LOWER PAREORA BRIDGE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4984, 17 April 1889, Page 2

LOWER PAREORA BRIDGE.

[to the editor.] Sib, —At the last meeting of the Geraldine County Council great importance was attached by some of the members of that body to a meeting of ratepayers held at Otaio on the Bth of December last re Lower Pareora Bridge, and as a report of that meeting did not appear in your widely circulated paper, I take the liberty to send you a few facts, so that the many readers of your paper who are ratepayers in both the Waimate and Geraldine Counties may no longer be misled by the bubbles of opposition which Mr Tesohemaker is blowing to deceive them into the belief that the ratepayers in the Otaio riding asked or commissioned him to represent to the Geraldine County Council that they were entirely against the bridge being made fit for traffic. The meeting at Otaio was convened by Mr McLaren, who by advertisement asked ratepayers in the Waimate County to attend to discuss the Pareora Bridge question. The meeting consisted of twenty-four ratepayers from different parts of the county, and on the motion of Mr McLaren Mr Teachemaker was voted to the chair. ■ The chairman in bis opening remarks appealed strongly to those present to oppose the repairing or reconstructing of the bridge in any shape or form, and then called on Mr McLaren, the member for the Otaio riding, to address them. Mr McLarden then started to harangue the Otaio ratepayers, laying before them his past valuable and gratuitous services and the efforts he was making to prevent the lower Pareora bridge being repaired. He appealed to them to approve of the action he had taken; if they would not ho would retire to the privacy of Bankfield. But the few Otaio ratepayers present answered him not a word of approval. At this stage the chairman’s attention was called to the fact that there were other than Otaio ratepayers present. Evidently there was some mistake, as the advertisement stated it was to be a meeting of ratepayers of the Waimate County. Yet Mr McLaren’s, the convener’s, remarks were directed as if they were all Otaio ratepayers. The chairman said it was a meeting of ratepayers of the Waimate County, and not of Otaio only. After some discussion a resolution drafted by the chairman was moved by Mr McLaren, requesting the Geraldine County Council to ask Government to appoint a commission to take evidence and report as to the advisableness or otherwise of restoring the bridge. A seconder was asked for, but none would come forward until the chairman appealed by name to one of the ratepayers who, by the way, is a contractor and cropper on the Otaio estate, who dulv seconded it.

A discussion followed, in which 'objection was taken to the cost of a commission, the general opinion being that it was better to spend the money repairing the bridge than on a costly commission. One gentleman, a large ratepayer of Otaio, with a perseverance worthy 0? the cause insisted on the cost of the commission being limited to £IOO, remarking that the commission might, and in all probability would cost more than to repair the bridge, and after all they would likely have to repair it. The resolution with this addition was carried by 16 to 18. Only Mr Teschemaker, Mr McLaren, and the seconder of the resolution, spoke against the bridge being repaired. All the other ratepayers who spoke were in favour of its being done.

Now I ask did that resolution justify Mr Tcsclicmaker in saying that those who voted for it were against the bridge being repaired ? No. On the other hand a number of those who voted for the resolution had already signed the memorial which asked the Government to have the bridge made fit for traffic. Is it not a fact that there are 98 ratepayers in the Otaio riding, and that a largo number of those have signed in favour of the bridge and will sign again if need be ? Why then'should the Geraldine County Council bo gulled into the belief that all the Otaio ratepayers are against the bridge ? Is it not rather the council’s duly to consider the just legal requirements of the ratepayers rather than the factious opposition of such men as Mr Teschemaker and Mr McLaren.

Why is it that Mr Teschemaker and Mr McLaren did not petition or object to the repairs of the Otaio bridge which was damaged by floods last August, and which has cost the Waimate County £2OO to repair ? Is it not because they make use of it to get to the St. Andrew’s railway station, and it would bo a great source of inconvenience and loss to them personally wore it alio wed to stand in the neglected state in which the lower bridge is ? Have the ratepayers in other parts of the country not as much right to haye (the same facilities and conveniences out of the county funds as they enjoy ? Why is it that neither Mr Teschemaker or Mr McLaren objected to the repair of the upper Pareora bridge at Elworthy’s which

also was damaged last August and is now being repaired at a cost of about £6OO ? I leave it to your readers to note the inconsistent actions of these twogentlemen,and to the Geraldine County Council I would say— Do your duty without favour to any man or faction for you have already been gulled by listening to tittle-tattle. You on the 2nd of July last accepted from Government the control and maintenance of the lower Pareora bridge, promising faithfully in that proclamation to keep and maintain it. How far have you gone to fulfil the responsibilities you undertook ? Do you think the law is made to be trilHed with as you are doing with that proclamation ?

Were your intentions honest when you asked Government in June last year to vest the bridge in you for the purpose of keeping and repairing it ? Were you net aware that before you had the bridge vested in you it was in a state of disrepair, and that your engineer estimated the cost of putting it right and protecting it at £580; or to build an entirely new bridge with protections £2BCO ?

Is it not through your neglect that it will now cost tho ratepayers so much more to put right ?

Did not your engineer urgently request you last year not to delay protecting the bridge, and did you not turn a deaf ear to his advice and warning ? Does not the Counties Act plainly tell you that it is your duty to keep all main and county roads and bridges vested in you in proper repair ?

Has not your lawyer given it as his opinion that you must make the bridge right, and that until that is done you are responsible for any loss to life or property which may be caused through your neglect to carry .out the responsibilities you have undertaken ? And did not your engineer state at your meeting on tho Bth of August last that he was certain there would be loss of life if part of the bridge was not erected ? You have had a warning from the Government and been told plainly what your duty is; and now do it like men and don’t go crying to Mr Teschemaker oranyone else to help you out of the trouble you have brought on yourselves, I am, ic., Otaio BatepAyeb. Otaio, 16th April, 1889.