LITTLE RIVER ROAD BOARD.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 154, 8 January 1878, Page 2

LITTLE RIVER ROAD BOARD.

The annual meeting for the election of members, was held on Friday, January 4, at the Board office, Kaituna Valley. Present—Mr Parkinson (chairman) Messrs Murray, Gebbie. and Coop. The three rirstnamed g-entileuien retired, their period of office having expired, but they were eligible for re-election, and willing again to serve, excepting Mr Murray. The attendance of ratepayers was unusually large. The'proeeedings began by the Chairman calling upon the Clerk to read the annual report, the most satisfactory item in which was, the announcement that the Board had a balance of more than £9000 at their banker's, against which are liabilities of £2000.

Tiie Chairman thought the report disclosed a very satisfactory state of things. Of the money that had been spent in the construction of roads the Tai Tapu hitherto had had the lion's share, while nothing whatever had been done to the byeroads of Little River. The Board had not given the settlers there one single foot of by-road, and the roads _, that led to the freehold sections were a forest of scrub.

Those who denied that knew nothing of what they were saying ; he would repeat what he had said before, that the-lion's nhare of the money had gone to the Tai Tapu, which was no bigger than a good sized farm, and,every man there expected a good road to his section, while the Little River settlers could not get a chain of scrub cleared from their roads, or a foot of those roads formed. Over and over again, for years past, the Little River people had been applying to tha Board for assistance, but they had never yet got any, and it seemed as if the Tai Tapu people were desirous that they should never get any.

Mr John Gebbie said that Mr Parkinson's statement in reference to the roads at Little River appeared to be called in question, but he was bound io confirm them. He knew of his own personal knowledge, that nothing had been done by the Board to any by-road at Little River, and that more money had been spent on the byeroads in the Tai Tapu than on the by-roads in any other place in the district. Mr Forbes, of the Tai Tapu,' could not agree with the previous speakers. He had been to Little River, and found the roads there excellent. The main road cost a great deal of money, and was made especially for the Little River people, and they had no reasonable ground of complaint; no roads so good were to be found at the Tai Tapu.

Mr A. D. Allan entirely differed from Mr Forbes. The main road was made for the whole Peninsula, and not for the special use of settlers at Little River.

Mr A. Joblin thought Mr Forbes'remarks were unreasonable, and opposed to the facts of the case.

Mr Leatham criticised the Board's works in detail, and generally condemned them and their clerk. He urged that the members of the Board had been in much too long, and contended that the wisest thing to do was to turn the lot out. He condemned the course the Board pursued in letting out the waters of Lake Ellesmere, alleging that it was " illegal and unconstitutional," and that the money expended in that work should >l be refunded to the ratepayers out of the pockets of the Board." Further, he expressed his belief that the members of the Board were constantly actuated in their works by interested motives. '

The Chairman defended the Board against the attacks of the previous speaker, who was on this occasion, as on all others, constantly insulting the Board and their clerk. He was annoyed because the Board did not give him a bonus of £50 on the occasion of his letting out Lake"EUesnaere, and that was what all these charges originated in. And Leatham " had told the Board to their faces that he meant to slum them." This would show the nature of his character and conduct. He (the chairman) did not blame a contractor for trying to get a bonus if he conld ; every man was justified in getting all he could, but as chairman he was bound to defend the Board. Mr Leatham : " You gave one contractor who was eight months behind contract time a bonus, and why should not I have a bonus who completed my work much within the contract time ? People who don't pay their bills can get a bonus from you, but there is no bonus for those who do pay their bills." . The Chairman explained that the contractor who was eight months behind time with his work was not favoured. At that time the Board was short of funds, and therefore the completion of the work was not pressed. The bonus referred to had been given because the work had been done better than was usual in works of the kind, whereas it was well known that Mr Leathain's work was often unsatisfactory. Mr Goodwin considered the Board were, justified in exercising their discretion in the matter of bonuses, as a man who did his work well was better entitled to be well paid than one who did not. Leatham " slummed" his work, and did not deserve a bonus. For letting out the lake, the board had paid him too well; had he (Goodwin) been a member of the Board, iii)o less would have been paid for that job. Mr Coop said Leatham had no real cause of complaint as his work was often very unsatisfactory, and he gave 50 times more trouble to the Board than did any other person. Mr J. Gebbie thought the members of the Board had just cause of complaint against Leatham. He constantly abused and misrepresented them, and he had told Mr Gebbie to his face that he would "slum the Board." The work he undertook was generally done badly, and in some cases the Board were compelled to resort to the law to enforce by legal means the execution of the works he had engaged to perform. Mr Wilson (Clerk to Board) said that Leatham, as a contractor, was especially unsuccessful, and very troublesome to the Board ; he had called him '• an old lag." The contractors generally were very ignorant, and this ignorance involved themselves and the Board in much trouble. As a rule, their contractors undertook the works at too low a price, and this was a fruitful cause of dissatisfaction. I

