ROAD BOARDS VERSUS COUNTIES.

Western Star, Issue 278, 4 January 1879, Page 6

ROAD BOARDS VERSUS COUNTIES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sißj—ln jour last number, containing report of the meeting, of the Apariina Road Board, I note that at their nest meeting the Board purposes to give an expression of opinion as- to merging into the County. I am not sure that a majority of the Board really contemplate committing suicide, and einiceroly hope that such is not tlie case-j but if it ! be so, I wish to point out that the Board has no power to deprive itself of existence, and that the question of life or death rests with the ratepayers, ns shown by section 37 of “ Counties Act, 1876 ‘V—“Of.'mwgiug. Road Districts into u County.—37. The Council may, if it thinks fit, by special order declare the Road Board of any nad district to be dissolved and such road district to be merged in the County, subject,.however, to the, following conditions: 1.-That a petition is presented to the Council, signed by not less than one-third of the ratepayers of such road district whoso properly in respect of which they are rated is-situated within the County possessing in the aggregate not less than half the rateable property therein, praying, the Council to abolish

such district,. 2. That such petition is published in the district not less than one month before presentation. 3. That no counter petition is presented to the Council within two months thereafter signed by.an; equsl or greater number of ratepayers, possessing in the-aggregate not less than one-third 1 of the-rateable-property in the district, praying the Councilnot to accede to the prayer of tlie first petition:—And on-and after a day named in- such special order,- the- said Eoad Board shall I be dissolved'and-the- said district merged in to the County.” Under our present system the Ebad Boards correspond very nearly to the English parishes or American townships. In eve"y civilised country the parish or township or commune, as it is variously termed, is the unit or primary, social, and political organisation, and ia- absolutely essential to the - well-being; of' tlie community. To abolish such institutions and' devolve the function for which they are so ■well suited upon such comparatively- large ■ organisations as the. Counties, which are too large, cumbersome, and' expensive for undertaking mere parochial work would be sheer fatuity. In all populous countries Counties are no doubt indispensable, and my objection to the present County system is not because Counties are in the abstract' an evil, but because the present Counties in New. Zealand have been prematurely forced into-ex-istence, and because most important functions have-been devolved'upon them which they are unable to fulfil. It now appears that a small section of our community would Igo to the other extreme,, and devolve upon them-compara-tively very small duties which can only be undertaken with advantage by small organisations or such as road boards or parishes. However, knowing that some of your readers may be prejudiced against any arguments of mine, and" allege that I am biased by ray strong feeling- on the Abolition question, I will refer them-to one against whom the - same exception cannot be taken —to one of the most able and' prominent members- of the Centralistic or Abolition party. Sir Dillon Bell’s speech on the Counties Act Amendment Act of last session is reported in Hansard of September 26th, page 63: “ Without going into the very wide question raised by the change which Abolition had made in-the form of Government, he would express his own opinion that the County system\as a substitute for the Provincial form of goverhment had been a; conspicuous failure. * * The County system was not only mere humbug in a great many cases—it was pure tyranny inothers. It was also an extravagant system, and' even a-profligate one in many ways * ’ Whereas the cost'of the legislative bodies of the Provinces had’nraounted to less than■ £4o,ooo'a year,-the cost of the County, form of Government already amounted to ■ £BO,OOO a year without any good work being done. Then what was the-advice which, in contradiction to his honourable "I fiend' Mr Hall, he ventured to give the Government 5 It was not to increase the power of the Counties, but to increase those of the Ebad Boards, and' enable these latter ■ bodies to work out their own local government, as they themselves were best able to do, because they would take the most interest in it.” Pcannat copy the whole of Sir Dillon’s speech. He proceeds to show the-evil of having two concurrent organisations, Eoad Boards and Counties, and says that rather than such should be- the case, he- would consent to Eoad Boards being abolished, though he adds that he thought in doing so they would fail and have to return to what he advised, viz , “ stiengthening the Eoad Boards throughout the country,” and concluled by saying that “they must elevate tlie status of the Eoad Boards, endeavour to induce people of property and intelligence in each County to take an interest in their organisation, and lead 1 up to the gradual agglomeration of Eoad Boards for County purposes, district purposes, or • father—he must apologise for the termr-provincial purposes, fitting these Boards, in fact, for the duty of carryihii on in the existing-provincial districts that reality of local government which they could not hope to have for a great many to coma on any such system as the present law had set up. To conclude—Tlie present question of merging is-one of the evil’results of the Abolition fiasco, for it - ought not- to- be dignified by the term Abolition “ Policy’s”' The-new-governing bodies, the Counties,*, are quite unable to do tbe work formerly done by the Provinces, and not being required for the work done by the Eoad Boards, area mere burden and encumbrance. In order to avoid the expense of maintaining two concurrent organisations, the people are striving to escape the-additional burden of taxation by abolishing either one or the other. Happily they Have in almost every instance, on common-sense principles, determined to ask for the abolition or suspension of the County organisation, and it is to be hoped that the ratepayers of the Aparitna Eoad]Board district will show the same good sense, and concur in the common verdict—“ Uphold the Eoad Boardo.”—l am, &c., Samuel Hodge ims on. Mount Fairfax; Dec. 24, 1878..