PORTOBELLO ROAD BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11798, 30 July 1900, Page 7

PORTOBELLO ROAD BOARD.

The monthly meeting of the Portobeilo Road Board was held j): the Masonic Hail, Portobeilo, on Saturday, when the following members were present .-—Messrs Dickson (chairman), Macandrow, Xorth, Edwards, Hinkloy, Bacon. Geary, Green (clerk), and Raynbird (inspector).

The Inspector (Mr R. Raynbird) reported on th_^ work .the surfacemen were doing on the various roads under the boaid'q control. Mr .Meade's contract was also making- good progress, and would probably be rimshed by August.—xidopted. THE AJNDEItSON's BAY BHIDGK.

.■Mr Dickson (clmrman) and Mr Macandrew, who were appointed a deputation to go to Wellington in regard to the Anderson Bay bridge, gave verbal reports. Ml- Macnndrew said that they interviewed the Hon. Mr Hall-Jones, Minister of Public Works. Mr Morrison, Mr E. G. Alien, and "Mr Pratt were present. The Minister took up a veiy antagonistic attitude.in the matter. He said that the bridge had been raised by an . Order-in-Council at the request of the Ferry Ccmpany. In lowering the bridge the board had got themselves inio a very nasty position, and he would hold members of the board personally responsible for doing it. He would listen to nothing on the matter until they replaced it. Mr Morrison was there, and '' barracked " for his constituency, and, amongst other things, said that it was not dangerous and thero was not the slightest need for the board to have touched it. Further, Mr Morrison said that he was informed by a Portobello man, who used the- road more than anybody else, that he took a load of 30cwt over it every day, and that the bridge was in perfectly good order and condition. The deputation then pomted out that their funds were low, and that they had to tax themselves by a, toll They told.the Minister that the board would have to go bankrupt if compelled to pay unaided the cost of removing the bridge, "and there v-c'iiid bs a howl of indignation from the public if they did so Then they spoke about getting a grant m aid to assist them. Mr Allen-and Si th°lv 1S°n ? P°ken aW this Previonriy CV ? BnS*Sßt«»-*250, but said that it would c«Tm h g i° n t!? B Estu*«lM first. Nothing Hml TT a°ni .^ weTOT- nitil. it Passed the ™c;'? e i^ r M*c™&™) said that it was at mM" IF mUSt first replace the briel Se «mp ft T 7 ? aW the Minist«- agnin the m^W 7°??' Went ffiore fu"y 3"ato the -matter and the Minister promised the grant to assist th P board to replace the bridge. Mr needed Ip be widened, and they parted on Hi, Tinderstandmg-the board should get £300 The Minister promised £250 anyway. He would not listen to any proposal to lower the bridge, and Mr Morrison S aid,that, he had seen yachts go ™ V he bT ldge at My state 'of tho Me He (M^Macandrew) asked him if he knew the height of the masta of a yacht, and he replied yard."_% ce a yvg ChS. g0 lmder " Witha SmaU +f,Tf h + \ C] la?™ OT said it was quite clear xnat the bridge.must remain as it was He hid received a telegram from Mr Allen since he came back, saying that the. Government, had i3OO or £M) they.ought to make it substantial ■ Mr Geary remarked that if the bridge colsuffer at- Woula be the district that would Mr Hinkley thought the greatest mistake the board made was in not consulting Mr Morrison before they touched the bridge. Mr Macandrew: Mr Morrison said- "You Will never got tha .bridge lowered as Ion" as I am m the House "

Ihe Chairman moved—" That a committee of tliu_ members of. the North-East Harbour sub.division,, with the addition of Mr Hinldev, be authorised tq.instrnct the engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the reinstatement 01 the bridge and to widen the approaches." ±Le said that it went against the grain to have to back down as they had to, but there was no help for it. The circumstances that led up to the affair were that they had to got a certain vote expended or it would have lapsed for the second time., 'ihat was the money they were now spending m widening.the road from the embankment to Anderson's Bay. They were aayised there was no obstacle in their wav and proceeded' with the work. What they ought to have done first was to get an-Order-in-Council to annul the first one. If they had known that opposition-would be placed in their way, in all likelihood the board would have done nothing at all in regard to lowering the bridge. There ■was no doubt, however, that they would have to replace it at' once, or the Government would do it aft their cost. If they refused to take any action, it would simply mean that their subsidies and any moneys that belonged to the board, would be impounded. If. they Epent £300, the engineer would be able to widen the approaches 3ft on either side and reduce the grade to 1 in 25, All things.being considered it was a bitter pill indeed to have to climb down, but they must take into consideration that the road was the outlet for the whole district He (Mr Dickson) thought tlicy rrinsc put their feelings in their pockets and go on and complete the bridge. • Mi Hinkley seconded the motion. Mr North moved an amendment, the object of which was to reduce the cost to £200 Mr Edwards ■seconded the amendment; but on being put, it was declared lost, and the motion was subsequently carried.

A PROPOSAL TO EEDUCE THE TOM, OS IIILK-

CARTS,

. The Chairman read the following legal opinion from Mr Hosking:—" As I understand, the board desires to know if it can provide that any- person may, by. quarterly payment in advance, or. a. fixed sum, commute the amount of tolls' which otherwise We would or might have to pay during the quarter. The object as I understand, is to lighten the tolls in Tespect to milk-carts. I.think there is some doubt as to the board's power to carry out its object an the form proposed, in addition to which I foiesee there would be.some difficulty in wording the regulation so as to prevent, it from being' abused. I think the best course would be to reduce the. charge on horses and vehicles employed in carrying milk. Animals and ca-rts employed solely in drawing manure are exempted by.the act, and I can see no objection to reducing the charge on the animals and carts ■ employed for other purposes, which, the board thinks should be encouraged. A charge for the proposed . quarterly tickets would be based on the assumption that the horses and vehicles would pass and return, at least, every dny during the quarter; Thus, let the toll be fixed at what' this amount would be per day. This course will avoid some of the difficulties which occur to me as possible under a quarterly ticket. Would the ticket pass one horse or cari every day, provided it belonged to the same owner? Thus, difficulties might arise from attempts to lend the tickets, and so on I think to fix a straight-out reduced toll tolling bona-fide 'milk-carts would be the safest and simplest course to take."

.Mr Macandrew remarked, that they had now three opinions on this matter, and they were all different. ,' : - ■ ■■

. Tho board then proceeded to deal with a'? quantity of routine business. $