THE HUTT BRIDGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4313, 23 March 1901, Page 2

THE HUTT BRIDGE.

residents want the present SITE RETAINED. DEPUTATION TO THE -PREMIER. / . ? A. deputation of -residents of the Huttr,introduced by'"Mr W. : H- Field, M.H.S.. interviewed'-,the Premier yesterday in. regard to the vexed question of the site for the Hutt bridge, asking that the present site should be retain-, od. , Mr C. W. Browne said the new scheme would prove l exceedingly costly. It had never been submitted to the ratepayers, and he believed that before it was done with, it would cost about £20,000. -The whole.nl settlers objected to the deviation, and strongly claimed that they ought not to be compelled) to: pay for a new bridge when the old site would be suitable for many years to oome. . . ..]

Mr Jackson combated the suggestion that- the River Board scheme would be rendered void unless the new site were adopted, and said that view was entirely wrong. He pointed but-that the new site happened to be at high-water mark, and whenever a fresh occurred in the river, the waters would be banked up, and what, he asked, would then become 0 ffche Rover Board’s scheme? Mr. Jackson further asserted that wheu ilic scheme was started, aho old Aot was in force, and the ratepayers would then have had to be consulted, but the new Act having now been‘passed, they had not since consulted the ratepayers. He went on to say that the new site was quite inconvenient to a largo number of the inhabitants, and they objected also] to the great expense incurred. The proposals had! been altered throe"times without’ the consent of ratepayers having been obtainG^.. ; ]yiio oost of the block of laud was’ set' ddwn at £3500, but it would! probably far exceed; that; and he predicted' : that before they had finished with,At,.,.the r bridge ; woidd cost about £20,000. TaMne various contingencies into account, the upshot would probably bo that the Hutt Borough Council would bo landed in a debt of about £50,000. There was no possibility of their paying that ,'debt.. Mr Jackson having discussed the question of waterway, .went to ■ say - that the i -residents objected to • the ■ scheme- it would prove, not : only (inconvenient, but atrociously expensive; and because there' was no necessity for such an expense. The Premier said!that, so far as the Goyernment .were concerned, if a bridge could bo put up to serve all requirements for £3OOO or '£sooo, he was not going to squander Government moneys by putting .up a-bridge- that Would' cost £15,000. (Hear, hear.) ]He was also speaking the mind of;-]tlje Government, when he said they Were i not prepared to benefit- other individuals at the expense of those who had vested 1 interests. To shift the site of a bridge, even though from an'engineering point of view it anjght’be somewhat'-better to do so, and to take away the value of some people’s property to benefit other people’s property .would be : unjust. If they took, away any land 1 : .--required • on the lower side, they would have to pay compensation; but he - believed) that the people who had land's along the road fronting the, old bridge could not claim compensation for .the loss of value of their property and injury to business owing to the site being changed. Mr Travers was -acquainted - with the law on the subject, and! knew more about it tban ho■ did!.; but he,believed; that the Public Works Act djd not, aHow • such ooiupensation. - , , - ’ > 1 ■ Mr-Travers i-It does mot-; ' the-Act* is quite clear. ■ ' , ■ * Mr -Soddon maintained - that they should consider > these people, and not injure them unless it'--was absolutely necessSory. ' It- would have to, bo proved to the Government that I this was absolutely necessary before they allowed a shilling pf‘public hipney to he spent in injuring, those peopl'p. . ,As to the question of v finance, thej.leit.er;- sent - outrby the.)-Minister of-Lands jhad- informed the J; borough that -jintil. arrangements werji.-m.ade wMoli.'were ! satisfactory -tov the j local. bodies,' tbp: '.Goyernment - could? take no part in tiny'matter. Until jh'e; financial question' yWas adjusted, the Government could' not’eommit the colony to anything.. V He had .been askedto send' out’ an dugineer, "hut had-de-clined 'to : do so ‘ until 'the ‘ finances had been adjusted.. '' ■"'.ln,-'reply, to' the Premier,- Mr; Jackson said that the objectors did! not take action earlier because ,thiey had- understood..? that i'thp , ratepayers (.would have been;consulted. - - • >