DEMAND RESENTED.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 921, 14 September 1910, Page 8

DEMAND RESENTED.

THE HUTT ROAD. LOCAL 'BOIiIES INDIGNANT; The anxiety felt by certain local bodies and their constituent ratepayers in view o£ the heavy liabilities with which they are threatened in connection' wiUi the. construction of-tho new Hutt; Koad was' .reflected in a'(Parliamentary . discussion last Thursday,, and again in the striking statement made by-Mr. J. ,W. 31'Ewan, Jlayor of Petone, Monday evening. Confirmation of tho main points mado by Mr. M'Ewan' was obtained l>y a'Dominion interviewer yesterday'from Mr., J.; G. llarlcness, Mayor' of Onslow, wlio, in the capacity of .president of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, was tho first re-' presentative.' man. to bring the subject into the arena 'of general discussion. That was more than a year .ago, a'iid in the meantime the matter, has reached a more acute .' stage; ' The ."local .bodies strongly . object to : *the idea of being comlielled to jiay the piper when they havo had no. .voice-' in calling .the tune, and'they ai-o annoyed to find that the piper's fees are several times as ..great as they wero led to •. expect when he began-to Play- ■: v .'.' • ' "I noticed, said Mr, Harlcness yesterday, "that when Mr.. Wilford was. speak-. iing oh this : subject'.in the .House; last week, .tho Hon. Mr. Millar interrupted him by asking, 'Are tho . local . bodies foing to . repudiate?' Now, so for . as. I now, the. local bodies • never entered into any agreement in" regard to. payiiig for' the construction of the. road. ' Tho Hutfc .Railway ; and Eoa'd linprovemoui, Act, -', 1903, enacted - that the . Wellington City Council, the Onslow,; Petone, and; Lower Huttv Borough ; Councils, and . the Hutt County. Council . should be . responsible for the expenditure of tho Government upon this road. .What wo : .feel keenly.".m connection with . the Borough :of Onslow .is'that'we wore never eonsulteilabout 'tho matter. . Conseriuontly, we say that when wo'.'object."to ;the . demands imade upon us, we are not. trying to evade a just payment that we have agreed to.: The cost was. thrown,.upon-, us without 'our knowing that, such would be the case. "Another; aspect' of the- question as it affects the' Onslow Borough: is that. for the carrying-out of the 1 works; the Government purchased a good deal of land from private r owners;in the borough.,' Prom this property; we /had been . 'collecting generil rates for tho jnainleuahce mid- upkeep of .the Hutt Road and other' roads within the borough,'- and; also' special' rAes for a period- of 26 years, to provide interest on rnphfey-borrowed for the development .of the- borough.; vThe : < properties:iii;question. are: hoiv.'.b'y' purchase vested-in ' the Crown, and we lose tho right to collect iany. further ; revenue "from them. '■- .The' 'Government spent >■ several thousand j pounds on .these purchases, which in- |; eluded'-. 13 - to - IS, acres son - the ..'hills, . and ! all; the land between the old road-and : the harbour on.', the further'side of warra Stream. ■' ; ;

';,. "We were not consulted about; tKv !chardcter, oftlio ruad ...to,:, be - made,'' audit will-, be : agreed that a road ,'io xost 'i 612,000 - a mile , is, a work which under .'any - other , circumstances no : bprpugh''' or

county council could by auy possibility be called upon'to . undertake. Moreover, so far., as Onslow 'is concerned,/tho . Toad is of little valuo to the borough, and wo look upon it rather . as a luxury. Yet if the borough has to pay on, the basis laid down.in the 'Hutt Koad Act, namely, live twenty-fourths of the total cost,our contribution will amount to about «£20,000 V Perhaps ,it will bo found that sonic items which should be chargeable to the railways have been included *in the ;£IOD,OOO, which is now stated, as the cost of the road. Another objectionable feature of the ; scheme 'is. that the Act gives tho local , bodies no right of appeal from . the findings of the-Commissioner 'who is. to allocate the/cost among the ioeaV bodies. .

; I • know of no other case in New. Zealand, whore a road has . been made by •the Government at such, great. expense,* and_ the local' bodies compelled by Act •of Parliament to foot the. bill without being . consulted about • the . proposal) or about thb mythods in carrying it out.. Nobody, knew ~ anything : about the Act of. 1903 until it was passed." . . ANOTHER. AUTHOFfiTY. . V : : WHAT IS THE'LEGAL POSITION? . representative public men or the Hutt Valley,. in discussing - the v matter with a Dominion reporter, took the view that the' local -bodies.-would, have : to go back to tho-original Act in : • JJ'der to ascertain thp . true . extent. of their liability. ;There. was no doubt that. T as con templated from, the inception 'of the scheme that the lbctiT bodies# would .have - to pay something. , ■ The original official estimate- of. the cost of the .whole work—road, railway, and reclamation--'was ! <£100,000, and. it might fairly v have 'been.-inferred, that as .the, reclamation arid railway would be the most expensive, por.tions of the scheme, the'cost of the road .would be; say, <£20,000. Instead of that,'the local bodies ' were being /asked' to' pay' • r£loo,ooo. The question of - liability,' 'in the. opinion of; this gentleman, would 'require to be..considered in : its legal as-, p'ect. He agreed,'; on" the '.whole, . with the attitude .taken' up by - Mr; MTSwan'.;