THE HIGHWAY'S ACT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 32, 2 September 1871, Page 9

THE HIGHWAY'S ACT.

(TO THE EDITOR OE THE NEW ZEALAND MAIL.) Sir,—l observe in your paper brief reports of meetings that have been held for the purpurpose of discussing the merits of the Highways Act passed by the Provincial Council. Referring more particularly to the meeting held at the Hutt, I propose briefly to endeavour to set those parties right who are, without looking properly into the. merits of the act, trying to poison the minds of the settlers against this truly comprehensive and just measure. But before I refer to the act I will inform the public of a fact that may not be generally known, viz., for years past a large portion of the Hutt settlers, particularly those who have properties fronting the main road on both sides, have not paid anything towards the making or repairing of roads, because they have not been in any proclaimed road district; they have therefore enjoyed the benefit of a good main road without contributing one shilling towards the making and repairing the same. It is therefore a very reasonable thing to suppose that this class of settlers will raise their voices against a just measure which will call upon them equally with their fellowsettlers to pay a share towards the making and maintaining of roads. The same observations will equally apply to a very large body of the settlers in all parts of the province who are at the present time deriving similar advantages from the roads already made, and being made, without contributing any portion of the expense. Will any impartial judge of the working of the present District Highways Act say that great injustice is not being daily inflicted upon numberless helpless individuals, who are continually called upon to pay most exorbitant acreage rates to make roads (in many instances not near the taxed land) in the "proclaimed districts," under the present act; and will any one who knows anything of the state of the province deny that there are a large number of valuable properties not included in any " district board" receiving the benefit of the roads now being made—without contributing their share of the burdens imposed. Then, again, under the present system, how does the acreage valuation work ? Is there any justice in it ? No ; the contrary. A proprietor of some say 500 acres of land, more or less, or even 100 acres, pays say la per acre, and his land is situated some distance from the main line — the proprietor close to the main line pays the ! same—perhaps he is carrying on some lucrative business —he may have one or two acres with an " hotel" upon it—and-he pays Is per acre, the same rate that his back neighbour a few miles off does! Is this just? How, then, does tho Highways Act passed in the last session of the Provincial Council remedy the evils spoken of ? It repeals the District Highways Act, and divides the province into eight highways districts, to be divided into wards, and provides for the election of war- ' dens, and the valuation of every inch of the province, so that the burden of making roads shall not be, as it has been, imposed upon the " willing horse." It is high time that this was done ; there are too many properties escaping the just claims that will be imposed upon them when the present Highways Act is in full working order. It would appear that the promoters of the meetings that are called to condemn the action of the Provincial Council are composed of two classes, viz, those who hitherto have escaped any road tax, and of those who ignorantly imagine that the Highways Act is what they term a "tax upon improvements," i.e., the valuation v. an acreage rate. In answer to these objections, it may be stated in the first instance that uuder the new act all must pay. Secondly, from the facts previously stated, it must be clear that the valuation is more just than the acreage tax.— I am, &c, Agbicola.