LONDON'S FORD BRIDGE.

Feilding Star, Volume II, Issue 528, 23 March 1908, Page 4

LONDON'S FORD BRIDGE.

SOME PLAIN TRUTHS. KIMBOLTON FOLK ROASTED. At the meeting of the Kiwitea County Council on Saturday, there was a considerable amount of discussion about a petition signed by residents of Kimbolton and presented to the Commissioner who held the inquiry into the apportionment of the cost of erecting a bridge at London s Ford, over the Oroua river. This petition expressed the strong desire of the residents of Kimbolton for the bridge and offered to be rated for the district's contribution towards the cost. In giving his decision, the Commissioner laid great stress upon the petition, and stated that the Kiwitea County's contribution could be raised by a rate levied on a district comprising Kimbolton and its vicinity. Cr. Guthrie, according to notice, moved, " That any contribution from this county towards cost of erection of bridge at London's Ford be raised as suggested in Commissioner Short's report over a special rating area comprising the Kimbolton township, this course being in accordance with the expressed willingness of the signatories to the petition for the said bridge to have themselves rated for the amount of the said contribution." He said there had never been any proposal from the ratepayers of the county for the construction of this bridge until the petition in question had been sprung upon the commission. Certainly there were ratepayers in the Kimbolton district who had not signed the petition, but it would be impossible to define the rating district so as to omit them. He thought that, as the movement for the erection of the bridge was confined (on the Kiwitea side of the river) to the signatories to the petition, the motion was a perfectly fair one. Cr. McNeil seconded the motion pro forma. Ho said that apart from the special reasons mentioned by Cr. Guthrie, he could not see his way to depart from the custom hitherto observed in regard to bridges connecting other counties with Kiwitea, viz., that the whole county should bear the expense. He thought it would be unfair to make a special rating area in this particular case, and not in any other. The Chairman said there were two sides to this question. Or McNeil's contention vould be all very well only for the fact that this bridge had been entirely forced on the county by the action of certain residents of Kimbolton. He could not think it fair that the whole of the residents should suffer because of the action of those who had signed, although he had no doubt that those few had signed to get to the windward of the Commissioner. (Cr. Morton: No.) He repeated that he had no doubt of it, aud to say that such was not the case was contrary to the report of the Commissioner. It would Tbe only fair to rate those ratepayers for the work who had signed the petition expressing their willingness to be rated, but he had some doubts in his mind on the matter because the whole of the ratepayers in the . area proposed to be" rated were not a party to it. They had never had a case like tho one before them, so they could hardly apply the custom in regard to other bridges to this one. If they were not able to confine the rate to those who had signed the petition, it should go forth that the Council was opposed to the dishonest way in which the matter had been carried out, and to ' the manner in which those concerned in the petition had acted. The Commissioner had evidently believed that it was the desire of the residents of Kimbolton and vicinity to pay for the bridge, for he had reported that if the Kiwitea County's contribution were raised by special rate it should be levied on the properties in Kimbolton and its vicinity. Cr. Hockley was not in favour of levying a special rate on the township. They all knew how petitions are worked, and he was surprised that the Commissioner should have taken so much notice of the one in question, without' investigating into its bona fides or into the amount of rateable property possessed by those who had signed it. He was quite sure that he could have got as many signatures to a counter petition from the same locality if he had gone to the trouble -to take one round. He had every sympathy with settlers who wanted a bridge to give them access to their properties, and could not bring himself to support any departure from the custom of paying their contribution towards any connecting link out of the general fund of the county. He realised also that some of the signatures to the petition had been obtained by false pretences, and he should not like to penalise those people.

Cr. Morton vras certain that nine- • tenths had signed the petition under a misapprehension, and he would not like to see them suffer. Cr. Fowler quite agreed that if it were possible to do so, it would be quite right to rate only those who had signed the petition, but nearly half of them were not now ratepayers in the Kimbolton district. He had told the Commissioner that not half of those who had signed the petition knew what they were signing, and they would as readily have put their names to an opposition petition. There was no doubt the Commissioner had , given more weight to the petition than he should have done^ Still, he was pleased to see that the Council did not wish to rate the whole of the people of Kimbolton specially, and if the bridge was built, their contri-butions-should come from the general fund. - • Cr. Hockley suggested, that in view oi the present position the motion should be withdrawn. Cr. Guthrie could not see his way to do that. No body of men had a right to attempt to influence the judgment of a Royal Commission unless they were willing to take the responsibility of their action. The only way to mark their sense oi such conduct was to penalise them, and if they could not do co they should tell themrrtainly what they thought about it. No one could say that he had not been fair and broad-minded in his actions at the Council table, but he could hardly^ use words_ strong enough to characterise thejaction of the promoters of the petition. He had taken thia action as chairman of the Works Committee of the Council. The Chairman said he was voting for the motion as a matter of principle. The motion was lost, Crs. Guthrie, Bruce and the Chairman voting for it, and Crs. Hoekley, McNeil, Mclntyre, Morton, and Fowler against it.