Thames Star. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1921. BRIDGES.

Thames Star, Volume LVII, Issue 14728, 5 August 1921, Page 4

Thames Star. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1921. BRIDGES.

It is apparent that if the members of the Thames County Council had been willing to follow the inclination of the chairman, that body would have agreed to confer with the Hauraki Plains County Council regarding the-'Purin bridge proposal. And such a course would have been a politic one. The chairman showed that he viewed the provision of bridges' from a broad district standpoint, and he was willing to explain to the neighbouring council the reasons that actuated his council in pushing ahead with this particular project. That is the w#y to accomplish things, and the proposed conference could not have had any negative results. As it is, the council, by its refusal'to enter into a conference, has. given the Hauraki Plains County Council every reason to delay the project, in order that the position may be re-examined. Several of the councillor’s referred to the loan poll as a sufficient ground for the building of the bridge, but the legal position is that that particular poll counts for nothing. The creation of the new county, before the matter was finally dealt with, wiped out the poll, and the council recognised that when it decided to proceed under a clause of the Public Works Act. The poll has no legal bearing on the proposal at all. We cannot understand the attitude of the Thames Council. It should have remembered, as the chairman said, that the bulk of the responsibility will fall on settlers outside 'of its area, and that was, in itself, a good and sufficient reason for meeting the local body charged with protecting the interests of those settlers. If the case for the bridge is. so strong, then the conference would have seen that, and would have decided accordingly, but the decision of" the Thames Council means that it will endeavour to push through a project which will impose double the responsibility on the settlers on the Plains that it will on its own ratepayers in the special rating area, and we cannot think of any course more likely to move the Plains County to very energetic opposition. The two councils are to meet to discuss the proposed Hikutaia bridge, and it is a pity that the Thames Council, should, have vetoed any discussion on the Puriri proposal, especially in view of the fact • that its interests in the matter are secondary to those of the Hauraki Plains Council. It is admitted that the very vital alteration in the conditions, made since the faking of the poll, put a different complexion of the financial considerations, and it was not unreasonable for the Plains Council to ask that the two bodies should meet and discuss the matter in a friendly manner. The chairman obviously recognised this, and many will regret that the Council did not take his broad and practical view of the matter. y