SATURDAY, OCTOBER, 8, 1881. THE FITZHERBERT BRIDGE.

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 164, 8 October 1881, Page 2

SATURDAY, OCTOBER, 8, 1881. THE FITZHERBERT BRIDGE.

Thk thanks of the people of PalmeTston are p^rfninlv due to his "Worship the Mayor for his prompt action as a connter-ehocic to the cunninsf -manoeuvre* nf <'hr Mana^nhi Coanty Council roc:ardi»g the Fit/.herberf' "Bridge Thrro cannot be the lpast doubt tha'o the ir»tinn of that body was a mean and contomptihlo attempt to steal a inarch upon the I "Borough Council, and it must now be gall and wormwood to the conspirators — for. we can call the2n nothing else — to find that, after demeaning themselves to' re*orf to such disreputable tactic?, their scheme ha» beenv frustrated, and the result of their very questionable action rendered futile. We will now inform our readers of what that body is guilty, which; calls for reprobation at our hands ; we would next state the obiect for which the action was taken which wecondemn ; and thirdly the reason alleged by the County Council for its new found interest in theFitzherberfc Bridge. Afcthe last meeting which -'took place on Monday, against the most earnest protest of Mi*. Ltntont, the representative of the Taonui Riding, it was decided that the Government should be importuned to vest the care of the Fitzherbert Bridge in theManawatu County Council, and a telegram, was despatched from the Council chamber to the Hon. Mr. Johstone, request, ing kim to take immediate Bteps in the matter. Mr. Ltntow, however, as Mayor of" Palmerston, sent a message hot foot after that of the Council, requesting Mr. Johnstone to-'Vake nbacti'on whatever, until the receipt of a communicatiomi from Palmerston-espjajning,- and ther« can be no doubt our representative would ROcedetvtojthflfJast requesj;,; which! wa» fair and straight-forward, in contrast to the sly and tricky manner in^whica that from the County Council had been preferred. It may be urg«d tb«t thew w*s nothing either ily or

underhand on the part o£ the Eoxton body ; but if not we would ask — Whywas the extraordinary course of preferring the request by telegram adopted, unless it were to take time by tho forelock and steal a march upon the Palmerston Borough Council, which was also interested? What urgent necessity was there for departing from the usual course of instructing the clerk at his leisure to make the application in writing, unless there was aoine hidden point to be worked or string to be pulled ? If their intentions were honorable and honest, why not have followed the usual routine course, and by that means give the Borough Council an opportunity of preferring a counter claim ? The very fact that such a contemptible trick had to be resorted to, is the greatest proof that they themselves considered they had no claim to what they were asking, j Honest men do not skulk about by night time ; while thieves fear tho light of day— we need not pursue the simile further. So much for what th« Council have sought to do. Now let us see their alleged reasons for their peculiar action. The 34-th Clause of the Public "Works Amendment, 1878, says :— If a bridge, f en-y, or ford crosses a river, where one banlc tberaof is situated m a borough, and the other thereof is situated in a county, the Minister mav direct which local governing- body shall have the control thereof; but the cost of constrnoting or maintaining any bridge, ferry, or foul shall ho contributed to pro rata in proporton to the rateable valua of property m mich horor-.gh and county respectively; and such contribution may be recovered in any court of competent ]unsdiction by the borough or county having the con. trol of such bridge, ferry, or ford or, any other local governing body, as the cass may bs. The ostensible reason why the Comity Council seeks to have the control of the bridge is, that County Councillors say that by the foregoing clause power is given the Borough Council— should the structure be vested in that body— to launch out into unnecessary expense in its construction and maintenance, and as the rateable value of the County is far far in excess of that of the j Borough, and a levy would be made pro rata, the County would have to pay a considerable amount over that disgorged by the Borough. But the sapient Councillors who took their action upon euch an argument, have done so upon a very frail foundation ; for will it not strike any man with the smallest powers of reasoning, that if the rateable value of Palmer- , ston be but a twentieth part of that jof Mauawatu, it must follow that | its revenue will be proportionately less, and consequently a shilling: is of as much value to the Borough as one pound is to the County. Granting that indisputable fact, "then, is it not the height of absurdity for a body with, say £20,000 a year at its command to be afraid that another with £1000 would run it into unnecessary expense, when as we have just shown that every penny was of far more value to the latter, than a shilling would be to the former. On the contrary, we imagine the position of the two bodies is one of the strongest arguments which could be used in favor of the bridgt being vested on the Borough Council. It is well known that there would be far more hardship in taking £10 from the man who had £100 a year, than in decreasing another's income from £1000 to £900, and the simile is most applicable to the two local bodies. Beside this most potent argument, there is another, and an equally powerful one, why th* Borough should be the custodian < f the structure. A Ithough Fitzherbert, to which thebridge leads, is certainly in the County, it is in an isolated position; with no roads, or at least, blind reads leading nowhere, so that for years to come Palmerston and Palmerston alone will be the market for the sale or purchase of its produeo or provisions. Again the bridge abutts upon the borough reserves, and Councillors are alwayo available to be called together in case of an emergency or damage to the structure ; while the County Councillors are scattered all over the County and could only be brought together with extreme difficulty. We have our own opinion of the action of the "Foxton body, and the extraordinary and newly awakened interest in the once-despised Fitzherbert, and it is one not at all expressive of faith in the disinterestedness of those who seek the charge of the structure.