LOWER HUTT BRIDGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4310, 20 March 1901, Page 6

LOWER HUTT BRIDGE.

AN OBJECTION FROM MELROSE. At the meeting of the Melrose Borough Council last night a letter was read in regard to the ro-erectioii and construction of the Lower Hutb bridge ami approaches. The’ letter notified that it was proposed that the Melroso Borough should; contribute one-forty-eigh'th, part of the cost. A Councillor: What have wo to do with the Lower Hutt bridge ? Councillor Walter moved' that objection bo made in proper time to the payment of any portion of the cost of the work by the Borough -of Melrose. Ho believed the. work would cost between £14,000 and £15,000. A proportion, of one-forty-eighth of that sum would be between £3OO and £4OO. The bridge was actually of no value whatever to Melroso. Councillor Nowell seconded the motion. He said; the bridge was of no benefit to Melrose. Tie did not know whether they would be able to get out of making a contribution. '

The Mayor: , Ourproportion would bo about £305. It is a big question, and a far-reaching one, top. Councillor Brown agreed that objection should be lodged. He believed, however, that Melrose benefited as well as the city by having good means of communication with the Hutt Valley. They must see- to it that the position of Lower Hutt in trying to levy upon Melrose for the bridge was a correct one. At tlie same time, they must not run away with, the idea that Melrose was not interested) in the bridge, because it was a very important public work.

Councillor Niopl j l>pa« anyopo knpw the legal position f- - ■ T'hh Mayor i 'That a, thing which w« J>*vo V» l‘«d out, At present fool rather si>rp shout the matter, % w ssil why . hjplppsft ’ja in. torpMpd! |vt Ml ju thci bridge, VVu have plenty of had road* which have o, hotter slain! to' have £»oo of our rates spent on them Winn, th« Lower .Hutt bind go has, Tho motion wjm agreed to.