BATTLE OF THE BRIDGES

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4400, 7 April 1922, Page 1

BATTLE OF THE BRIDGES

THAMESt-PLAINS STRUCTURE. A POLL INSISTED UPON. BY THAMES COUNTY COUNCIL. A further furious encounter over the proposed bridges across the Waihou River was fought at Wednesday’s > mobilisation of the Thames County Council forces in the marine borough of Thames, the engagement being of an amphibious nature, comprising both land and .water operations. The battle opened at 2.25 p.m-« its duration being short and sharp, and the casualties extremely heavy. It commenced with a heavy barage from the Hauraki Plains, of the following description: The following copy of a resolution by the Hauraki Plains County Council was forwarded by the clerk., Mr E. L. Walton: “That in view of the altered conditions this Council considers it necessary to take a fresh poll with regard to the Puriri bridge, as requested by the petitioners.” The chairman (Mr Henry Lowe)' said it had been made clear at Ngatea that there was no need for a poll; the Plains County seemed to .be trying to get out of it. They were looking for a reason to default after making a written agreement. It mattered not to Thames if Hauraki took a dozen polls. The Thames ratepayers had never asked for a. poll. It was a case of “If you want a stick to beat a dog you can easily find one.” \Cr. Faithful said he would, move that a poll be taken on any bridge over the river. . ■ ■ Or. Niccol seconded, and urged that the rating area for Kifikiri should be defined. He did not think it should be a County matter,j The Chairman: With the £6OOO contribution * you are getting off cheaply. A Commission would define your area. The Hastings and Tairua. ridings would be most affected, as the bridge would enable cattle to oe taken to the Plains, for fattening. But two wrongs did not make a right; and if one party acted dishonourably, Thame® should not do likewise. There were, it must be remembered, three parties affected. Any bridging proposition would be killed as dead as Julius Caesar at. the present time. He agreed to the necessity of a central crossing. He could not strongly blain*- 'ouncillors for insisting on a poit; but ne! would not like something done which members would be sorry for afterwards. Or. McCormick said Hauraki would define a rating area over the major, portion of the County, which would prejudice the chances of the Hiku-taia-Netherton bridge. The Council should be asked to define its rating area.

Cr. Niccol did not agree that the Thames County Council was getting off lightly; the bridge was at the extreme end of the county as far as t.he valuable portion of the County was concerned. The chairman had in the first instance definitely stated that a rating area would be defined. The chiairm.a’n replied that he had always been strongly in favour of bridges being county matters. If he wanted to injure the Puriri ratepayers he would let them have a rating area. Cr. Cox also supported the resolution that all bridge' proposals should be submitted to a poll.—The resolution was carried, the chairman alone dissenting.