Mr Leatham defended himself. The works that he had undertaken he had carried out as efficiently as had other contractors, and he would challenge the Board to have his work " examined and reported upon." He always had difficulty in getting the money due for the work he had done, but he was not regarded with favour " because he did not bow and scrape to the Board. He gave the Board a good deal of trouble, and claimed credit for it."

Mr Geo. Edmonds was not satisfied with the way in which the works of the Board were carried out; he was of opinion the ratepaj'ers had just cause of complaint. He gave an instance of a particular work now in progress—one of considerable magnitude—which was costing 10s per chain ; he himself would have undertaken the same work for 4s per chain. Such works should be let by tender, and not by the day. Mr Wilson said there might be at times just causes of complaint; the district was, a wide one, and he did- his best, but he could not be everywhere, at onco.

After this, the Chairman called the attention of the meeting to the proposed diversion of the main road between Grehbie's Valley and Ahuriri, He explained tfiat the cost of constructing the proposed new road would not be greater than the outlay required to put the existing road into an effective state, and the'advantages would consist in getting a safe and level road, in place of the dangerous zigzag over the Ahuriri spurs, now existing. '' The'proposed diversion appeared to be extremely distasteful to certain of the Tai Tapu ratepayers, and an excited discussion ensued.

Mr Forbes wished to know-.if the Board had obtained any estimate of the cost of the proposed diversion. : ' Mr J. Gebbie said—Yes. the Board had an estimate and plan. There wereobvious reasons why the estimates could;- not be produced relating to tendering, but the plan was before the meeting;. f Mr Leatham and several others strongly and very inteiuperately condemned the diversion.

Mr G. R. Joblin said he would wish to say a few words on the question, if they would afford him an opportunity. He had listened attentively, and with interest, to what had-been said, although, of course, lie could not agree with botltsides. They knew he was usually no apologist or slip- - porter of the Little River Road Board, and on these grounds he would ask the attention of tiiose who were opposed to the Board. Ln the first place he must join issue witli Mr Forbes in relation to the state of the Little River Roads, and the expenditure that had taken place upon them. The statements of the Chairman and of Mr J. Gebbie were perfectly correct, and could easily be substantiated. The Board had done nothing to any main road or bye-road there, excepting only the main road from (Jhristchurch to Akaroa. Not a single shilling had even been expended by the Board on any Little River road, with the exception indicated, saving that a few ago' a very dangerous bog-hole that existed near the Post Office, on the ; main road to Port Levy, was drained and up, even ■ the trifling expense entailed for this work was not willingly incurred, but the settlers were required by the Board to contribute their" labour in aid, and also a moiety of the cost. He was applied to for a subscription, but indignantly refused to contribute a shilling. He?had been, 14 years in the Little River, where .only one person paid higher rates than himself, yet never a shilling bad been expended by the Board at any time, on any, road,- , main ,or bye, running through his property. yHe had to make his own.roads ?md pay rates ;as well. But with reference \to the bog-hole he had refused to do anything ; others of the settlers had ptujiged about for threevor four days in the mire, and they were fools for so doing; they should have insisted upon, the Board doing tlie work or have held the Board responsible.. He admitted that,the road over the range leading to Akaroa was in places very good, but this work waa but recently done, and Mr Forbes should remember that funds for this road were found apart from tne, general fund of the Board, the formation of the road in question being a work of much difficulty and expense. Special Reserves of. land were made in the valley; these were sold by auction and the proceeds devoted to the construction of this road. Some of these reserves sold for a high price, and those who bought them, paid for the road. Again, Mr Forbes Bays he has seen the roads at Little- River, and that none are so good at the Tai Tapu, but Mr Forbes can hardly be in earnest. Did h& not see for miles by the side of lake Forsyth r stakes of 3 feet in length fixed in the ground to show where the road might be found in the winter months when it was covered with wate"r? And this was the main and only outlet 'from Akaroa to <

