DR. HODGKINSON AND THE APARIMA BRIDGES.

Western Star, Issue 282, 1 February 1879, Page 6

DR. HODGKINSON AND THE APARIMA BRIDGES.

TO THE BDXTOB. Sib, —Will you be kind enough to insert the following extract from Hansard No. 7, page 368 to show the electors of Riverton what Dr Hodgkinson did really say when he asked for a sum of money to be placed on the estimates for the erection of bridges on the Aparima River : Dr Hodgkinson in moving the motion standing in his name, said he felt that he was altogether in a false position. He felt that he was now appearing before the House in a degraded position—namely, as a beggar for the people of his district. Ho was begging for concessions—for grants of money for public works —and he thought that was a position in which no honorable member of the House ought to appear. But he could not be blamed for doing so. It was not his fault : it was the fault of the Abolition party that such a state of things existed. He thought he was right in stating that the Western district of Southland —namely the county of Wallace —had special claims on the Colonial Government for public works It had probably had less money spent on it in proportion to its contribution to the land revenue than any other district. He believed that the Government had lately built bridges in places where they were not so urgently required as in his district. He would take this opportunity of pointing out to the Minister for Public Works that in the event of the Governor declining to undertake the erection of any of the numerous bridges which were applied for, they should, at all events plank the present railway bridge over the Aparima River. The first part of his resolution asserted that the County of Wallace was not able to fulfil the duties that devolved upon it. He was fully justified in making that assertion, and might be allowed to read an extract from a report of a recent meeting of the Wallace County Council, to show that he was specially requested to do what he was now doing. The extract which he would read was as follows :

“ Mr Nurse thought the Council should request the member for the district to advocate certain works. It might do more harm than good, but he thought the request should be made. He (Dr Hodgkinson) had been asked by the Road Board to use his influence to get a bridge put over Jacob’s River at a certain point; but he replied that ho thought it should be put somewhere else. Perhaps a recommendation from the County Council would carry more weight. Dr Hodgkinson was such a rampant Provincialist that Ms influence in the House was greatly curtailed. Ho (Mr Nurse) suggested that the Council should go into committee on the matter. —On the motion of Capt. Hankinson, the Council went into committee. Mr Johnston was voted to the chair. After a discussion, the following motion was proposed by Captain Hankinson and seconded by Mr Hirst, and carried— 1 That the member for the district be requested by the Council to use his influence with the Government to have a bridge erected over the Aparhna, at the Upper Ford, to give settlers on the west side access to the railway.’ ” That was full proof that he had not made any assertion which he was not warranted in doing. The County Council had, with great formalities, passed a resolution, requesting the member for the district to use his influence to get done by the Government a work which ought to have been done by the County Council. Furthermore, there was evidence of a very unsatisfactory state of things which had been arrived at. A County Councillor objected to a member for the district because he bold too strong convictions upon an important constitutional question, and he therefore did not get so much for his district as he might otherwise do. ' It was quite clear that the member of the County Council thought that a representative in the House ought to be all things to all Governments, if by any means ho could gain concessions for the district in the shape of money or works. That was a position which was degrading to any member of the House, and ought not to be allowed to endure. He took that opportunity of stating this strongly. He was aware that the motion which he had put on the Order Paper was one which would scarcely warrant a long consitutional debate opening up the whole question, and for that reason he intended to be very brief; but he was justified in making a few observations in order to put in as strong a light as possible the defects of the present system. The County Councils had openly proclaimed their inability lo discharge the duties devolving upon them ; and not only that, but they expected the member for the district to undertake work which was really not honorable

or becoming. They found fault with the member because he entertained strong convictions upon important matters, which interfered with his obtaining concessions. He hoped that before long there would be opportunities for discussing this matter upon some other motion. He would further state that he hoped before long the question woidd be fully decided. During the existence of this Parliament it could not be fully decided. Ho trusted that ere long there would be a general election and a new House, and that the views of the people and their opinions would be given effect to in this Chamber. Any Government then in office would feel itself bound to deal with this question, and no Government would be able to evade the responsibilities that devolved upon them. He would not support any Government that sought to evade its responsibilities. Motion made, and question proposed, “ That the County of Wallace being unable to fulfil the duties devolved upon it by the Abolition and Counties Acts, which require that it should construct bridges and other expensive works formerly done by the Provincial Government, and three bridges being urgently required over the Aparima River —namely, at Collie’s Ford, the Yellow Bluff, and the Upper Ford—the Colonial Government be requested to construct the same ; and that this House will, on Wednesday, the 28th instant, resolve into a committee of the whole to consider of an address to his Excellency the Governor, requesting that he will be pleased to place on the supplementary estimates the sum of £3OOO for the above purpose.” —(Mr Hodgkinson.) How, sir, I do not see anything in this resolution which warrants the statements made by the hon. member, that he felt he was “ degraded” by having to ask for this money, and I fail to see that the resolution shows the inability of the Wallace County Council to perfoi’m its functions, but that the members were of opinion that these bridges were a part of the Public Works scheme and would act as feeders to the railway. I believe the hon. member has resided in this district something like eighteen years, and it is only since the Counties Act came into force in this district that a passable road has been made to Mount Fairfax. After the thousands of pounds worth of land sold this much vaunted provincialism swallowed it all up in making roads to and from Dunedin, and cost this district something like £IOO,OOO as compensation to Mr Proudfoot, for what ? The noncompletion of his contract. The old saying of letting well alone might be attended to in this matter, as I think all of the ratepayers in this district are satisfied that the county system will prove a success but no thanks to the hon. member for Riverton. Ratepateh; Riverton, 27th January, 1879. [We need scarcely remind our readers that Dr Hodgkinson’s remarks on the occassion of moving the above motion were published m these columns on September 7th. As the member for Riverton asserted when addressing his constituents ( at Riverton lately that he did,urge the construction of these bridges on the ground that they w.,re part of the railway scheme, we comply with our correspondent’s request to re-publish his remarks in parliament anent the question. If the Doctor advanced the reason stated, there is no record of it in Hansard when moving.his motion —the proper time to have done so. Allowance, however, has not sufficiently been made for the feeling of “ degradation” experienced by the hon. member in urging the claims of the district to fair share of the expenditure of public money. Perhaps the Doctor, like many other speakers, will takejcfnge behind the useful excuse that he was not correctly reported. — Ed. W. S.]