PATEA WEST ROAD BOARD.

Patea Mail, Volume I, Issue 57, 27 October 1875, Page 2

PATEA WEST ROAD BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR OH THE PATE A MAIL. St it, —Having - road a letter in your paper of the 20th iust, signed “ Ratepayer,” and not seeing any answer to it in your issue of the 23rd iust., 1 would like to know if any one of the Commissioners could enlighten me on the subject, I saw that the minutes of the meeting of the Patea West Road Board, in your paper cannot be all that took place, at the said meeting, as I am aware of several persons contracting for the said work, but why was the omission made in not. staling who, and at what iigurc,tne said persons contracted ? Only the one accepted being notified, 1 w.m!d like to see who tendered, and at what, pricy If the Board does not give more minute details of their m ■eting, 1 would suggest you send some one to report for the benefit of the ratepayers ; also 1 saw three Commissioners, consisting of Messrs, lloneylield,' (3v W. Gane,: ami Hunter, were appointed to open lenders for contract on Paterson road on fijatimhi} - the Kith hist;, and-‘then I sa\v that Mr Paterson’s tender only was ndtilied'iii yonr paper, whereas there were four tenders sent in (I have been informed), and varying very much in prices'from £29 down to £l7. Also I have; failed to see it notified that the said Commissioners have been gazetted. If - so, why are not the public informed ? I know that thev were elected. I saw it was resolved to hear objections to the rate-roll. Is that, considered an advertisement? I should think not, as a ratepayer may not happen to get your issue of the 13th, and if he did not go to the Court-house to see, it posted up he would be ignorant, although be may take the local paper I have seen the Act, hut it docs not state that it must bo advertised, but at the time that Act was passed there was no paper in this district, to advertise in. Now, as we have a paper in the place, I consider it ought to be advertised for the benefit of all the ratepayers. I •should not think that the Board expects the editor to report meetings in order to avoid what ought to be advertised ; let advertisements be one thing and reports of meetings another. I am, tic., ALSO A RATEPAYER. (to the editor of the patea mail). Sir, —In your issue of the 20th inst., I observe “A Ratepayer, &c,” expresses that not more than one tender had been sent in for works on Gane Road. Having some knowledge of the subject, I may inform “ Ratepayer” that three tenders were sent in for those works, but only one accepted, that being the one which was published, and doubtless the same which “Ratepayer” alludes to. The writer also seems to ho disappointed at not seeing an advertisement calling for ratepayers’ attention to the rate roll, but although I believe it is intended to advertise, I am of opinion that “ Ratepayer ” would fail to find anything in the Ordinance caliing’on the Board to do so in the execution of their duties. Referring to the proposed expenditure of rates, “Ratepayer” asks, by what right the Superiiitemlant lias power to do so and so? and in answer, I must say, just look over the Taranaki Roads and Bridges Ordinance, 1858, notably clauses 3G, and 40, and sec what power the Superintendent has not.

I am, &c., ANO'l’llEli RATEPAYER October 21 187b.