Christchurch. Gould any tiling parallel it at the Tai Tapu? Certainly not.' .With, regard to the '.propos&l diversion j&f the road at Ainiriri, he tlumghT' if one of the" ! most important proposals ever brought I before the Board, and he observed with surprise and very great strong feelings- that existed upuii . thej subject. But lie would entreat them not to bring, petty local jealousies and party feelings into the matter. It wax too important a work to be decided upon, by such influenced. Considerations, of the general utility or otherwise, of the proposed diversion should alone have weight. To detenninethe matter on such eonsi lerauons would be to determine it on reasonable and broad, grounds. The. road over the Ahuriri ridges was a had and dangvroiis one at ali times. He had seen it when, a horse could not ascend from Gebbie's vajley with a rider on his back, on one occasion himself, MrC. Chapman, and a trooper, met there and so steep and siippy was the incline that the iior.se could not wmk up till their riders dismounted. To make this a fair road would require a large outlay and no outlay could make it so good a one as that proposed would be, and the latter would also be a very economic one for the ratepayers, as one horse would take by it a load tliat would require 3 horses to take over the existing road. This of itself was a most important consideration. At, on of their meetings held years ago, in the presence of some who were present to-day he had advocated a diversion of this Ahuriri road, which was a bar to traffic. The diversion would be equivalent to the removal of the bar. The plan was a wise oiw, and. highly cieditable to the Board, and would command his cordial supjjort. In reference to the numerous complaints made to-day, he would not say they were groundless, but the ratepayers themselves were greatly to blame in having jbo long been apathetic. He would not object to some change on the Board if they* could see the change would be for the better, but rather have no change at all than a change for the worse. He had for years inveighed against the errors of the Board, but their report of to-day showed conclusively that they were learning wisdom. Their experience had at last produced fruit. In fact they had bean educated, and.the ratepayers had paid for that education, and lie' thought it would be well that the ratepayers should derive some benefit from it.

Mr Alfred Joblin took exception to the term "fools" used by the last speaker. He Was one who gave his labour to render the road referred to passable. "In the state it was, nothing could get through it without danger of being swallowed up, and he di'J not think that those who had laboured to improve such a state of things ought to be called foois. Mr G-. E. Joblin regretted having used the term , the Board was to be blamed. Mr Goodwin was satisfied that Little River had not received justice, but been treated with much indifference, and he should endeavour to remedy this. It was not creditable to the Board that the settlers should be unable to get to their sections, and such a state of tilings should come to an end. With regard to the road diversion, he should support it under all circumstances, being a; most desirable work. The Tai .Tapu ; were trying to swamp Little River but they would not do it. He would move—"That this meeting empower the ■ Board to carry out the proposed diversion." Mr Alf. Joblin was satisfied that the interest of the Little River .settlers if not completely ignored, had been very much overlooked. He thought if the

funds of the Board were distributed equally throughout the "district, more satisfaction would result. Why not apportion a sum to the Tai Tapu, an equal sum to Gebbie's valley, and a third to Little River. So far as the road diversion was concerned he thought it would be of great advantage, and begged to second Mr Goodwin's motion Mr Jno. Gebbie believed that the proposed road would, when constructed, }>c productive of constant and general satisfaction and he hoped the ratepayers would give him credit for his action in the matter. He paw the proposed road would be of very great advantage to the public, and he supported it on those grounds, although at the same time it would injuriously affect his interests. Mr Gihnour proposed—" That no money be expended out of the district in forming the road diversion." This was seconded by Mr Murray who. in reply to some query, admitted that be was " to some extent influenced by interested motives." To this resolution, Mr Coop, moved as an amendment—" That the Board be empowered to spend out of the district, any reasonable sum that may bo required for the completion of the propos-ed diveision." Carried. There was considerable discussion on the question, " that the minutes of the last meeting be confirmed," also relating to the publication of copies of the balance sheet for the use of ratepayers; and the legality,' or otherwise, of the Board expending money beyond the confines oj the district. Finally, the gentlemen whose names are subjoined were nominated as candidates for the vacant seats on the Board :— r Mr Jno. Gebbie, proposed by T. M'Cartrey, seconded by J. W. Reeve. Mr T. Parkinson, proposed by P. Johnstone, seconded by T. MCiirtney. Mr W. Goodwin, proposed by A. D. Allan, seconded by D. Gebbie. Mr W. Gilmour, proposed by J. Doyle, seconded by Thos. Leatham. Mr Forbes, proposed by J. Morshead, seconded by Thos. M'Cartuey. Mr T. Leatham, proposed by W. Hayes, seconded by Jas. Doyle. Mr G.R. Joblin, proposed by T. Leatham, seconded by W. Gilmour. Mr A. D. Allan, proposed by J. Eadford, seconded by W. Goodwin. A poll was demanded, and the election was to take place on yesterday.