The Mangatainoka Bridge Question.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 157, 4 June 1894, Page 3

The Mangatainoka Bridge Question.

Deputation to the Counoil. !i)q Saturday a deputation from the Borough Council, consisting of His Worship the Major (Mr G. H. Smith) and Cr Briggs, waited upon the members of tha Pahiatua County Council in reference to the above matter. Mr Smith said the object of the deputation was to bring up the question of the erection of a bridge over the Mangatainoka river, with protective works thereto, on the boundary between the territories of the Borough and County. They did not, however, wish to lay before the Council any details of a scheme. He wished to point out what they probably knew, viz., the provisions of section 15 of the Public Works Act Amendment Aot, 188 b, which contemplated the contribution of a neighboring district to the cost of any work undertaken by the governing body of another district and calculated to prove beneficial to both

diatricta. There waa a certain procedure laid down which waa rather cumbersome and expensive. They had no definite plans at present, and before formulating any they had thought it advisable to meet the County Council, partially to contradict rumours that had been circulated that their actions were hostile to the County. He would not insult the Council by imagining that they had taken any notice of these rumours. The Chairman: You have ignored the Couneil hitherto. Mr Smith, continuing, said that that was why it had been said the Borough Council wa.H hostile. There were many reasons why they had not approached the County Couneil before, the chief one being that they had nothing to lay before them. The Act he had previously quoted would cause delay; and what they had to propose was that, having regard to the provisions of the Act, a committee of the Council be set up with power to act in connection with the matter, and that a day he fixed for a meeting of the committees of the two couneil* to discuss the erection of the bridge. They did not ask the Council to pledge itself in any way ; they merely deeired that an endeavour be made to arrange for a contribution. What he would propose was that the two councils consent to a proclamation. A mere resolution to contribute would not be binding on either Council. If a proclamation were made it would fix the proportions of the contributions towards the Co6t of erection. They quite understood that no committee would agree to contribute without beiug consulted as to the nature of the erection. If an amicable arrangement were made both Councils would have to agree as to the nature of the structure. At present

the deputation simply asked that a com I arm tee be set up to inset a committee of « the Borough Council to discuss the matter. To bring any other proposal would entail a delay of a month. At the meeting of the two bodies they would be prepared to bring down details of the proposal. The Chairman : Have you any plan* ? Mr Smith said they had plans, but the Eagiueer had informed them that the action of the late Hood had rendered the sell eme impracticable. To be of value it was necessary that the committee should have power to act. If the Council preferred to meet again they would consider it exceedingly courteous on their part. The Chairman said he thought the question would have been threshed out by the Council. It would be more satisfactory to the Council if they had a statement in writing. They were now deprived of a legal opinion, and it would, under the circumstance*, take all the mine heads to get equal with the Mayor. Cr Whitcouibe said the committe would ; have to report to a meeting of the Council. Cr Griffith asked what was to prevent the whole Council being appointed a committees. Cr Tail said it would he well to set up a committee, but not to give them power to act; it would not be wise to commit the Council. Cr Whitcomb* said they could call a special meeting of the whole Council. The Mayor said if the Council agreed to that the deputation would have been treated with very great courtesy. Cr Hodgins was of opinion that would be the best course to pursue. Cr Murphy said he would oppose any of the Council s money being spent on that bridge. The Chairman said the meeting would have to adjourn until Friday as they could not call a special meeting without seven days’ clear notice. Mr Smith said he hoped he had made it clear that that visit was with a view to the possibility of making arrangements without going through the cumbersome process of the Act, which provides that when it is proposed to erect a bridge over a bouadarv, or one that would be beneficial to a neighboring district, ono of the local bodies may submit plan* to the other, and there was a certain time allowed in which to make objections. If there were none a commission would be set yp to enquire and fix the contribution of the two bodies If that were done the Council would have the power to strike a rate to pay the contribution without taking a poll of the rate pavers. # The Chairman asked what authority the Borough had to build a bridge in the County. * The Mayor said the position of the river was not fixed by the water. It was impossible for anyone to fix the exact boundary. He thought there was no question that the Borough Couneil had trio right to bridge a river which bounded their territory. The Chairman said if a request w#r® made that a committee bo sppointod all disputable matter would be left out of the question. Mr Smith said that was what they desired. The deputation then thanked the Couneil and withdrew. Afterwards the Council decided that at its close the meeting would he adjourned until Friday ae&t to meet a committee of the Borough Council toronsidsi the bridge question.