"SOP TO THE DISTRICT"

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2522, 24 July 1915, Page 9

"SOP TO THE DISTRICT"

A DEADLOCK

OVER BUTT ROAD MAINTENANCE

. Following upon the circulation of a Hutt Road Bill bearing the namo of Mr._ Horries (Minister of Railways) a conferenco of representatives ■of - the bodies interested in the cost of formation and maintenance of the Hutt Road was called for yesterday; afternoon by the Mayor of Wellington (Mr. J. P. Luke). Only two out of ten bodies (apart from the city) put in an appearance. so as the conferenco could not be liejd. a formal talk over things was held. Those, present were: Messrs. J. ' W. M'Ewan (Mayor of Petone) and W. J. Howell (chairman of the Hutt County Council). Copies of a new Bill entitled "an Act to amend the Hutt Railway and Road Improvement Act, ' 1903," (drawn by the City Solicitor and Mr. A. R. Atkinson) were distributed. The Bill provided for the constitution of tho Board of Control in ~ the following clause:—

' 'The board shall consist of the Mayors of Wellington, ' Petone, and Lower Hutt. the chairman of the County of Makara, and one other member, who shall be appointed in writing under tho hands of the Mayors _of Onslow, of Eastbourne, and of Miramar, and tho chairmen of the County of Hutt, of the Johnsonville Town Board; and' of the Upper Hutt Town Board."

This clause was objected to by Mr. W. J. Howell, who said that there was going to be trouble if the two big counties concerned were not to be given separate representation, and .lie read a letter signed by Councillors Galloway and Wakeham, strongly protesting against the constitution of the board. The chairman (Mr. Luke) said that there was no personal' feeling in the matter. He would just as soon see seven members on the board as five, and tentatively it was agreed that both the Hutt and Makara Counties should have separate representation, whilst Eastbourne and Miramar Boroughs, and the Johnsonville and Upper Hutt Town Boards should be represented by one member.

Mr. J. W. M'Ewen did not approve of either tho new or old Bill, and said that as far as his borough was concerned a deadlock had been arrived at. His objections were fundamental and insurmountable. Petone, he said, objected 011 principal to the allocation of its proportion of the capital and maintenance cost by Mr. W. S. Short. It was a distinctly unfair allocation, and was not on all fours with Mr. Short's own traffic tally results. Originally, Mr. Short had mado Petone's charge 14 per cent, and the Hutt's 11 or 12 per cent., and later he had jumped Petone tin to 18 and Hutt to 14 per cent., whilst the city's liability had been reduced from 42 to 38 per cent.

"You objoct, then," said Sir. Luke, "to the proportion of the capital cost being used as a basis for the cost of maintenance?"

"Most distinctly!" replied Mr. M'Ewan.' "We've been absolutely humbugged from the start. Originally this Hutt Road business was held out as a sop to the district by a former Government."

"Wo don't want to go back to that now," broke in Mr. Luke. _ _ "It means that your districts aro uniting against l the city—that, to be frank, is the position. is it'not?"

"Well," retorted Mr. M'Ewau, "you cannot hlame us 1"

sir. M'Ewan also objected to the proposal in the Bill to vest the maintenance of tho road in the City Council, and questioned the reasons for setting un a Board of Control when the maintenance (wliich is practically the control) is vested in the one body. It should be for the board to say in what manner, the road is to be maintained. In view of the deadlock, Mr. Luke paid that tho Bill as amended (seven instead of five members) had better go forward, and Mr. M'Ewan could object as lie thought fit- It was useless having any-moro. conferences on the matter. Mr.'M'Ewan agreed, and shaking hands with Mr. Luke, said: "This is our eleventh conferencOj I believe, and it's no good 1" , '