Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1901. THE COUNTY AND DREDGING.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 12 June 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1901. THE COUNTY AND DREDGING.

The gold dredging industry on the West Coast promises ere long to become a powerful factor in the being and advancement of the district, and in this, its initial stage shou’d be fostered and encouraged. Local bodies that are interested in the industry should be fonnost in extending a helping hand, for the development of the industry means increased revenue to such bodies. We fear such corporations do not see the position eye to eye with ourselves, else they would act differently to what they do. The Grey County Council at its last meeting supplies an instance of lack of sympathy. The Maori Gully Dredging Company asked the County Council to put the bridge and road in fair repair. The Council declined unless the Company paid one fourth of the entire cost. The total amount involved is £l7B, of which total the General Government contributes £75. This leaves £lO3 to be provided for. The County Council modestly say to the Company if you will contribute £44 10s to place our County road and bridge in repair we will supply the remaining portion, so that the cost will then figure out as follows ;

General Government ... £75 0 0 • County Council 58 10 0 Dredging Companies ... 44 10 0 The proposal is wrong in principle, but apart from that it seems utterly ridiculous for a local body after getting such a liberal subsidy from the General Government to ask a company that is about to developo the resources of tho district and contribute at the outlet about £2O per annum in the shape of County rate, such a large proportion towards doing what the Council is expected to do—keep its roads and bridges in repair. In addition to which it must be remembered that all vehicles using tho road for tho carriage of machinery or coal for the Company must pay a license to the County. Had tho Company not started, the County would have required to repair the bridge, and it would have done so without calling upon ratepayers in tho district to subsidise the work, "Why then should a dredging Company which will become a large ratepayer be asked to do so ? That the Council is not too wealthy is no sufficient reason. The demand is equivalent to that of a merchant, who, finding his business expanding, deihands of his now customers one-fourth of the cost of extending his premises in order to serve them and draw large profits therefrom. If the County Council do not think the new business is a good and profitable one,

and beneficial to the district members should say so at once; but if they think otherwise they should act on a commercial basis. Let us see bow it figures out in regard to the Maori Gully Company on the supposition that the County pays the £lO3 and does not call upon the Company for any subsidy. The County is asked to spend this amount, receiving from the Company a present annual vote of £2O with likely increase to double that amount as soon as the dredge is at ■work. A business man would say the investment is a lucrative and certain one. By expending £lO3 I have an immediate income of £2O per annum with likely increase to £-10, or roughly 00% on outlay, and in addition I enhance the value of my property. The County is exactly in the same position. By expending the £IOO it secures an immediate return of 20% on outlay with increase next year to 10%, and, moreover, gets its road and bridge put in repair. Looking at the problem from this point of view, the demand of the Council is indefensible and not in the interests of the County or of the industry, and it is to be hoped Councillors will see their way to reconsider their determination.