THE KAIPARA AND WAITEMATA WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE KAIPARA ADVERTISER & WAITEMATA CHRONICLE." HELENSVILLE. THURSDAY, March 29, 1917 THAT BRIDGE AGAIN.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 29 March 1917, Page 2

THE KAIPARA AND WAITEMATA WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE KAIPARA ADVERTISER & WAITEMATA CHRONICLE." HELENSVILLE. THURSDAY, March 29, 1917 THAT BRIDGE AGAIN.

ON Thursday evening a public meeting will be held in Stewart's Hall to discuss the question as to whether the Town Board is to contest the claim of the Waite~ mata County for the payment of an equal share with the. County of the cost of the new bridge, or whether the Board, shall pay the amount demanded. In our humble opinion this is a matter that should have been decided by by the Town Board and not by the ratepayers. The Town Board has had the matter before it for years, and has taken the advice of its solicitor on the matter, and should surely be now willing to accept the responsibility which clearly lies upon them. How can the public be expected to decide off-hand what the Board required expert advice upon ? However, to assist the ratepayers to come to a right decision, we propose to lay before them such information as we have been able to glean.

It appears that some years ago when the Chairman of the Town Board was also a member of the Waitemata County Council,' a number of communications passed between the two bodies with regard to the bridge. Although the total cost of the bridge, apart from the Government subsidy, was nearly £2800, the Town Board did not think it worth while to conduct the matter in a business-like manner. From a reference to the minutes of the Board, it is clear that at no time was a formal resolution ever passed by the Board " That this Board agrees to pay one-half of the cost of the new bridge."' At no time was the question formally submitted to the Board. Neither did the Board at any time send or authorise the sending of any letter to the County definitely promising to pay one half. Neither indeed did the Board ever deny its liability to pay half. Any arrangement, if arrangement there was, was made by word of mouth (a £3000 deal, remember).

Matters then drifted on. The then Board passed several resolutions, by which it appears to have recognised an understanding that it was to pay some proportion already agreed upon. In one case the Board even referrred to the half-share which the Board had agreed to pay. But at that time the total amount was supposed to be only about £700 for each body. The Town Board then received a communication from the County enclosing plans of the proposed bridge—these were approved by the Board, and the work was begun. In September, 1914, the Board of which Mr Jap. McLeod was Chairman went out of office, and the new Board (with Mr 'Field as Chairman) naturally assumed that ' the previous Board had legally admitted the Board's liability. The bridge was built, and in August 1916 the Board received an account for £1394 odd.

We understand that Mr Field, as Chairman, challenged a number of items, and also demanded on what grounds the claim was founded. No satisfactory proof of the Boards-liability was produced, and the Board went out of office in September last, and Mr Lambert became Chairman of the Board.

Under Mr Lambert's administration, the Board went fully into the matter, and eventually took legal advice from its solicitor, MrZimannjwhq advised —Firstly, that the Board had never legally bound itself to pay one half of the Qosts; but,-secondly, that before j the building of the bridge was j begun the Board allowed the j County to understand that it was willing to pay half; if it had not expressed its . willingness the County might not have built and the Government might not have given a subsidy, so that, thirdly, although the Government would, if pressed to do so, probably set i t+p a Commission to enquire asto_

the share of the Board, yet even if such Commission were set up it would almost certainly decide that the Board must pay its half. Notwithstanding its Solicitor's opinion, the Board a short time back decided that the Governor should be urged to set up a Commission, and that the Board should fight against the claim ' of the Waitemata County Council. Subsequently Mr Field, as a member of the Board, gave notice to move at a special meeting that the above resolution be rescinded and that the Board agreed to pay half of the local bodies' share of the fair cost of the bridge, so soon as the right of the Board to pay was clearly defined.

When this motion came up for discussion it was seconded by Mr Aitkenhead; but Mr Stewart moved and Mr Graham seconded as an amendment —That the application for a Commission be proceeded with. This amendment was lost, Messrs Stewart, Graham and Thompson voting for, and Messrs Field, Aitkenhead and' Lambert against, the Chairman also giving his"casting vote against. Mr Thompson then moved and Mr Stewart seconded a further amendment — That the matter be referred to a public meeting. This was carried, Mr Field alone dissenting, A further motion that the Board be bound by the decision of the public meeting was also carried, Messrs Field and Aitkenhead being against.