TOLL-GATES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXII, Issue LXXII, 11 July 1917, Page 4

TOLL-GATES.

DISCUSSED BY EfiMONT COUNTY

COUNCIL

The question came before the Egmont County Council at their meeting on Tuesday in reference to a circular issued by the conference of Stratford. Eltham, Hawera and Taranaki county members urging opposition to the abolition of toll-gates

Mr Wilkinson wrote, asking the Council's active co-operation, and suggesting concerted action with \V .innate West County Council and Town. Boards of Oounake and Ivaptrnga. Cr. Wright said he had seen Mr McPhillips, of Waimate County Council, who insisted that a good deputation must be sent down.

The chairman said that Egmont was the only county hemmed in by tollgates. The Bill should be supported heartily. Other councies are living on Egmont. He hoped that the Bill would go through, and that all toll-gates would be abolished. The tax on Egmont- in getting to the railway, which belongs to the people, was not a fair impost. Taranaki County Council were keeping their road in repair with the toll revenue, and levied less than half the rate that Egmont County rri^peyers paid. He would move that bearty support be given to the Bill.

Cr. Campbell wished to know what the position would be if the gates were taken away. He considered they were a necessary evil. They made good roads. If they were taken away, there must be some other means of raising revenue required.

The chairman said that Egmont would have to pay subsidy. Cr. Young said that this county is entitled to compensation for traffic from other counties. He would support the Bill.

Cr Mcßeynolds said ho would be glad to see an arrangement between the counties as to what is to be done when the gates are abolished. He would vote for abolition when such an arrangement is made.

Cr. Dudley said he could not see that abolution would do any good. When the Commission has been set up each county will have to pay a heavy subsidy. The actual users of the roads pay now. He was not in favor of gates, but it was better to leave things as they are. Cr. Harvey considered it a clumsy way of collecting revenue. Cr. Wright said if a Commission sits Egmont will have to pay three subsidies. He believed the Bill would pass, although probably amended considerably. Cr. Young said that Mr Wilkinson

would no doubt take precautions as to what the position wouid be after abolition. It was not going to crush Egmont 01* any other county. He would like to know what will happen if several gates were put up in this county. The chairman said he could not see how anyone could support toll-gates. The question had not been raised as

to what carting came into the county, which must be considerable. Eltham says that the toll-gates maintain 17 miles of road. He compared the rates in Taranaki with those in Egmont. If the imposition of gates is fair and equitable, why should they not put several in Egmont, so that outsiders would have to pay? Cr. Dudley: And double-bank on our own people. The motion was carried. Councillors Dudley, Mcßeynolds and Campbell voted against it. Considerable discussion ensued as to the size of the deputation to be sent. The chairman said that if no strong support were given to the Bill Parliament would consider it was not necessary. He thought that it was necessary to send a strong deputation. The roads should be free to all. Personally he would prefer to pay a reasonable subsidy than have toll-gates. Cr. Dudley said that a large number was not necessary. If facts and figures were prepared that was all the committee would require. It was resolved that four members be sent —Crs. McNeill and Forsyth (south), Crs. Fleming and Young (north).