THE CHRISTCHURCH ROAD.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1263, 16 August 1872, Page 2

THE CHRISTCHURCH ROAD.

[to the editor.] Sir— Fifteenth on the County Council's notice paper of this date is the following notice of j motion: — "That in order to comply with section 117 of 'The County of Westland Act, 1868,' the Chairman be requested to obtain from the present contractor for the maintenance of the Christchurch road an offer for the maintenance of said road for three months from Ist January, 1873, until 31st March, 1873. 2. (For the maintenance of said road for a term of three years from Ist January> 1873, until December 31st, 1875, together with the construction of six miles of new road, and also the necessary foot-bridges, in accordance with the specifications of the County Engineer."

I wish to call the timely attention of the public to this insidious motion, and nsthe opportunity is denied me in the Hokitika papers— by special order of the proprietor—l ara obliged to have recourse to you, hoping that it may notjbe too late to prevent mischief. This motion, then, is simply a renewal of the shameless attempt made on the last day of the last session, and which excited ao much and such deserved reprobation. It is insidious, because, while it seems simply to ask that an estimate of the cost of the various duties and works named may be given in, I have no doubt at allthattherealintent is, if the opportunity offers or can be made, ; to carry through to its disastrous end a contract for confirming the present contractor in his position for three years. The terms of the : motion < are misleading, as a statement that it is in compliance with the 117 th section of the County of Westland Act, whereas such is not by any means the case. That section, which does not speak of the construction of new roads at all, is one whereby the County is directed to keep the Christchurch road in repair, and in default of its so doing, the Governor, or, I presume, his delegate, 7 is empowered to perform .the neglected duty at the cost of the County Government. If true the present contractor has not kept the road good in the terms of his contract (and the six miles of new road seem to indicate so much), spite of liberal payment and repeated bonuses, it is palpably, the Chairman's duty, as Governor's delegate, as well as Executive officer for the County Council, to, enforce by every means in his power the terms of the former, but not to make a new and prolonged contract with the present contractor. If Mr Hungerford has fulfilled his contract to keep the Christchurch road in repair, how comes it that six miles of new road needs to " be made?. And again, why is not this contract for construction and maintenance thrown open to the whole body of contractors, instead of being confined to one who has needed all the money that the garrulous dames of the County Council could give him to keep him even mode? rately up to the mark. If it be said in defence that this motion is only with a view of being prepared for the next Council, I then say that Mr Lahman is quite able to do so much in his private character and on his own responsibility, and needs no vote of the Council to authorise him. „ But . it is clear, that the

mover of this motion means that this dying Council shall— by a contract which will be surely repudiated by its successor — bequeath to the future a legacy of trouble and costs no less onerous than that entailed by the careless and hurried action of the first Council in the matter of Tramway compensation. Why Mr Lahman> who opposed similar action at the close of last session, should initiate it in this, is a matter quite incomprehensible to me, except upon grounds which 1 really believe to be inapplicable to him. or to his career as County Chairman. Had it been one of the myrmidoms of Tramway proprietary I should have been at no loss ito acsou nt for this apparently miraculous conversion. ' I am, &c., W.H.S. . Hokitika, 14th August.