THE HUTT BRIDGE.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3202, 18 May 1871, Page 2

THE HUTT BRIDGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT. Sic, — The impression appears to be gaining upon the residents in the Hutt that it is intended to erect the bridge on the proposed site that has lately been surveyed near the old bridge. I consider the proposed site worse than that on which the bridge, or tho remaining portion of ifc, now stands. The main road is at present only about 40 feet from the bank of .the river opposite Osgood's Hotel. The bank is constantly falling away from, the Odd Fellows' Hall the whole distance to the proposed sitp. Should the freshets coutinue as they have done for the last week or ten days, in about three months the river will, in all probability, be into tho main road. How it could ever enter the brain of any individual to cause a survey to be made, or allow the public to suppose a bridge could with safety be built on the proposed site is beyond my comprehension. Strange, indeed, it appears to me that a surveyor should have been employed on bo useless an undertaking. If it is intended to endeavor to protect private property, let the public understand it as such j but not a site for a bridge ; it is really monstrous. I have in a previous letter pointed out the part of the river at which a bridge can with any degree of safety be erected in the Lower Hutt, and it is the only place. Further, the river at tho place indicated is very little more than half the width of the proposed site, which iv 4 5-6 chains. With a little judicious management a groat portion of the old bridge might be used, if the same plan of bridge is adopted. This Ido not think advisable. There is, in my opinion, a serious objection to a piled bridge. The driving tends to loosen the banks of the river ; but this, in some measure, might be avoided, by having two centre rows of piles j these being driven in the centre of the river would not be so objectionable. The end supports to be formed differently. This is suggested to bring in a very largo portion of the old bridge. Adopting this plan, a bridge need not be a very expensive undertaking. In your issue of yesterday a letter appears, stating that " Economist" does not take into consideration buying land and constructing a road through Mr Stilling's and Mr Death's paddocks, which is nearly another mile. " One who is Personally Disinterested" has a most unaccountable idea of distance. The distance is certainly not one-third, of a mile ; and- he entirely forgets that for a mile below tho place at which the road through Mr Death's paddock would meet the main road is flooded. There is aslight advantage here — one-third of a mile against a mile of flooded road. As regards buying land, the Q-overnment would have to purchase land through any person's property. He aIBO forgets that " Economist's" letter alludes Bolely to removing the bridge to another site, making no reference whatever to repairing the old bridge. In conclusion, I would quote from your editorial remarks of the 13th inst., which should be made as public as possible. That " the greatest good of the greatest number is the only principle that can be recognised. Suppose, for instanco, that our Provincial Executive were, in the matter of the Hutt Bridge, to defer to the wishes of the proprietors and residests in its immediate neighborhood, end, against the recommendation of Mr Blackett, put up the bridge in its present site, they would be doing tho province and the colony a grievous wrong."— l am, &c, Economist, Hutt, May 16.