PROPOSED NEW COUNTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17708, 17 February 1921, Page 8

PROPOSED NEW COUNTY.

CASE AGAINST SUBDIVISION.

EVIDENCE BY COUNTY OFFICERS.

The commission appointed to report upon the proposal for the subdivision of the Waitemata County, continued its sittings at the Magistrate's Courthouse yesterday. The chairman, Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., presided. Mr. Rogerson appeared tor the petitioners, and Mr. Bagnall for the Waitemata County Council.

Further evidence against subdivision was heard, the witnesses including members pf the present County Council. The general opinion was that division of the county would not improve conditions, out merely add to administrative expenses. It was stated that finance was the principal difficulty. If the supervision of the works was not as efficient as it should be this was the cause. Before better maintenance could be arranged the revenue would have to be increased. Mr. G. A. Jackson, county engineer, gave evidence regarding county works. He said the roads were as satisfactory as finances would permit. He could supervise the works satisfactorily, though he had a. wide area to cover. He received all the assistance ho requested. The proposal for an Akarana county was the outcome of an agitation by a comparatively small section of ratepayers. He was aware there was a feeling in the district against raising loans, but would not admit it was due to any lack of confidence in the council. Witness also gave detailed statements regarding county works in the different ridings, rates, revenue and expenditure. Witness was cross-examined at considerable length as to complaints regarding portions of the roads, culverts and bridges". Mrr C. A., Cawkwell, clerk to the council, gave evidence regarding revenue fvnd expenditure, administration expenses, details of staff, etc., and the approximate cost of the administration of the proposed new county. From time to time there had been various agitations in the council for different schemes. He was not in favour of a new county. In cross-examination witness said he believed many of the agitations were due to personal feeling against the engineer. The costs incurred in opposing the proposal were borne by the council. He admitted that the council had been largely instrumental in circulating the counter-petition. Members of the council had no official knowledge of the petition; they knew of it as individuals. The council Jmd sent a deputation to Wellington. was cross-examined at length regarding the difference between the administration expenses of the Franklin County and the Waitemata County, the expenses of the former, which had the greater capital value, being less than Waitemata. The taking of evidence was concluded in the afternoon. The commission will visit the Waitemata County to-morrow, and will hear counsel's addresses on Monday.