CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 104, 1 May 1880, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

DIVIDING THE TOWN INTO WARDS. To the Editor of the 'Evening Mail.' Sir,-— lf ever there was an argument in favor of dividing the town into Wards it was furnished by the City Council on Wednesday last. After haggling a long time about laying out a small sum in aa outlying district, it was deferred for want of funds, Cr Hounsell objecting on the ground that there were but few inhabitants, and almost with the same breath proposes that the Port Road be widened, which will cost hundreds, aud where there are far less inhabitants, and which cannot increase much. Besides the large sums which have already been laid out there is far out of proportion to the rates collected, but not out of proportion to the number of Councilors and friends, whose property will be increased in value by the outlay ; no less than three within a few hundred yards of the work proposed to be done. One, in particular, whose property will be most benefited, boasted that he would remain in the Council until this work was done ; the same that proposed that all sewers should be made with borrowed money, and before sitting down proposed that £200 should be spent on a sewer that never should have been made, and cost upwards of £300, so that the closet of one of hia houses could be emptied into it. I Bhow the motive because he said all sewers should be made with borrowed money, so I suppose all bridges are to be built and repaired with borrowed money, or closed up because they became unsafe ; as the recent curious decision that the Council gave for closing the Collingwood-street bridge, was, uofc that we have neglected to keep the bridge in repair, but because we are not allowed to borrow. Tho same neglect is going on with all the bridges. Anyone would think they did not belong to the town or that they were not part of the highway, and that the rates had no right to be expended upon them. Well, perhaps so, but when the General Ofoverumeali made an offer of the

bridges to the Corporation they gave them the means of maintaining them, namely ; Publicans' and Auctioneers' licenses, about £1100, Cab, Carrier, Hawker, and other licenses £100, dog licenses £200, about £1400 a year besides the subsidy, which would increase the sum to over £2000 a year (over and above the rates)s and yefc the most costly things to build has been utterly neglected. We paint houses and ships to preserve them, but the bridges here are allowed to take care of themselves. I don't believe there has been £20 spent on them since they have been handed over to the Coporation, except on the one that is shut up. I met Councillor Little on the Normanby Bridge this morning, and pointed out to him the water lying on the bridge, the knobs knocked off, and with holes in the turned pillars, where a few shillings would save pounds. That bridge sadly wants painting. I asked him whether it would be better to keep the bridges repaired for the benefit of the whole community, than spend the money at the Port, where they already had more than their share. What was his answer ? There are five against four ! It is now (to me) quite clear why Councillors exerted themselves to thwart the petition to divide the town into wards ; and if we cannot find out the reason why it failed, why get up a fresh one. Where there is will there is a way. I am,- &c, Robert Gray, Bridge-street.