Geraldine County Council.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4985, 18 April 1889, Page 4

Geraldine County Council.

A special meeting of the Geraldine County Council was held yesterday. Present— Messrs W. Balfour (chairman), R. Mackay, W. B. Howell, and B, A. Barker. The chairman stated that the chief business was the consideration of the action the council should take in regard to the lower Pareora bridge. He read a letter from Mr Moore, who regretted that he could not attend, as the business was so important. On thinking over the action of the Government concerning the bridge he was unable to concur in the opinion expressed at the meeting last week, viz., that if they were compelled to repair the bridge it would necessitate the opening up of the whole question of the county bridges. They had already decided, and he thought unanimously, to do nothing at present. Since then steps had been taken to get the Government to compel them to build the Pareora bridge, which action may or may not be successful. The writer suggested that the whole matter should be left in abeyance during the term of the present council, and that the ratepayers at next election would return members who held the views of a majority of the ratepayers on the subject. The chairman also read the letter from the Surveyor-General, which has already been published. Mr Howell was of the opinion that the letter from the Surveyor-General was, to say the least of it, rather uncalled for, as the writer did not seem to have studied the whole question, and only considered the petition of some discontented ratepayers. The chairman, in reply to a question from Mr Baker, stated that the upper Pareora bridge had a good dray road to it, hut it must be considered that the lower bridge was on the main road, and that in flood time it might be difficult to drive stock coming from the south over the upper bridge, owing to the creeks along the river-bed being high. Mr Barker suggested that if the upper bride could be made suitable for all purposes, and a good road made on both sides to that bridge so that it would be perfectly suitable, it might be the best, for evidently the lower bridge would, from what he heard, require a great deal of repairing from time to time. Mr Howell then moved—“ That in view of the threatened action of the Government re the lower bridge, this council is of opinion that the Government does not understand the nature and extent of the work necessary to restore the bridge to a state of more permanent usefulness than has been the case in the past; this council being of opinion that the present bridge would have to bo largely extended, say another length of 1200 feet, making a total of 2500 feet, and cost £4OOO to £SOOO, and even then no assurance of permanency secured, owing to the very loose nature of the soil at the north end, part of the ancient river-bed in fact, so that a heavy fresh might easily open a new channel for the river north of the extension; and also this council wishes to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the old portion of the bridge is considerably out of order, and that it is not worth extensive repairs ; and further that this bridge is only one of several rapidly approaching the same state which have equal claim for consideration, supposing it is reckoned that there is a necessity for keeping them up, to which this council believes that the greater number of ratepayers in both Waimate and Geraldine counties would demur ; this council is therefore of opinion that before the Government takes control of this or similar works it would be strongly advisable that the wishes of the ratepayers of’the counties interested be consulted, and that the councils shall be guided in their action by the result, and hope that the Government will endorse this view,”

This was seconded by Mr Mackay and carried.

In moving his motion Mr Howell stated that when these bridges were built the country had plenty of money, bnt it now seemed to him that they might perhaps do without certain bridges. However that may be, if they did anything to the Pareora bridge they would most certainly be asked to do the same to other bridges. He suggested that the council should resign in a body, and make this bridge question a test for the ratepayers to solve by the men they elect to represent them on their new council. He might say that Mr Tesebemakor bad informed him that a public meeting re the Pareora bridge was to be held next week.

Mr Barker did not quite go with Mr Howell, and he thought it would not be exactly the correct thing, owing to the expense, for the members to resign in a body. He then moved the following amendment, which was not put for want of a seconder : “ That seeing that there is, nine miles up the river, a good alternative traffic bridge, with connecting roads, that can be made available during flood times, the site in question being easily fordable during eleven months of the year, this council deem it a waste of money to erect another on such an expensive and indefinite site; we are, however, prepared to contribute funds towards placing a stock bridge attached to the railway bridge, similar to that at the Rangitata.”

Mr Howell also moved—“ That Messrs Turnbull and Rhodes be requested to put themselves in communication with the Minister of Lands re the action of the Geraldine County Council in the subject of the bridges of the district, and that the resolution passed by the council on April 17th be forwarded to them.” Seconded by Mr McKay, and caaried. The chairman stated that he wished it to be distinctly understood that he was for keeping the communications open in regard to the question of bridges. The alteration in the by-laws of which due notice was given at last meeting was then considered. The chairman stated that in regard to the by-laws which were brought up in committee at last meeting, he might say that he and all the members were against going into committee on any subject when it could be avoided, but there were some things that, by being published, would do harm. They did not wish to save themselves by going into committee at last meeting, and he must say that a leading article that appeared in the Herald on the subject that was discussed at that meeting must have been inspired by some person who was in tbo room, and he thought it was a distinct broach of confidence, and not at all a nice thing to do to disclose things that wei e spoken about in committee. The chairman then read out the proposed alteration in tho by-laws, and the following resolutions were passed : “ That the old bye-laws dated 18th of July, 1887, be rescinded.” “ That in pursuance of the power vested by the Counties Act of 1886, the County Council do now hereby mate the following bye-laws, which shall be applicable to the whole of the existing water works under the control of the council, and to the whole county, and the same shall come into operation in May.” “ That a special rate of l-16th of a penny in the £ be struck in the Woodbury water district to cover the interest on the further loan of £50.” The meeting then terminated.