective purposes, and he did not believe in using a public road for the benefit of private property. The banks were being put on the roads so' as to save encroaching on private property, but it had been fought out many times in the council, and he maintained the same opinion that roads should be maintained to their full width. The council should not encourage an effort to encroach on public roads to the benefit of private property. Mr King again referred to the upkeep of the bridges, and considersl the board shoull pay more, while it would pay nothing wards the upkeep ol ? the Balclutha bridge, which was used a lot more by l.tchclutha people than settlers from his part of the county. His opinion was that if a separate board from the drainage board was asked for it would be a step in the right direction, bat it would be unwise to allow the Inchclutha Board to have full control of roads and rating in Inchclutha. He was quite sure that the district would get as much help from the county council under the existing conditions afi it would if the proposals asked i for v.'oi'p granted. I Councillor Hitchon, in seconding the I motion, said that at the present time there v, r as legislation in the way of increasing- the size of county councils insti;;'.d of decreasing them, and if the council acceded to the recommendation to hand over the roads it would be quite possible that when the next Counties Bill was passed the council would have to take back the roads whether it liked it or not. The motion was Councillor Bovd being the only dissentient.