SELWYN COOHTY .COUNCIL. ■»

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8248, 22 February 1905, Page 2

SELWYN COOHTY .COUNCIL. ■»

The Selwyn County Council met this morning ; present — Messrs W. Dunlop (chairman), J. Gough. G. Rutherford, G. Witty, M.H.R., ft. H. Rhodes, M.H.R., J. Wolfe, W. M'Millan, R. N. Bealey and J. L. Scott. i Messrs Witty and Wolfe were appointed to represent the Council on the Lyttelton Harbour Board. The Hororata Domain Board wrote stating that it had resolved to appoint Mr J. Hockeridge as a member in succession to the late Mr J. Presdidge, and asking the Council to forward the resolution to Wellington for approval. It was decided to comply with the request. Mr A. D. Dobson wrote expressing thanks for the Board's letter of condolence on the death of his son, Mr A. G. Dobson. It was agreed to support the Heathcote Road Board in its application for a grant for £100 for main roads, namely, New Brightoa Road, Opawa and ' Mill's Road, and Hill's Road, St Martin's, on which the traffic was exceptionally heavy. Mr J. G. Scott, of the Department of Agriculture, wrote that he was arranging for a general poisoning of rabbits, to be commenced on March 13, and requested the Council to have its plantations poisoned at the same time. It was agreed to act in unison with the Government. Mr Quealy reported in connection with the dredging operations in the Halswell River, that the contractors, on the No. 1 work, were not giving satisfaction in cleaning the river, but as neither he nor they could get men to assist, he was endeavouring to make the best use of the few worked by the contractors. Reports were received detailing the condition of the waterraces in various districts, and, in consequence of the mention of needed improvements at Kowai and the Waimakariri Gorge, it was decided to pay a visit of inspection to those localities on March 8. ivir Scon- moved that a resolution adopted on August 23, placing the supervision of the water-races at Rakaia in the hands of. the local Road Board should be rescinded. He did not wish it to go forth that he did not thiuk that the Board had done its duty, but the principle was wrong. The Council's engineer should be responsible for the overseeing, and, instead of two months' reports about the district, there should be only one. Mr Witty seconded the motion. Mr Bealey said that the ratepayers were satisfied with the present arrangement, which had worked satisfactorily and well for twenty years. The Road Board gratuitously went more closely into the details of water-race business than even members of the Council did. Mr Gough also spoke against the motion. The motion was carried. On the motion of Mr Scott a vote of thanks was accorded to the Rakaia Road Board for the care that it had taken in the supervision of the waterraces. Accounts amounting to £1520 7s 7d were passed for payment. The Auditor-General wrote that he had examined the Council's accounts and found them correct except: — " (1) The Belfast Cemetery being the property of the Crown, the Council's expenditure thereon of £67 Bs, out of the county fund, was unlawful. (2) The hospital and charitable aid separate account, in being credited with the sub-! sidy received on contributions to the Infectious Diseases Hospital) is not kept in accordance witii the requirements of the Counties Act, and the balance is consequently incorrect. (3) The Government subsidy, £850, is less than the amount of subsidy payable by j £400, deducted by the Treasury as a contribution towards maintenance of the Rakaia Bridge." After the Auditor-General's comments had been discussed, the chairman moved— "That, in the -opinion of the Council, the balance-sheet of the county for the year ended March 31, 1904, as certified to by the Auditor-Gen-eral, with exceptions, shows fully and truly all the dealings with the county funds. . The Belfast Cemetery being provided at the joint cost of the Government and the County Council, the Government required that the site should be vested in the Council, before ■its ■contribution could be paid. The subsidy received in connection with the Infectious Diseases Hospital has been credited to the separate account, because the Council's contribution to the cost had been previously charged to that account. The Government having unlawfully deducted from the subsidy payable to the county a sum of £400, as a contribution towards the maintenance of the Rakaia Bridge, the amount received, namely, £&50, could only be shown as a payment on account. The Council, therefore, sees no necessity to make any alterations in the balancesheet, and resolves, in terms of Section 184, of the Counties Act, 1886, that the same be finally settled."