The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1894. MERGING WAIMATE.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 15, 21 August 1894, Page 2

The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1894. MERGING WAIMATE.

We are informed that the petition for the merging of the remaining portion of the Waimate Road District is to be presented at the next meeting of the Hawera County Council, and that there is every probability that effect will be given to the prayer of the petition. It will be remembered that the petition was signed by the necessary number of ratepayers west of the Palmer-Inaba Road boundary, but at the time it was signed the eastern end bad not been severed from Waimate, and therefore the petition did not represent the requisite proportion of votes of the whole district to carry the motion. It was then dropped until the eastern end merged, which has been done, and it is now to be proceeded with. As to the legality of the proceedings we do not profess.to be competent to judge, but we are of opinion that they are invalid. It seems very absurd to think that a petition could be got up and be found to be wanting in an essential element, which caused it in the ordinary course to be thrown aside, but in this case to have it filed in the archives and then trotted out when the circumstances arise that make it effective. The Waimate district of to-day is not the Waimate district of six months ago, and we certainly do not think that a petition of old Waimate can be applied to rule new Waimate. But this can be fought out at the will of the ratepayers. Looking at the manner in which the Waimate Road District has been managed during the past two or three years, we think about the best thing that could be done with it is to merge it. It is an old saying that “the devil you know is better than the one you don’t,” but as every rule requires an exception to prove it we consider the inference applicable in this case. The Board have been running “ a-muck,” and have landed themselves in penury. This state has been brought about principally by what is known as an “ infusion of new blood.” For years careful management was exercised in the conduct of its affairs, and members looked smilingly on a credit balance at the bank, but this was considered bad finance by the new generation, and a howl was raised to spend the money.

Members were returned who have, spent the money, and now, instead of a credit balance, an overdraft has to be arranged for, and the ratepayers’ money goes for interest. Before merging, however, we wish to give a final note of warning. The-Counties Act provides for two kinds of merging. The first is where it is done unconditionally. In this case you hand yourselves over body and soul to the Council, giving them power to strike a rate of si* farthings, and to spend it where they please. The money raised in one riding may be spent in another without any let or hindrance, and no separate account of it need be kept, The second -method of merging is where a stipulation is embodied in the petition requesting the Council to strike a three-farthings’district rate, and then the Counties Act provides that this rate must be spent on district roads only. That would be a rate up to three-farthings struck for county purposes as at present, and a further rate up to three-farthings for district roads. But under the first method, which will be the case with the present petition, the Council have power to raise the whole six-farthings and spend the whole of it on main roads if they require it. The following opinion from Mr J. B. Roy to the Clifton County Council, and published in the Daily News, will prove the above contention : —“ The question having been raised as to the legality of the Id general rate struck by your Council, I have at your request to advise that as all road districts within the county have merged in the county under the provisions of section 53 of the Counties Act 1886, the Clifton County Council have full power under section 148 of the Counties Act 1886, to strike and levy a rate for the purposes of the Act up to six-farthings in thg £. Had any of the Road Boards, in petitioning the Council, to be allowed to merge their districts in the county, made the special stipulation contained in section 55 of the Counties Act 1886, then the county’s power would have been modified accordingly. I understand, however, that none of the Road Boards made this stipulation.” We would advise the ratepayers to take steps to see that the district roads are protected by the insertion of the stipulation re the district rate, and with this proviso in we believe merging would be as good a thing as they could do. We believe the Road Board would welcome their own annihilation in this manner, as the Land Fund accounts are in such a mess that very unpleasant circumstances may crop up out of them. Roads are shown to have credit balances, which in the aggregate amount to hundreds of pounds, but the only assets to represent these hundreds of pounds, which should be in the bank, are debit balances on other roads which are far from realisable. Another point to consider is that whilst the Road Board remains in existence any subdivision can only be made upon petition, but we are under the impression that once merging is carried the Council have power to subdivide at any time by special order. We think the ratepayers would be wise in having a say in such an important matter. The proposed subdivision at present before the ratepayers, as we have previously pointed out, is very lopsided : The Kaupokonui Ward gets most of the bad roads to maintain, whilst Waimate Ward gets most of the valuation, revenue, and representation.