THE PELORUS GUARDIAN, AND MINERS' ADVOCATE FRIDAY, 8th FEBRUARY, 1907. THE BRIDGE COMMISSION.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 18, Issue 12, 8 February 1907, Page 4

THE PELORUS GUARDIAN, AND MINERS' ADVOCATE FRIDAY, Bth FEBRUARY, 1907. THE BRIDGE COMMISSION.

Judging from the evidence taken at the Oinaka Bridge Commission, and from other features of the inquiry, there seems little reason to hope that the Pelorus Boad Board will be absolved from contributing a large share of the cost of this very unnecessary bridge. A very serious aspect revealed by the Commission is that though the Omaka Board's Engineer estimates that the bridge will cost £950, other competent experts fix the probable cose at anything between £I2OO and £ISOO. So that if the Pelorus Board are compelled to pay only a quarter of the cost (they are asked to pay 27 per cent.) their quota will be between £250 and £375. Considering the urgent need for road works and bridge repairs in their own district it would be a shameful waste of mo.iey if they were compelled to pay this large sum for a bridge that is not only absolutely useless to their ratepayers but is entirely unnecessary from any point of view. And this brings us to the point that must have struck all but members of the Omaka Road Board—namely, that iq these Boyal Commissions the Commissioner does nob seem to concern himself with the question whether the bridge is or is nofi needed; and we can conceive that it is quite possible for some, faddist local body to ask that a bridge be built across an ancient watercourse that has been dried up for a century—and get a favourable reply to the request, too. We fail to see the need for dividing the country into road districts, counties, etc,, and fixing boundaries within which the rates collected there' shall be spent, if at the whim of an adjoining local body a quarter of the rates so collected are ordered to be squandered outside their legitimate area. Why should the ratepayers of Mahakipawa, for instance, have to contribute to the cost of a bridge tbat nine-tenths of them will probably never see, let alone use ? The legislation that allows such anomalies is absurd; and whether the verdict is for or against the Pelorus Board the system ought not to be tolerated by the local authorities .of the colonj.