COUNTY COUNCIL v. ROAD BOARDS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1263, 26 May 1884, Page 2

COUNTY COUNCIL v. ROAD BOARDS.

To thx Editor. Sir, —“ Another Suburban” says Me Walker, puzzled him because he arrives at * a conclusion which is carelessly or wilfully wrong. He must have been awfully puzzled when he penned that perspicuous sentence. But why does he not come to something like proof, instead of reckless and unblushing assertion 1 Mr Walker can supply information. but he cannot unfortunately for “ V'.okhe.' Suburban” supply brainsto understand ifcr«»S* Sutaurban” will not mislead many, unless u ignorant of figures as himself. He asks “Water” to prove him far wrong; “ Water” asks nim to prove right. Till he does, he oogbt to refrain from insinuating ' what '.there is not the slightest foundation for.* “ Water ” leaves him to do his own work, or t admit his transparent ignorance. ' ; V

He should remember that the question before ths public is, “ -What is (he relative cost of the Road Board and County Council system.” This can be determined only by referefiwto'the past-and not to the future. I have na doubt Mr Walker will supply a 'fair and full comparison so soon as he is in a position to do - so. The extract het(‘ ( Suburban ”) gives shows his ofwhat he writes about. If work only 'should he taken _ into- account, why' does fierjdidgde as expenses , against' , those ? w6rks such items ps insurance, eto. f-j.Attd why such an ltem as rangers’ salaries ? Surely a elsver man like him ougjit to know 5 that those salarits are a cost of maintaining the water-races in proper repair, and so being a blessing instead of a curse.’ j! r: "' -

la ha ignorant of tba fact tint ia cion* sidarable amount of protective works have bean done during the last year? And that the plans, etc., for aoonaiderable amount are' now ready for more 1 Per* haps ha does not know that the protective .works dona-last year-do not appear-ln lest year’s balance sheet* If his reasoning (?) be sound as regards the County, .it must be equally so as regards the: Bbstdi.I will give yon a few extracts “ Wakanui Ward No. 1, March 31, I*Bs— Expenses ... ... ’“'s^‘l. ] or L7B 8s 3 per cent. ' If Inspeetdr of Nuisances’ salary,L4l 13 s 4d,_be included we get Ll5O 18a 5d expanses, ifor Ll3B 16s 9d expenditure ! -1 ' ; INoir take i*ongbeach— --iWard 2, March 31, 1884— Expenditure ... ... £137 18 7 “ Expenses ... - ... 75 U 9 or Ls3£ per cent, I select these because they are handiest, and not from any other motive. ' v \ '/. The accounts of the Wakanui and Loflf*. beach are so admirably kept that there’-is not the slightest difficulty in ing them, in fact, I believe “Another Suburban” could understand them.. It would be a waste of time to take; any further notice of such a tyro of figures. £ cannot this time refer to Mr Mayoja letter, having, I fear, trespassed too muoD already on your space. —I am, &0., Watxx. To ihb Editor. Sib, —I write to assure Mr Mayo that I will do my beat to verify the figures given in my letter on Tuesdayeremng last. 1 simply gave them as they ward supplied to the ratepayers’ meeting, Mount Somers.—l am, etc., .Ir W.C.Witrsi. Mount Somers, May 24th, 1884. -