Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1889. PUBLIC WORKS ACT AMENDMENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XII, Issue 259, 12 April 1889, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1889. PUBLIC WORKS ACT AMENDMENT.

The report of the committee of the Horowhenua County Council, appearing elsewhere, opens up much debateable matter. On some points we hold with the committee, but looking- at the Act as a whole we regret to see the attempts that are made to order the wholo of our daily work by Act of Parliament. This colony seems to be the one spot on earth where every well meaning man with a •' fad" is allowed to ride it to the bitter end. If a public man happens to be particular about the appearance of his run or farm, he naturally resents untidiness in his neighbours, and had he unchecked power, would probably order the immediate confiscation of the property. Twenty years ago, amiab'o law makers insisted upon every common thistle that grew should be exterminated root and branch, under i penalties of heavy fines. The result was the same, as though no Act had been passed, as the thistle grew, and as is usual with them, died out. A few neighbors no doubt, managed to spend money in law, by the action of the provincial law maker, and this was all that was gained It is of little use passing Acts unless it appears at all probable that they can be enforced, and if the County is so desirous of exterminating this variegated thistle, have they counted the cost of doing so ? In the whole of their district there are thousands of I ficres over which they would find itdifficult to prove the actual ownership, and if extirpation is determined upon, the waste places will have to be attended to by the public body. The ratepayers have fortunately a voice in the matter, but we much doubt if those owning propertytwenty mil s away from the thistles, would be inclined to pay towards cleaning the property of Natives and others We know a small number around Otaki feel strongly on this question, but we also know that the settlers outside do not care much about it. The other proposals promise better. If the difficulties are as great as we hold they are, for the local body to keep waste growth down on the land and roads in the r charge, they are fairly entitled to say what kind of a p ant shall be grown on land adjoining -their roads. We think that they should have no trouble in securing' this being inserted into the Bill. The grave question as to compelling owners of bush to fall a chain wide alongside roads, seems at first a very simple and natural power to confer on the local body, w« look forward to this meeting with much opposition, and will only be carried if the work of falling the extra chain is done at the time the road itself is fallen and bu; nt. We have not time to go into the whole of our reasons for arriving at this conclusion, but we shall have every bush settler with us in saying that such a course would secure the whole work of faling being done cheaper and better, and that the burn afterwards would be very much cleaner. As the owner is benefitted j by the better the road to his place is, we see no hardship in his paying his share of the falling, but after his boundary has been knocked about by a road line being felled and burnt, a proportion of the trees fallen into his one chain of boundary bush, and some of the bush being burnt, to direct him then to fall a chain wi <c at the dictation of a local body, would entail a heavy, and in cases, an unnecessary cost upon him. This proposition we hope will then be hedged around with protection for the bush owner. No one will gainsay that the power to order land owners to erect fences on road boundaries wi 1 tend to keep stock off the roads ; but without enforcing such a step, th^ local body ha 9 all the power that is necessary to prevent trespass of stock. We venture to predict that this proposition will never get into the amended bill . A comparison between the small areas affected by such a provision in Boroughs Hiidthe i areas affected in Counties, should $how at once tne difference that exists. We do not regret that we cannot agree with all the proposals of this committee, but that need not prevent us acknowledging the trouble they have taken and the evident desire they have shown to act fairly. We do not desire to flatter these gentlemen by saying that if they had the power, they

would not do more than they believed was necessary, but we would ask them to picture any other set of men, invested\vitlitheße powers, anS then calculate how easy it would be to ruin any prop -rty holder, that the members had decided to run to earth. Just imagine how pleasantly d ruriKolder, could be called up"6n td fence each side of ro »ds running through his land, the need for which only existed in the oye of the Board. Or take the opposite view, how easily a wealthy council could wipe out the small farmers who had purchased too near the larger propert a held by the members. The local body would sco " noxious weeds " " furze" and " variegated thistles " in every acre he possessed. And then if this had not the effect of clearing him off, they could draw attention to " unfenced roads" and if these were not • sufficient already to break his back, thej r could proclaim further ones through his land. Too mnch legislation is worse than none at all We want more a Tory spirit in legislation, a biding for the time until the need produces the demand. Government* here manufacture a bill, and urge a cry being made for it afterwards..