THE Manamatu Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1879. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 74, 16 May 1879, Page 2

THE Manamatu Herald. FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1879. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL.

The Ministry appear to have a very expansive idea of what are the relative duties of the General Government and the Manawatu County Council. In fact, so extensively are they encroaching upon the duties and functions of the Council, that the latter body, at its last meeting, passed a strong resolution upon the subject. The resolution was au follows : —

That in the opinion of this Council, the expenditure by the Government of a part of the vote of £3,000 authorised by the Assembly for the construction of a road from Otaki to Foxton, on a punt at the mouth of the Ohau, is an illegal expenditure. This Council also objects to incur the expenses which the maintenance of the punt entails, upon it, and which it believes to be useless for the purposes of thj coastal traffic.

This Council further objects to the payment of £21 to Natana te Hiwui, fora right-of-way over the sand hills at Ohau ; and this Counoi! further respectfully protests against the appropriation of any of its funds — without consulting the Council —as a direct infringement of its privileges. , /The first instance of Government interference, referred to relates to a ferry at the Ohau River. The sum of £3,000 having been voted by Parliament for the construction of i an inland road from Otakito Fqxton, the Government have handed^ over the amount to the County Council for expenditure. But owing to complaints made regarding the delay in the arrival of mails at Foxton, owing to the Ohau, the Government have ordered a punt to be constructed, and a regular terry instituted. The punt will be almost utterly useless, as the mail coach will probably not use it three times in the year. The inland road is now in course of formation, and will probably be open for traffic in 12 or 18 months. Nevertheless the punt has been made, and is now on the Ohau. Eiver. The question now ( conies, who will pay for the working ? The duty of working the ferry is of course by law vested in the Qouncil, who will thus be forced into pajting some £100 or more to a man for watching the punt ; if they refuse to do so, the chances are that the Government will in. their usual blundering method of interference, pay a large sum per annum for the maintenance of the ferry, and deduct the amount from the subsidy or 20 percent, of land fund. The old arrangement enabled the Council to work the f&rry free of expense by granting the ferryman a free license, he charging those who needed his assistance 6d each. With the punt, a man must of course constantly stay near, notwithstanding the strong presumption that probably/not three persons will use it in a week/ - and the) result will be a cost of at least £100 per annum, to work a punt the County Council "believes to be useless for the purposes of the coastal traffic."

The second count in the indictment against the Government has a refrence to a claim made by a nativo

["Yiamed Nataua te Hiwhi. It seems this individual owns a piece of sandy land which has to be crossed in reaching the ( )hau ferry. 1 He claims rent for this from the Government at £12 per annum. Without consulting the Council in auy way, the Government have liquidated JNatana's claim, and deducted the amount from -iuoney^ -parable to the County. At the, same time, it is confidently stated that for a^aingle payment of £12 the whole*claim could have been settled, and a perpetual right-of-way purchased. Instead of.this, an. absurd native claim has been recognised by the Government, which nevertheless evades the onu3 of its action and throws it upon the Council.

There are several important ques-% tions involved in this matter. As an administrative body, the County Gouucil claims the right to expend its own funds, r .T-hia right the Go* vernmentihaye; usurped. The Government woiil<£ be p| course justified in taking strong measures, if after due warning the Council refused to perform its recognised functions in the matter of ferries, &c, But in the two cases referred to, no extenuating circumstances appear for their in terierence. Their action amounts to an usurpation of the rights and privileges of the Council That body has treated it as such, and unless restitution is made, we think it probable that Parliament may be .asked to express an opinion upon .the subject. . , :