HUNGERFORD’S BRIDGE FIRE.

West Coast Times, 22 March 1910, Page 1

HUNGERFORD’S BRIDGE FIRE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The police report in your issue of March 9th is causing just indignation, -and settlers and residents wish through your columns to state their position in order that the Public Works Department and the general public may judge for themselves as to whether or not this heinous attempt to fire the bridge, has been reported in a straight forward and official manner, or in a manner designed to cast odium on 131 respectable people who openly and fearlessly petitioned the Department asking that the Arahura grant of £SOO of ratepayers’ money he expended for its ligitimate purpose of constructing a quarter of a mile of new road between tiio Sale Yards and the Dairy Factory,

and the repairing of llnngerlord’s Bridge. Tho petitioners protested against this grant of ratepayers money being diverted to a private firm-. There has never been any question of closing Hungerford’s Bridge, the settlors and public have never asked the Government to make Malfroy’s Bridge a traffic bridge, nor has any ill-feeling ever exited on the part of settlers towards Mr Malfroy. Tho contention of the settlers was wholly and solely against tills grant, so urgently needed, being given over to a private enterprise. The County Council ordered the police to investigate the firing of the bridge, and the police report was to the effect that the fire was purposely created by some person or persons whose interests would suffer if Hungerford’s Bridge was closed, and with the object of throwing suspicion on the “opposing forces.” Now could any sane or unbiassed person suppose that the 131 petitioners depending on the up-keep of 1 iuugerford’s Bridge would purposely ruin their means of livelihood by burning down their own bridge knowing that a new bridge might never again he erected, thus playing into the hand- of the “opposing parties.” It is the only traffic bridge in the locality indispensable to the welfare and livelihood of a large community where farms are divided by the river, and tho bridge in use every hour of the day, either h\ settlors, workmen, teamsters, cattle and shoe]) drovers,, milk cows, doctor-, nurses, suppliers of hoarding houses, and many other interests connected

with the providing of daily bread. As money is said to he the root of all evil, would it not have been fail- to all parlie- had the police inquired before publishing their report what benefit, or money, if any, was likely to come to any of the “ opposing forces ” which the police have discovered, had Hungerford’s Bridge been destroyed. Who would have benehtted? Certainly not tile people who petitioned lor Hungerford’s Bridge to he maintained. The police report made without sufficient knowledge of the district mnsr he regarded as a one sided document to he put before the Mon. the xilinister for Public Works by the Council executive. The settlers are aware that the Council has on several occasions endeavoured to thwart their efforts with regal'd to repairs and the upkeep of llnngerford’s Bridge, ’lime alter time the estimates for repairs have been delayed and kept over by the executive iin-tread of being forwarded in tune, dh-eet to headquarters. We now wish to refer specially to the action of the Council in its conduct in receiving ami countenancing the report, whir hi.’ an insult to the whole community, brandiveg them as inoondiarists in the eyes of (lie Public Works Department. The feeling in the district now is to forward a monster petition to the Covernmenl asking that a commission of i. onirv he held on the workings of the Countv Council in this mettm, and the who’ ■ nr Her of the ponce re;--)',. On lie'nir if the settlers and myself.—l am, etc., KiCHAiiD A. !I.VUCOURT.