MOUTOA ROAD AND SHANNON BRIDGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2398, 28 February 1922, Page 3

MOUTOA ROAD AND SHANNON BRIDGE.

REPORT OF DELEGATES.

COUNCIL OBJECTS TO COST OF ROAD DEVIATION.

Cr. Coley reported at last night’s Council meeting that the Committee appointed by the Council, consisting of Cr. Bryant and himself, had conferred with the delegates of other local bodies at a conference convened by the Manawatu County Council, at the Shannon Bridge last Thursday. £I,OOO was required immediately for the road deviation, npt for the protection of the bridge. l£ was suggested that this Council pay one-eighth of the amount.'- He did not think that was a very large item. The road has to be diverted if traffic is to be maintained, as the present road will not withstand the next flood. He thought~it~would be best for the Council to pay its share as suggested, if it was legal, and Sir J, G. Wilson had said that there was an Act to justify the payment. Cr.-Bryant said that.there was no doubt that if the money was not expended there would be no road to Shannon after the first flood. The matter was urgent. The Mayor said he was a large property holder in the Moutoa district, and he did not want anything he did to look like self interest. He was not in favour of the Council giving an eighth to the Manawatu County Council for this work. He would sooner pay his share as a property owner in that district. He did not consider the Council was going about the matter in the right way. The Manawatu County Council may later be called upon to put another span on the Shannon bridge, and should there be any extension to the bridge the Foxton Borough Council would be debited with a portion of the expenditure. Cr. Bryant said that the Council's one-eighth share would be lit-tle-compared to the benefits to Foxton. It-was impossible to patch the stop-bank, and if possible, it would cost between £SOO and £I,OOO to do it. The idea was to shift the road. Cr. Walker said that he had an idea that the road had been shifted before. If some other means was not, takeh, possibly the road will have to be shifted again at some future date. He did not consider it wise.to commit the Council to oneeighth, but he recognised that it was necessary to keep the road open. It was moved by Cr. Bryant, seconded by Cr. Walker, that the Council contribute one-eighth, as proportion of £I,OOO loan towards the Shannon road-deviation.

Cr. Whibley said the report of the committee was not correct. He happened to be at the bridge at the time of the conference. He thought that they should a least wait until ' they got something in writing from the Manawatu County Coxincil. Granting this amount for flic road meant a subsequent grant for the bridge. The Manawatu County Council should bear the whole cost, of the. road deviation, as it was their concern. The question was the protection of the bridge. He had never seen such a proposition as put at the conference that day. The whole thing boiled down was a talk between Sir James Wilson and Mr Monk. The rest looked on. Mr Monk had suggested that fhe Manawatu County Council do the work on their side of the river, and the Horowhenua County Council do the work on their side. Cr. Rand asked if the Council was compelled to contribute the one-eighth for road deviation. The Mayor said that they were not.

Or. Walker said that Cr. Whibley’s explanation had put quite a different aspect on the whole thing, and he could not now support the motion.' Cr. Coley said he would second the motion. He said they had been asked to go as a committee and bring down a report, and then they wer(j- told that they were misrepresenting facts. Crs. Coley and Bryant said in future they would not go on committees if that was the way they were to be treated. Cr. Whibley said that he had been misrepresented. He would put it in another way. The intelligence of the committee did not properly grip the matters discussed. Sir James Wilson and Mr Monk monopolised the conference. I . Cr. Bryant would not admit that statement, which made it appear that the committee were fools. Cr. Whibley claimed that the ■ committee had not grasped the points of the proposal. Crs. Coley and Bryant refuted this statement. The motion, on being put, was lost, Crs. Walker, Martin, Whibley, Smith and Band voting, against;.