The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Saturday October 22, 1887. RIVER GRAVEL QUESTION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 57, 22 October 1887, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Saturday October 22, 1887. RIVER GRAVEL QUESTION.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s, Thy God’s, an ! truth's.

At the last meeting of the County Council it was decided to take a test case to the Supreme Court so as to determine what power the Council has over river fords. The question is one that has on more than one occasion caused discussion in the Council, but has heretofore been held over from time to time for no definite reason,

Looking at the matter in all its phases we cannot help coming to the con. elusion that the determination arrived at is a wrong one. In the first instance it would have been far better to have waited until the new Councillors were elected next month before deciding on taking such a step. Putting this on one side, past experience should have taught the Council how costly it is to enter into litigation, even if it is what may be termed a friendly suit. The question to be decided is no doubt an important one, but is it one that the Council should go to expense about? It was stated at the meeting that the cost of taking the case to the Supreme Court would only be nominal, This is a mere surmise. There is not one member of the Council but knows what commencing a law suit means, and in this instance we have no hesitation in saying that the litigation necessary to finally settle the point will be protracted and costly. At the present time, and for years past, the Road Boards and contractors have been in the habit of going to or near the fords of the rivers for metal wherewith to make the roads throughout the County, and a verdict in favor of the Council would practically mean the prohibiting of them from obtaining river gravel for works. Of course it might be argued that they can go a certain distance away from the ford—a distance which would not in any way affect the crossing. But is there any necessity for imposing this handicap on those who may require gravel ? There seems no doubt that personal interest prompted Cr Chambers to bring the matter forward, and it is to be regretted that any of the other members allowed themselves to be led into the error of supporting him. He is one who makes large use of the Repongaere foid, and because the crossing is deepening (so he states) by the removal of gravel—and in consequence, at times he gets his feet wet—he deems it necessary to make a mountain out of a molehill, and ask the Council to take action’ Well, unfortunately, the Council have decided so .to do, and we may now look forward to a little more lamentable wasting of the ratepayers’ money. It is not at all necessary, nor is it advisable, for the Council to go to law over the question. We do not believe that the removal of the gravel from near the ford can injure the crossing to any great "extent, and even if it did there i’s no reason why the Council should go to litigation over it. The great gravel case of Clarke v. Muldoon will still be remembered. In this it was decided that the Waipaoa river was not tidal at the Matawhero crossing, and in consequence the judgment in the case gave Mr Clarke power to prevent anyone from removing gravel from inside the legal boundary of his property, “the middle of the river.” That that decision was wrong there can be little doubt, but up to the present time the judgment has had the effect of making Mr Clarke master of the situation. Would not the same point arise in the present instance ? If the river is not a tidal one at the Matawhero crossing, surely it is not at the Repongaere crossing. Wi Pere owns the contiguous property on this side of the river, and according to the law laid down by Mr Booth, he has a perfect right to prevent anyone removing gravel from the spot in question. It would have been better had the Council made an attempt to get Wi Pere to put his veto on the removal of the metal instead of themselves going to law. The matter would then be settled at once, and without cost.

In what form the county solicitor will bring his action is hard to conjecture. He no doubt will bring all his skill to bear on the case, but no matter how things go there is the chance of sacrificing good money over what appears trivial so far as the interests of the Council are concerned, not to speak of the loss that may be occasioned to individual ratepayers if the Council win the case.