IKE COUNTY COUNCIL AND PROPOSED NEW ROAD DISTRICTS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1331, 2 September 1886, Page 3

IKE COUNTY COUNCIL AND PROPOSED NEW ROAD DISTRICTS.

The County Council have had before them lately two petitions tor the separation of existing and the formation of new Road Districts, and as in both instances the petitioners deem that they have good cause for complaint of the treatment which they have received at

the hands of that body, we propose shortly to glance at the facts of the case, more especially as regards the Council’s action in relation to the Mayfield petition. The first of the two presented was the Dromore petition, which has not yet been finally reported on. It was referred back for the purpose of obtaining additional signatures thereto, about three months ago, and, when last heard of, the Committee expressed a desire for

further time to investigate the matter. As the Council meets tomorrow, it

may surely be expected that some steps should be taken to come to a decision with reference thereto. The second, the Mayfield petition, was presented at the meeting of the Council held on July 2, and set forth that the petitioners, who are ratepayers of the upper portion of the Rangitata Road District, desire to separate from the lower portion of said district, for the reasons following, viz :

1. That the expenditure upon the lower part of the district has been in excess of the proportion due upon the basis of tbe rates contributed.

2. That the portion of tbe district seeking separation pays nearly one-half the total rates, whilst it possesses less than one-fourth of the voting power.

3. That it is represented upon the present Board by one member, against four members residing in the part of the district from which it seeks separation.

4. That petitioners desire to have the privi’ege for the future of expending their own rates in their own neighborhood. And, having set out their reasons thus explicitly and categorically, the prayer of the petitioners was as follows ;—“ Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that all that part of the present Rangitata Road District, bounded on the north-west, north, and east by the Mount Somers and Anama Road Districts; on the south-west by the Rangitata River, and on the south east by the road from Shepherd’s Bush to the Hinds Ford at Mayfield may be constituted a separate district under the name of the Mayfield Road District.” To this petition there was appended the requisite number of signatures, that is to say, the signatures of two-thirds or more of the ratepayers within the district proposed to be formed into the new Road District of Mayfield, and the petition itself and all proceedings connected therewith on the part of the petitioners appear to have been regular and in strict conformity with the provisions of the law relating to such matters. A counter-petition from ratepayers in the Rangitata district, objecting to the boundaries proposed for the new Mayfield district was presented to the Council at the same meeting, and referred, together with the petition, to the same Committee. Reporting upon the matter to the lull Council, the Committee recommended as follows :—“ Alter full consideration of tb? petition and the circumstances of the case, the Committee are unanimous that the [following] alteration of the boundary of the proposed new district should be made, viz., the road leading from Mayfield to the Rangitata traffic bridge [to] be the north-eastern (? south-eastern) boundary, and [that] with this alteration the prayer of the petition [should] be granted on receipt of the proper number of signatures.” We are not able to give here the full text of the counter-petition previously mentioned ss having also been referred to the Committee, as on application at the Council Chambers we find that it is in the possession of the Chairman, but we understand that whereas the petitioners desired that the Mayfield-Shepherd’s Bush road should be the south-eastern boundary of the new district, the dissentients desired that the boundary should be extended to the Mayfield-Rangitata road mentioned In the report of the Committee above quoted. Now, it is represented to us on behalf of the petitioners who seek the formation of the new district that this extension of

boundary would mean the inclusion of some 25,000 acres additional, the rates on which would more than suffice to defray the new Board’s share of the cost of maintaining the MayfieldRangitata road as a boundary road, the traffic on this road being very small, so much so that •' on a dark night you could not follow the track.” Thus it would seem that the new Road Board would gain, and the Rangitata Road Board, from which it proposes to

separate, would lose by the alteration of boundary. But —and here arises the real point at issue—the inclusion of this additional area means the inclusion of additional ratepayers who are dissentients from the proposed separation, and the effect of which would be, it is feared, to render it impossible to obtain “ the proper number of signatures,” that is to say, two-thirds of the whole number included within the [extended boundaries of the proposed new Road District. At the meeiing of the Council held on August 6th the right of the Council to alter the bonndaries in the manner proposed was challenged on behalf of the petitioners by Mr Wright, that gentleman submitting in support of his contention that the Council had exceeded its powers, the written opinion of the Council’s solicitor, Mr C. W, Purnell. This was as follows ;

The Chairman Ashburton County Council. Sib, —AV Mayfield petition. In reply to the question submitted to me, in compliance with Mr Wright’s request contained in his letter of the 3rd instant, I am of opinion that the Council, whether acting by itself or through a Committee, has no power to send back a petition for the constitution of a new Bead District “ which clearly defines the li ' '

limits of the district it seeks to constitute in order that a large additional area may be included against the wish of the petitioners ” The Council must deal with the petition as it stands.—Yours, etc., . Chas. W. Purnell. Ashburton, July 5,188 G. Pro contra we are informed that another professional opinion has been obtained by another member of the Council to the opposite effect, and it becomes a question of considerable importance that if possible some authoritative decision should be obtained as to the correct reading of the law as bearing upon the point. The whole question hinges upon the reading of clause 4 of the Road Boards Act, 1882, which provides as follows :—“ The Council of any county shall by special order declare that any part of a road district

. . . . shall constitute a new road district, with such name and boundaries as the Council shall think fit ... .

subject however to the following conditions :—l. That a petition is presented to the Council setting forth the boundaries of the proposed new district signed bg twothirds of the ratepayers ....

in the proposed new road district praying the Council to constitute such new road district. 2. That such petition is publicly notified not less than one month before presentation to the Council.” The italics in the foregoing are, of course, our own, but will serve to indicate precisely upon what the question at issue turns. It will be observed that tbe clause is mandatory, the Council having no option to refuse the prayer of a petition which complies with the conditions set forth, the words used being “ the Council shall,” etc. It is, therefore, clear that the spirit of the clause is to leave it to the ratepayers to decide questions of sepa ration for themselves. It is equally clear that the Council has an option as to the name and boundaries of any new district, but were that option exercisable without reference to the spirit of the clause, then the Council could manifestly act in such a way as absolutely to defeat its intention, and so escape altogether from the obligation plainly imposed by its terras, as for example by wholly altering ths boundaries and area of the proposed new district. But this would be an absurdity, and it is therefore obvious that the right of revision or amendment as regards boundaries is not intended to be exercised in such manner as to interfere with the object of the petitioners, much less to render the petition in effect nugatory. It, therefore, appears to us that the section must be held to mean merely that errors of description as to boundary may be corrected, or such modifications made as will not materially alter the new district petitioned for. This we apprehend is the view taken by the Council’s solicitor, or rather, probably the ground upon which he bases the opinion above quoted. If that view be the correct one, as we think it is, then, clearly, the Council is in the wrong, and should retrace its steps. If, however, it declines to do so there is an appeal, under section 20, to the Governor-in-Council, who, at any time after three, but not later than six, months after the meeting of the Council at which the petition was presented, and upon being satisfied that such petition ought to have been granted, may proceed to grant the prayer of the same. We should recommend the petitioners to bring the subject before the Council again, and failing success in that direction they have still the resort above indicated. — Mail.