GORGE ROAD AND BRIDGES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1623, 12 October 1916, Page 3

GORGE ROAD AND BRIDGES.

THE QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. COMMISSION ARRANGES PRELIMINARIES. At the instigation of the Pahiatua County Council, the Government recently appointed a Commission to go into the question of the upkeep of the Manawatu Gorge road and bridges, and to re-apportion the cost of maintenance. The Pahiatua County maintains that the growth of motor and other traffic in recent years has made the apportionment of cost of upkeep unfair, and it has accordingly filed many local bodies which should he called upon to bear a portion of the maintenance.

The Commission, which consists of Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., of Palmerston North, Mr T. F. Marlin, solicitor to the Now Zealand Counties’ Association, and Mr W. S. Short, Under-Secretary to the Public AVorks Department, held its preliminary sitting in Palmerston yesterday. Air Short acted as chairman.

The following local delegates wore present: —Messrs F. G. Couper (Akitio and Dannevirke Counties), T. Cross (Hawke’s Bay County). D. Collis and M. A. Moody (Kairanga County), G. IT. Smith (Pahiatua County), J. Elliott (Oroua County), B. P. Lethbridge (Rangitikei County), L. McKay (AVaipawa County), D. Hughes (Woodville County). E. A. Ransom (Dannevirke Borough), J. P. limes (Foxton Borough), P. R. Purser (Hastings Borough), J. A. Nash and L. R. Bryant (Palmerston Borough), C. E. Mackay (AVanganui Borough), IT. P. Horne (Woodville Borough), and J. O’Shea (Wellington City). The chairman briefly explained the nature of the Commission, and said that since the Pahiatua County Council find taken its initiatory steps, it wished to withdraw the Eketahuna, Wuipuknrau and Master! on Counties, and the Foxton and Marlon boroughs. This would leave eleven counties and ten boroughs which it was proposed to levy the maintenance upon. The chairman asked if the delegates were agreeable to this suggestion, also if there were any other local bodies which should he cited. Mr C. E. Mackay (AVanganui) said the apportionment was quite unfair as regards AVanganui, as the stock returns credited to AVanganui really belonged to the adjoining country districts. Therefore, ho considered that the Wanganui and AAhutotara Counties and the Castleclilf and Gonvillo ’Town Boards should he included. He protested against AA’anganui being cited at all, and only asked that the four districts named he cited under protest.

Mr G. 11. Smith (Pahiatua County) explained the list of local bodies submitted by his county was only a proposal. It could be varied if thought desirable.

Mr J. A. Nash considered that Palmerston North was unfairly treated as regards the proposed levy. For instance, the stock set down to Palmerston very largely came from the dairying district of Kairanga. Palmerston was quite satisfied with the present arrangement, and the Palmerston Borough was not a party to the promoting of the Commission at all. Mr J. O'Shea drew attention to the position of Wellington City. If Wellington was liable to a portion of the Gorge upkeep, then it was liable in the same way to every local body in the district. Mr H. P. Horne (Woodville Borough) considered the Fketahuna and Hawke's Bay Counties should be included.

Mr B. P, Lethbridge (Bangitikei County) said the Kiwitea County sent as much traffic, through the Gorge as his county, and should he included.

In reply to a question by the chairman, Mr G. H. Smith said that ihe local bodies represented at the meeting called by the Palliatua. County to consider the re-arrange-ment of the levies was participated in by representatives of the Kairangn, .Pahia Urn and Woodville Counties, and the Woodville Borongh.

Mr J. A. Nash said Councillor Bryant, of the Palmerston Borough Council, was present hut took no part in tlie proceedings. MrC. E. Maekay (Wanganui) said it was evident that Foxton would make use of the Gorge road and bridges quite as much as Wanganui, and should be included. This was agreed to, also that. Eketahuna and Hawke’s Bay Counties be included in the list. The Chairman said it was quite possible that some of the local bodies were not. satis lied witii the tallies of .stock and traffic as taken by the Pahialua County. The Commissioner was prepared to allow other tallies to be taken before proceeding with the real business of the Commission.

Mr J. A. Nash said the taking of the tally during the Christinas holidays last year was most unfair, and another tally should be taken during the next three months, leaving out the holiday season. Air J. O’Shea (Wellington) said evidently the object of the Pahiatua County in taking the tally was to lighten its own liability as much as possible, and had succeeded very well All- G. H. Smith (Pahiatua) explained that enquiries were made in each case as to where the stock or motor car, as the case may he, came from. Pahiatua would be quite agreeable to another tally being taken. The chairman said the question of ' apportionment was a somewhat dif-

ficult question. It was possible tbut the adjoining Counties did not use the Gorge facilities us nnudi us outside districts, but the facilities added to the value of these counties. Taking a tally of traffic did not get to the root of the matter either. If the apportionment were made on this basis, then perhaps Wellington or any other town could make a claim on traffic from other centres which used I heir facilities.

Mr J. A. Nash considered that for the purpose of a second tally, the Commission should authorise this being done and the cost apportioned among' the local bodies. Mr H. Ik Homo (Woodville) said some of (he local bodies bad contributed to the cost of the first tally. It would not lie fair to ask them to pav (lie second lime.

The Chairman said flic Commission would agree to a second tally, the cost of which could form part of (lie costs of the Commission.

After some consideration, the chairman announced that after the taking of (be second tally liic Commission would go through the returns placed before (hem, and ihen decide which local bodies should be cited. He thought tins would lie n fair wav, and one I lint, would he acceptable to the majority. Air G. IT. Smith (Pahiatua) asked for an interpretation on the point, of whether Wellington, Napier and Wanganui came within the scope of the Act, and whether they could be termed “adjacent” as regards the Manawatu Gorge road on the questions of building and maintaining.

'Hie Chairman said the only way of settling that point would he to cite a case for the Supreme Court and let that tribunal decide it. He would nominate Messrs J. O’Shea, G. H. Smith and G. E. Mackay to prepare a case within the next week or ten days and submit it to the Co ml.

I’lie Commission agreed to the taking of a. tally between November slh and December sth of this year, and that another sitting would he held in Palmerston sometime in February of next year.

The Commission then adjourned —Standard.