The Globe. MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 936, 25 June 1877, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1877.

Tile result of the conference of representatives of the various County Councils in the Provincial District of Canterbury has been that very important and comprehensive amendments in the Counties Act have been suggested. "When the Bill was first introduced into the House, Ministers stated that it was a tentative measure, modifications in which would doubtless have to be made as necessity arose. Experience has proved that some modification is necessary, but the question arises in what direction it shall be made. Let us see what is suggested from here. First then it is proposed that instead of the number of counties now existing, the Provincial District of Canterbury shall be divided into two counties. One of these is to include the district between the Eangitata and the Hurunui, and the other that lying between the Eangitata and the Waitaki. The claims of the various districts to a share of the land fund raised within their limits is to be recognised, and districts are to be enabled to separate. Regarding the election of members, it is proposed that in future instead of the ratepayers, the Eoad Boards should elect County Councillors. As regards these propositions, the first we think is desirable. With the proviso relative to a certain per centage of revenue locally raised being returned, there seems to be no reason for multiplying Councils. The cost of administration under the present system is materially increased without any adequate return, and therefore, under the circumstances, a reduction in the number of governing bodies seems to be a step in the right direction. The vesting the election of members in the Eoad Boards has also many points in its favour. It secures the co-opera-tion —so needful under the circumstances —of the Eoad Boards, and ensures unity of action between the two bodies. But the details of such a scheme will require very careful consideration, to prevent the possibility of any hitch occurring. The Conference appears to contemplate the retention of the permissive clauses, only recommending that power should be given to Councils to meet oftener than now to distribute the funds accruing. They also propose that more extended powers should be given in so far as affording the County Councils the opportunity of having a voice in the appropriation to specific purposes, instead of as now is the case, simply acting as distributing bodies between the Government and the Eoad Boards. How the latter will receive this proposition remains to be seen. _ County works, where the Act is put in force, are defined to be, the construction and maintenance of arterial roads and drains and main bridges and ferries. Purely local works are to be executed by the Eoad Boards. No exception can be taken to this,as the local knowledge of the requirements of the districts possessed by the Eoad Boards will enable them to deal with this class ! of works far more satisfactorily than

the County Councils, composed as they will be of members from all parts of the provincial district, could be expected to do. The only other subject of importance dealt with by the Conference—passing over the details as to collection of rates, &c. —is that of the maintenance and management of hospitals and charitable aid. To enable this to be done, it is proposed to group counties and municipalities, having special reference to the necessity for the establishment or the existence already of hospitals and charitable institutions. The management is to be vested in a Board on which the counties and municipalities adjacent should be represented. The Conference did not, however, touch upon one very important point, viz., in what proportion these bodies should be represented. It may be that the municipality may be small in area whilst the county is large. Hence it would not be right that the one contributing so much more to the cost of the maintenance of these institutions than the other should only have the same share in the management ; fjfor the next

proposition is that such expenditure as is not met out of the consolidated fund should be contributed by municipalities and Counties in proportion to population. Here again the Conference in our opinion has missed the mark. It should have been prepared to recommend what amount the consolidated revenue should contribute as the share of the State. That it is the duty of the State to assist by means of subsidy such institutions as these is a recognised fact, and therefore when discussing this point the Conference ought to have been prepared to say to what extent this obligation is to be recognised. We do not know whether it is the intention of the Canterbury Councils to invite the discussion of their proposals by the Councils of other districts. So far as we can gather from what took place it is not so intended. At any rate no resolution to that effect was passed. But we trust that some general conference will take place before the session opens.