The Star. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1887. LAND BOARD v. COUNTY COUNCIL.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1755, 15 October 1887, Page 2

The Star. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1887. LAND BOARD v. COUNTY COUNCIL.

On Monday the chairman of the County Council is deputed to visit the Land Board is order to discuss, and if possible, agree as to the definition of county roads in Hawera County, and to arrange as to the allocation of deferred payment moneys between the Koad Boards and County Council. Our views have been expressed ere now as to the relative powers and functions of the road- making bodies and the I/and Board. The latter, we hold, is bound by law to see that the road-making bodies, before spending deferred payment money, haye proper plans and specifications, but there its legal power ceases ; although it has claimed and actually exercises much more extended powers of interference. The road-making bodies are responsible for the roads and bridges. If an accident occurs through a bridge being rotton or a road out of repair, they have to pay. It is their duty to know where road expenditure is most required, and consequently they should decide where, when, and how, the Deferred Payment money should be spent. The land board except it is paid officer, (who it is true Happens to be a valuable and very competent officer) has no knowledge of the relative claims of all the roads, and could without the personal knowledge of all its members, scarcely undertake to support their ranger's opinion against, say, a county engineer's opinion, backed up by the opinion of all the members of the County Council. The invariable rule applies in this case, that authority over the localisation of expenditure necessarily goes with responsibility for neglect of proper expenditure. The sooner the relative position is amicably settled the better. The Crown Lands Ranger the other day objected to certain metalling by a road board, and advised formation instead. He may have been right; but sup pose the Eoad Board were to say : " We require the metalling, and insist upon our recommendation being allowed, unless the Land Board disapprove the plaa, ie , the width of roadway, the depth of metal or the like " — what then ? Can the Land Board maintain its position and insist on the ranger's recommendation as against the Eoad Board's ? Clearly not. It has power, perhaps, to lock up the money for a time. Meantime, should au accident occur on the road, for which deferred payment money for metalling was asked but refused by the Land Board, the Eoad Board would of course try to recover from the Land Board any damages they might have had to pay. Under the Act as it stands the Koad Board would, we think, succeed in recovering such damages from the Land Board. But as there may be a doubt, a competent legal opinion ought to be obtained from outside to set all doubts at rest without delay, before any further friction has arisen.

5600, electors in and near Dunedin have presented an address of sympathy to Sir R. Stout^ If the latter is as sick of these presentations as the public and the press, when others, are offered he will decline withtbanki. , , P „, ,~ .