THE WAIHI TOLL-GATE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 319, 8 July 1912, Page 7

THE WAIHI TOLL-GATE.

REMOVAL OR ABOLITION? The question of the removal of the toll-gate from its present situation at Wailii to a point further north, which was introduced by a deputation at the previous meeting of the Clifton County Council, was again very prominent at Friday's meeting, and occupied the time of the Council for about a couple of hours. Mr. C. Barnitt forwarded resolutions passed at a meeting of Uruti settlers, asking the Council not to remove the toll-gate from its present site, and also asking the Council to do all in its power to stop the extraordinary heavy wheel traffic in the winter months, owing to the great amount of damage being done to the roads. Messrs Jupp and McKenzie were appointed to deputationise the Council on the matter, and accordingly did so.

Messrs Geo. Graham. W. Rook, C. Top- \ liss, W. Harris and T. Buchanan simul-1 taneously waited on the Council in fur-1 tlier support of the removal to a point [ further north. [

Mr. McKenzie considered that it would be most unjust if the toll-gate were shifted further north, so as to relieve the Waihi settlers of the burden of paying toll. Uruti settlers had, in addition to paying tolls, raised a special loan of £2OOO to -metal a portion of the main road, which the Wailii people had not done. Now, it was proposed to remove the gate further north to catch a few cattle that were evading the toll at present. By .the removal they would lose toll on the heavy wheat, oat and other crops that were grown in the Waihi district. Would the cattle traffic balance this?

The chairman. Yes; and a good deal more.

Mr. McKenzie said that the Uruti people were unanimous that the toll-gate should remain where it was at present or he abolished altogether, and he did not think the Council was in a position to do the latter. He considered that it was unjust to saddle them with the maintenance of all the roads in their riding, and asked if the gate were removed to the northern boundary of the riding, would the council allow all the revenue from the gate to be used on the road north of the gate?

The chairman considered that this would be an injustice. Mr. Rook pointed out that the grain traffic did not affect the toll revenue much, as it was brought out in big loads, and three or four trips were made per day and toll only paid once daily. If only the Waihi settlers used the road, they could do without any toll revenue. It was the backblocks traffic that cut their roads up. Rates in the AVaihi riding on 100 acres were as high as on 300 or 400 at Uruti. Personally, he thought toll was a fair way of collectin}! revenue.

In the course of a very desultory discussion, it was gathered that in three months 5000 head of cattle and thousands of sheep avoided the toll by going up one bv-road alone; that this only meant a deviation of one mile, and that the road was so good that in the summer time even motor cars might use it; that during the six years the toll had been in existence its revenue had ranged from £4OO to £585 per annum, and all of this had been credited to the Waihi riding, except £l5O, which had been allocated last year to the Uruti riding.

Mr. Buchanan, in reply, traversed his remarks at last meeting. lie pointed out that the back country settlers used the road far more than did the Waihi| settlers, who used perhaps one mile of the main road against Uruti's 22. The Waihi loading was small, whereas the Urcmii and Uruti loading was heavy. Moreover, it was a case of twenty or thirty settlers on the Waihi flat missing the toll as against all the cattle. Tliey were not particular where the gate was put, so long as the cattle, were unable to avoid it. The majority of the cattle, as suggested, were not settlers' cattle. He thought there was a good deal of selfishness in the attitude taken up by the Uruti settlers. This remark was objected to, Cr. 'Sullivan considering that the selfishness must be with the people who objected to pay toll.

After some further discussion the deputation withdrew. On the motion of Cr. O'Sullivan. it was decided to defer the matter until a full meeting Cr, Sander thought that if the toilgate were removed further north, a separate rate should he struck on settlers property this side of the gate.